jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (89 posts)

Would you vote for Obama if you discovered he had committed treason?

  1. lone77star profile image86
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6314466_f248.jpg

    A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4

    I supported Obama 4 years ago, but he betrayed so many of his campaign promises, I was fed up before the first year was over. Campaign promises? What else is new. Presidents do that, at least in recent decades.

    More troubling than that, though, is the fact that he betrayed his Oath of Office -- that is if he really did re-do his oath after flubbing it on national television. If we can believe him, he swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And yet he has become a domestic enemy of the Constitution, just like Bush and Clinton before him.

    He, like his recent predecessors, has eroded the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. He extended the unPatriot Act, he signed into law the NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens, he added his executive comments upon signing laws (attempting to thwart the authority of Congress), he ignored Congress in attacking Libya (consulting the UN, instead), he floated the idea of bypassing Congress altogether and ignoring the Supreme Court (thus suggesting a one-branch government), he sat on a foreign body of government as a sitting president (head of UN security -- illegal), he created a "kill list" which includes American citizens, and on and on. Aren't these treasonable acts? Would you vote for such a president?

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Treasonous? No.

      The US Constitution itself defines treason:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      The US hurdle for treason is so incredibly high that only seventeen people have been convicted of it in all of US history, three of whom had their sentenced pardoned or annulled.

      However, I most certainly disagree with the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. Will it stop me from voting for Obama? No, considering that our alternative is Mitt Romney.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        But "adhering to their enemies," is something that Obama, Bush and Romney have already done. Trashing the Constitution is adhering to any enemy of America, because it weakens the country and destroys the meaning that made it special. You may as well reinstate Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and paste a label of "Amerika" on it.

        Just because the erosions of liberty have been slow does not mean they are any less pernicious. America is dying from these erosions.

        The last 7 presidents have served multi-national corporations instead of the Constitution and America's citizens. By the definition in the Constitution you gave, that's treason. Giving those corporations aid and comfort by passing legislation injurious to the individual citizen and helpful to those foreign, very selfish bodies is also treason.

        I supported Obama 100% last time, but then I was naive and easily swayed by sweet rhetoric.

        Are you voting for Obama because he's the lesser of 2 evils? I've done that before, but no more. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

        I suppose we can take Obama's word for it that he re-did his botched oath of office, but I haven't seen any footage of that event. With all of his other lies, I don't trust the guy.

        Why not vote for Ron Paul? The guy has a proven track record of supporting the Constitution and to keeping it strong.

        The Corporate Party media kool-aid is just as bad as Obama and Romney, because they serve the same masters. Much of what they say about Ron Paul is lies and half truths if they talk about him at all. "Unelectable?" Rhetorical garbage. "Fringe?" Only because the Corporate Party wants to make all traditional American values fringe.

        I used to think women's liberation was a great idea until I discovered that the Rockefellers spent millions supporting it in order to achieve 2 unsavory purposes:
        * Double the tax base funding their private Federal Reserve bank
        * Destroying the family unit and making children far more dependent upon the state (public schools) for their guidance and values.

        If the Rockefellers were truly altruistic, then this wouldn't be so bad. But their agenda seems to include the murder of 6 billion citizens of Earth, leaving a far more manageable 500 million. Will you or I be amongst the 6 billion?

        I used to like the idea of a one-world government -- something like Star Trek's Federation. But these guys have something far more Orwellian.

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The behavior of Bush/Obama/myriad other US presidents might indeed meet the vernacular definition of "treasonous," but it is only the legal definition -- as interpreted and upheld by the courts -- which makes any difference.

          I admire Ron Paul greatly, but we differ far too much on social issues for me ever to vote for him.

          1. lone77star profile image86
            lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What value is America if the meaning of what made it special is entirely eliminated?

            What if America becomes Gulag Amerika, Inc. -- a slave state worse than Soviet Russia under Stalin?

            What if a president helps to make that happen? And what if they do it because it serves the purposes of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and not to the benefit of America or its citizens? That would seem to me to be a very clear "enemy" of the state. Any president who is an enemy of state is a traitor, just as much as if he were to give the nuclear launch codes to the Russians or the Chinese.

            What social issues are you talking about? I used to be pretty liberal in my leanings, until I learned the implications of the Nanny State -- learned helplessness and worse.

            But please tell me. I continue to grow and only grow by learning.

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I support same-sex marriage, the GOP doesn't. I support Roe Vs Wade, the GOP doesn't. I support national healthcare. I support our continued involvement in the UN. I also favor liberal appointments to the Supreme Court. I couldn't vote for any presidential candidate who would sabotage any of those things.

              1. lone77star profile image86
                lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Chasuk, why do you do that? I ask about Ron Paul and you give me the GOP "generality!"

                Ron Paul supports same-sex marriage. Duh! He's a liberty Republican, not an uptight, judgmental Republican. Big difference.

                Ron Paul supports states' rights and their ability to decide for themselves on issues such as Roe Vs Wade. But I wonder, if I had a time machine and allowed all mothers of supporters to abort their fetuses who would become such supporters. Murdered before you have a voice. Nice. Bye-bye Chasuk. If you hear the cries of a baby as the doctor places him or her in the garbage, what do you think? Ron Paul witnessed this as another doctor in an adjacent room performed a late abortion. A few weeks later, the baby would have been a preemie in an incubator. I don't hope to convince you, but shouldn't it be the state that decides, not the federal government? Those who want abortions can move to states that allow it. That's liberty.

                Do you support the sovereignty of the United States? Or would you prefer we give up all sovereignty to the UN? There is something to be said for competition. If a country becomes tyrannical, you might have a better place to go if nations continue to have sovereignty. But if the UN rules the world and becomes tyrannical, murdering millions because it's economical, then you have no place to hide. I love the idea of a benevolent UN. If it could only stay that way and help prevent wars. Too bad so many wars are started by those who have an agenda they're selling. CIA goes in, stirs up trouble, wearing the colors of some rebel group, and this gives America justification to send in a liberation force to topple a legitimate government. Not nice.

                You support liberal appointments to the Supreme Court. But if you live in a tyranny, you won't have a choice in that dark future. With a free America you have a voice. With Ron Paul you have your voice fully restored.

                Right now the only party in the United States with half a chance of getting into the White House is the Corporate Party. Goldman-Sachs and friends have bought all of the last several presidents. Those who got out of line found themselves assaulted by gunmen. The agenda of the Corporate Party is to make you think you have a choice, to bow to the needs of one group and then another to think they have the power, and then to close off all choice when the time is right. Just like Hitler did. He was a slick salesman. Now we have more than one figurehead, all selling the same growing tyranny.

                I respect your right to have differing views. That's the libertarian viewpoint. That's the Constitutional viewpoint. Don't react to the Corporate Party stimuli until they have us all backed into a corner from which there is no escape. Hitler did it, and the Rothschilds and Rockefellers who backed his rise to power have learned from their mistakes and are much more slick at it. They own the media, so they can spin things just the right way to think you have it all figured out, but you don't. Living overseas for 5 years helped me see that.

                Hopefully you see Ron Paul as not the same old GOP as Romney. That's why the GOP establishment and Romney camp became terrified and cheated, stole votes, changed votes and ignored votes to shut Ron Paul out. When that didn't work, they changed rules, and stripped his delegates of their credentials.

                Ron Paul is more on your side than either Obama or Romney. A vote for Obamney is a vote for Goldman-Sachs and the Rockefeller clan.

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  1. Paul doesn't support same-sex marriage. Rather, he believes that it is an issue which individual states should decide. I support states' rights, but not here.

                  2. For me, Roe v. Wade isn't about state's rights. For Paul, it is.

                  3. Concerning the sovereignty of the United States, I, for one, welcome Our New World Overlords.

                  4. I agree with many of your points regarding the dangers of corporatism, Goldman Sachs, etc., but not to the "conspiracy theorist" degree.

                  Does this clear things up?

                  1. lone77star profile image86
                    lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    But what if your New World Overlords kill 6.5 billion, eliminate all gays, eliminate Roe v. Wade.

                    Here's Judge Napolitano on Obama's treason:
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4

                    And here's the late Aaron Russo on Rockefeller's plans to have us all microchipped and their plan to murder thousands on 9/11. Do you really want their world plan?

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        HA! A liberal quoting the Constitution!!! HAHAHAHhahahahahahhaha!!!

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ha! A conservative posting a non sequitur!

    2. allpurposeguru profile image80
      allpurposeguruposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't vote for Obama last time and certainly won't this time, but let's see if we can break our habit of mudslinging. I haven't looked up any statistics, but Chasuk's seem about right.

      The choice between Obama and Romney is the most disgusting and dismaying choice since Nixon vs Humphrey vs  Wallace. We sort of survived that one, and I suppose we'll survive again, no matter which one of them comes out on top.

      Meanwhile, I will protest name calling, mudslinging, and utterly mindless sloganeering on both sides of way too many issues as firmly as I can. Alas, I have little hope that anyone will pay attention.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you, @allpurposeguru, for your calming influence.

        Please tell me what you find to be mudslinging. One example will do. And what does "mudslinging" mean to you, exactly.

        Also, what do you find "mindless sloganeering?"

        I've paid attention. I think this issue is far more important than any ego I have invested in this. So, I hope you'll tell me more.

        Neither Chasuk nor I were talking statistics, so could you clarify your statement about "statistics?" We were talking about the definition of "treason."

        If a president does things which end up with America dismantled and disappeared, then I would call that treason. It goes beyond mere incompetence. We would hope that the leader of the nation would be smart enough to know that their actions will lead to the elimination of the very nation they swore to serve. If their actions support the corporations, but betray the continuity of the nation and the liberty of its citizens, I call that treason. I'd like your input on this. Tell me your thoughts and why.

        And such erosions of liberty have been happening in slow motion -- like the frog in cold water brought to a slow boil. When the water becomes too uncomfortably hot, the frog finds itself incapable of extricating itself from its now inevitable demise.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        ++

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      George W. Bush committed 3 acts of treason and people voted for him in 2004 (with the help of a rigged Ohio counting system).

      You're insinuation is that Obama is a traitor. Nice try. But hey, how can any one person in the White House satisfy even half the people?

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Follow the Constitution, instead of trashing it. Follow campaign promises. That would be nice.

        What's the status of Gitmo? What about Habeas Corpus; has it been restored, yet? How about the White House ignoring a Federal Judge's ruling on the NDAA's indefinite detention of American citizens? How long did it take to get out of Iraq? And when are we getting out of Afghanistan? And why did Obama consult with the UN instead of Congress about Libya? All of these, and more, are very troubling examples of Obama's loose canon approach to the presidency.

    4. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Lonestar. It is nice to exchange views with you once again.  I hope you have been doing well.

      Clearly, the present administration has done a few things with which you disagree. Among the assortment of so-called treasonous acts in the OP statement I find one that has been debunked many times.  Still, the overzealous and uninformed continue to repeat it, more out of ignorance then ill intent, I suspect.

      Perhaps you are referring to Article 1, Section 9 of The Constitution of the United States. “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” {1} It is obvious to most people that the United Nations is not a King, Prince, or foreign state!

      President Obama chaired the UN Security Council’s international conference in September 2009. He was joined by the heads of other governments to discuss an agenda of global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Libya held a temporary seat on the council at the time and was represented by Muammar Kaddafi. The Obama administration expressed hope that the month-long appointment would underscore a departure from the Bush administration's strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies.

      Claims that the President’s participation in the global conference violated the US Constitution and is somehow an act of treason are sterling examples of the political hyperbole often heard from the extreme fringes of the political landscape. The drafters of Article 3, Section 3 were careful to define treason in a way that would exclude differences of opinion like the type you are tossing around. {2} It is threads like this one that prove their wisdom.

      Thank you, Lonestar, for sharing your opinions with us. It’s always nice to hear what you have to say.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
      {2} http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @Quilligrapher, thank you for your input. It's always nice to learn more.

        You say "debunked" many times, but your response does not contain anything that proves your point. And it certainly does not change my mind.

        You don't know me, but I love changing my mind. I've changed it hundreds of times over the years as I learn more. Refining my knowledge is important to me and I hold little ego in my way. If you offer something of greater substance, I'd be happy to reconsider. But let's look at what you did offer.

        You said, "It is obvious to most people that the United Nations is not a King, Prince, or foreign state!" Is the UN a part of the United States? No, I think it's obvious to most people that it's not. Is it a governing body? Yes. Though the US is a part of the UN, an overwhelming majority of that supra-state are not of the United States. That would make it a foreign state, in my book. Catch my drift?

        Perhaps something like the UN was never imagined by the founding fathers -- a state above nation states, except that the United States was a collection of semi-autonomous states, until we had rampant federalism and centralization of power. Our country used to be called "these United States;" now it's "the United States" -- from plural to singular.

        But the UN is certainly not part of the United States and the will of the UN is frequently at odds with the wishes of America.

        Obama clearly accepted a position with a foreign power.

        The idea of reversing unilateralism is a good one, but that PR gimmick was not the right way to go about it. Any credibility Obama gained from that illegal action was washed away when he attacked Libya. And I'm not so sure that Libya offered any danger other than Gaddafi's plan to create a gold-based currency for oil trade, taking them off of the dollar standard. America's shaky finances might not have withstood such a financial assault. But who's fault was that shaky fiscal state? Certainly not Libya's.

        Why have presidents stopped consulting Congress about a state of war? Because they know that a state of war does not exist. Congress cannot declare a state of war when there is none. So, presidents now make a habit of creating the aggression rather than defending from foreign aggression. That's not what America should be about. War should be about defense, not Corporate greed.

        It's a sad day in America when sloppy interpretation of the Constitution can be morphed over time into tyranny.

        The United Nations does not have America's best interests at heart, but here we have Obama consulting them as if they are the overlords of America. And one of Obama's gang had the gall to tell Congress that the White House would let them know after the fact if they ever decide to go to war again. It's things like this that show Obama's disrespect for the rule of law and the guidelines set down in the Constitution.

        Recently in the news, Obama was caught ignoring the orders of a Federal Court judge regarding the indefinite detention of Americans which the judge had declared as unconstitutional. Despite the president's signing statement on the NDAA (a behavior he had promised he'd never use, because it effectively circumvents Congress), the White House appears to be pursuing the very thing they said they wouldn't -- indefinite detention of Americans without due process.

        Why would the president do this? There are plenty of laws that could be implemented if a person has been found to have done something wrong. With proof, the guilty party could be put away. But here we don't need proof or evidence. A mere suspicion is all that's needed. I shouldn't have to explain to you that this is what the Constitution was meant to protect us against. And if America loses these protections, then America is not America any more. I hope we can reverse that trend.

        Treason? When someone aids an enemy of America, that's treason. When someone becomes an enemy of America while in public office, that's automatically treason, because they are using their office to aid themselves in their attacks on their own country. Obama has attacked the Constitution repeatedly. That makes him an enemy of state -- a domestic enemy of America. And so was George Bush.

        Every one of these evil actions has weakened America. Perhaps the most dastardly is the skyrocketing of the national debt, first by Bush and then accelerated by Obama -- from an insane $5 TRILLION in 2001 to a nightmarish $15.3 Trillion earlier this year. When that debt bubble bursts -- and it will, unless we have a real president for a change -- Earth will be toast and America will be ground zero. The proverbial fan will be vaporized by what hits it. The only ones left standing will be the private Federal Reserve Bank and its cronies.

        Who's going to bail out America when the world economy is trashed? No one. The New World Order will merely offer their long-prepared solution to the problem they've created -- a one-world government where nation states like America no longer exist. That's where America is headed, and that's what Obama (and Bush and every other Corporate-sponsored president) is working toward.

        @Quilligrapher, I really don't like saying, "I told you so," on something this scary. I'd rather people wake up from the Corporate Party media kool-aid that's been poisoning their minds. Heck, 2 years ago, I was still suffering the effects of American news media poisoning myself. But 5 years outside the country allowed me to gain some distance from the lies and half truths. I believed the Bush "conspiracy theory" about 9/11 for a decade, but no more. I've seen the scientific evidence which proves it was an inside job.

        The real question is, what are we going to do about it? Some people want to get violent, and that makes me sad. I understand their frustration, but violence will only make it worse. But our founding fathers got violent with far less provocation.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hi again, Lonestar. Thanks for your extensive comment. I took the liberty of trimming it down since you went far beyond the focus of my comments.

          Please do not confuse my trying to correct your misstatements as an effort to change your mind. Your personal conclusions are your own and you are welcome to them. One of your opinions, however, be it right or wrong, is built on a false assumption and my only purpose is bring this to the attention of your readers.

          The United States of America is a sovereign nation that has never been a part of any foreign state! How foolish of me, on the other hand, to think it was obvious that the United Nations is not a foreign state.  Golly, Lonestar, you have created your own personal definition of a foreign state in order to justify your own personal belief that an act violated the Constitution. The proof is in your own words, “Though the US is a part of the UN, an overwhelming majority of that supra-state are not of the United States. That would make it a foreign state, in my book. Catch my drift?” Your declaring the United Nations is a foreign state does not make it so. Please tell me where I will find the boarders of the United Nations, how I obtain a visa to go there, and how I become a citizen of this foreign state.

          Each of the following sources lists the United Nations as one of hundreds of different, present day global organizations. In most of these organizations, the US is one member among an overwhelming majority of other nations and not one, including the United Nations, is described as a foreign state:

          1. C.I.A: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … x-b.html#Z
          2. Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/io.html
          3. World Affairs Council: https://www.worldaffairsdc.org/internat … ations.php
          4. USA Import Export: http://www.usaexportimport.com/world_organizations.html
          5. UMDNJ: http://www.umdnj.edu/uroweb/internation … ations.pdf

          President Obama personally replaced his own senate approved UN representative, Susan Rice, during a world conference that included other world leaders. Claiming that is treason is absurd, even more so, when it is justified by creating your own personal definition of a foreign state. The notion “Obama clearly accepted a position with a foreign power” only exists in your own mind. If you have a legal authority that agrees with your claim that the UN is a foreign state, I would love the read it.

          So, Lonestar, feel free to believe the President violated the Constitution by chairing the UN Security Council conference in 2009 if it makes you feel more patriotic. However, your defining the UN as a foreign state is self-serving. I realize how difficult it is to abandon this delusion. Without it, your claim that The President violated the Constitution has no merit.

          Be well, Lonestar. I hope I get to speak with you again soon.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Another fish in a barrel.

          2. lone77star profile image86
            lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you, @Quilligrapher.

            And yet when the New World Order accomplishes their goals, the UN will the only state. There won't be an America any more. And you won't need a passport, because all of Earth will be one big "happy" (enslaved) family.

            While you're quibbling about semantics, a very real erosion of the Constitution is underway, and Obama's behavior with the UN is only one aspect of a much larger problem.

            Foreign state? You bet it is. They are a governing body and they have armies. If those UN armies are ever used on American soil to "protect us" from civil unrest, it will likely be because our own army might revolt from doing some of things the Constitution says shouldn't be done. Already foreign troops are increasingly trained on American soil and run through terrorism drills. Obama's opening up the borders with Mexico as part of the transition from sovereign America to the North American Union and from the dollar to the Amero. They already have "residential centers" with children's swing sets and double barbed wire fences. Not a pretty sight in America.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image88
              Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Lonestar. You are very welcome. I am glad to see you are still going with the flow. I truly appreciate your making the time to acknowledge my earlier comment. Your ideas are indeed radical but the widespread reliance on false assumptions is a clear sign of inadequate research.

              Allow me, if I may, to focus on the three paragraphs in your comments directed to me.  In one, you said, "While you're quibbling about semantics, a very real erosion of the Constitution is underway, and Obama's behavior with the UN is only one aspect of a much larger problem." All the followers of your OP statement, including you as the author, are engaged in a written medium. In the world of words, semantics, the study of meanings, is absolutely crucial for comprehension. These are the words you chose to use: “he sat on a foreign body of government as a sitting president (head of UN security -- illegal).” “Aren't these treasonable acts?” These are serious charges that demand that the accuser provide substantial and irrefutable proof. We are discussing lies and distortions here based upon a personal definition of “foreign body of government.” A definition that has been created just to support these claims. When we ask for one legal authority that supports the definition, are we given one? No. We are told, “you're quibbling about semantics.”

              Here is another example of twisting words and their meanings into a meaningless, illogical, and irrational statement, “By the definition in the Constitution you gave, that's treason. Giving those corporations aid and comfort by passing legislation injurious to the individual citizen and helpful to those foreign, very selfish bodies is also treason.”  Writers who have no respect for semantics should confine their radical delusions to parades and pep-rallies.

              Once again, let’s refer to your own words: “Foreign state? You bet it is. They are a governing body and they have armies. If those UN armies are ever used on American soil to 'protect us' from civil unrest, it will likely be because our own army might revolt from doing some things the Constitution says shouldn't be done. Already foreign troops are increasingly trained on American soil and run through terrorism drills. Obama's opening up the borders with Mexico as part of the transition from sovereign America to the North American Union and from the dollar to the Amero. They already have "residential centers" with children's swing sets and double barbed wire fences. Not a pretty sight in America”

              Now let’s refer to the truth.
              The United Nations is not a “foreign state” except in the minds of a small minority.

              The UN does not have an army. Member countries voluntarily provide all UN forces to achieve a specific resolution.

              Images of UN forces on US soil “protecting us” are pure fantasy springing from paranoia and individual insecurities.  Evidence supporting such predictions does not exit. Even the “likely” cause is fabricated about some unnamed “things” that should not be done.

              Foreign troops have been trained on US soil since this nation was born. While stationed at Fort Knox fifty years ago, I studied with foreign military personnel during MOS training.

              Legally crossing the border with Mexico requires numerous documents, ID, and authorization.  See {1} below.

              Many of the FEMA “residential centers” have been debunked by honest and independent investigation. {2} If you know of a new one, I hope you will share it with us so we can look into your claim.

              Nearly every claim in the paragraph I quoted above has been fabricated and can not be confirmed by any legitimate authority. I know of no better way to undermine the success and strength of the United States then by trying to convince Americans their government intends to “enslave” them.

              And the speculation goes on. “And yet when the New World Order accomplishes their goals, the UN will be the only state. There won't be an America any more. And you won't need a passport, because all of Earth will be one big 'happy' (enslaved) family.” I must repeat that your opinions are based on unsupported conjecture but they are yours and you are welcome to them. However, in the world in which the rest of us live, most people realize that the Constitution of the United States in its present form did not exist 250 years ago and it is highly probable that will also be the case 250 years from now.

              Have a good night, Lonestar, and by all means challenge people and sources that abuse semantics. People who must distort the language and redefine terms in order to support their claims are capable of making any lie seem like the truth.   
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.focusonmexico.com/Crossing-the-Border.html
              {2} http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ws/4312850

              1. lone77star profile image86
                lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you, @Quilligrapher, for helping to keep me honest. You make good points. I really would like that my concerns were baseless. Perhaps seeing some evil, I'm slipping into the mode of seeing evil in most anything (but not everything).

                Has the Constitution been eroded over the last hundred years? It seems to have been, slowly and inexorably. 9/11 was a tipping point, but every piece of scientific evidence I've seen points to an inside job, possibly even the government, or part of it. Certainly the Bush family run security company and the CIA would've known about the explosives being planted in those 3 highly secure buildings. That Obama cautions us against investigating more deeply should be troubling in anyone's book. Bush's coverup was obvious from the first day. Why is Obama assisting in the coverup, demonizing anyone who questions the official story. Oh, he's sweet about it -- a veritable silver-tongued devil.

                Obama taking on a roll in the United Nations while President of the United States could be entirely benign, or it could be one small step in a larger campaign to acclimate the public to a constantly shifting paradigm toward internationalism and away from sovereign nation states.

                I would love to be wrong on this. For 10 years, I believed the Bush conspiracy theory about 9/11. I've seen a lot of crappy theories with little or no basis in reality. And I've seen some that were iron clad. Perhaps you're right, and I've become overly "gun shy" with all of the things going on.

                But if one day, twenty years from now, there is no more America -- only a province of George Bush Sr.'s New World Order, run by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and their ilk, then "I told you so," seems a pretty empty statement. Kind of like the Jews who might have asked themselves, "How could this happen?" as they were being escorted into the gas chambers.

                The Corporate Party media may be owned by the same people who perpetrated 9/11, so to believe them as sources of all your information may be misguided.

                I enthusiastically supported Obama 4 years ago. That was when I still relied on rhetoric to make a decision. That was before I realized that the really important policies for America's future were the same in both parties, and those policies were increasingly dark -- fiscal insanity toward a massive debt balloon pop, attacking nations that did nothing to America, wars of corporate greed, eroding the Constitution (what Franklin cautioned us about: losing liberty for a little security, we deserve neither). America is starting to look like its own worst enemy. Obama and Bush are on the same team, and it's not America -- it's Rockefeller and Rothschild. It's Goldman-Sachs. Corporations are now "people" and now have the right to influence elections. Is that fascism?

                Follow the money. Follow the chain of motivation. The Iraq war was not about WMDs, Al Qaeda or 9/11. Those were all lies. Obama could've kept his campaign promise to pull all troops out the first day in office, but he changed his mind. Why? And why, if every reason for going in to Iraq was a lie, did we not apologize? Why didn't we pull out right away? What was the real reason for being there?

                Was it Obama's crossing of the Rubicon when Panetta declared Congress to be irrelevant in declaring war? He said that they "may" notify Congress after going to war. His statements to Congress literally took Senator Sessions' breath away. This was the quiet, unconstitutional coup, March 8, 2012.

                Each little thing done may not appear to be significant to the average American. But added up over time spells the slow elimination of every brick that makes up what America was.

                I suspect that America will be entirely unrecognizable, not in 250 years, but in a decade, or less. Somewhere between 16-30 Trillion in national debt, the bubble will reach critical mass, and the true meaning of a currency based upon debt will become manifest -- debt is the antithesis of sovereignty. That started in 1913, with the creation of the private Federal Reserve Bank, and a currency, every dollar of which is equivalent to a debt which can never be paid back, because every dollar is created with a debt plus interest.

                Don't think the Fed is private? Try bringing a film crew onto their private property. Yes, private property, not Federal. Even the name is a lie.

                What value is America if it eventually looks like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany?

              2. lone77star profile image86
                lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Let me contrast Obama-Romney with someone who I think really gets it:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ1aXD3_cVw

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeHsQuIMbsU

                I loved Obama's rhetoric 4 years ago. That's why I supported him. But that rhetoric turned out to be empty. Dr. Ron Paul, on the other hand has been saying some pretty amazing things for the last 30 years and backing them up with actions, something Obama has not done.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                  Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  How refreshing, Lonestar, to see you introduce Ron Paul to this forum thread. 

                  In this case I agree with you that Ron Paul “has been saying some pretty amazing things for the last 30 years and backing them up with actions.”

                  For example, on June 4, 2004, when Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Ron Paul cast the ONLY dissenting vote. In a statement from the floor of the House, he said, “The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” {1}

                  Then, earlier this year, in an interview with Candy Crowley CNN's State of the Union, Dr. Paul bashed the 1964 Civil Rights Act again saying it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." {2}

                  It is nice to know you advocate for a man whose vision for America includes a "free society" which includes businesses with separate lunch counters and water fountains. You must be in favor of living in a country with different rules for different races.

                  Oh, let’s not overlook the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters.

                  How about separate lunch counters for balding men? Would that mean you and I would be forced to eat together too? wink
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
                  {2} http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-tel … d-privacy/)

              3. lone77star profile image86
                lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                And @Quilligrapher, on the subject of semantics, I apologize for not being clearer. Semantics are good, yes, but if you depend only upon semantics you potentially miss out.

                I remember years ago a mathematical proof that used all of the "semantics" (rules) of mathematics to prove that 2+2 did not equal 4. Incredible! Of course, we know better than to buy into that proof, no matter how much it follows mathematical "semantics."

                If America ends up in a decade to be gone, dissolved and replaced by the UN, then whoever assisted in that dissolution is an enemy of America. Semantics may be able to prove this wrong, but what would the point be?

                If you love America and what it used to stand for, then you might want to protect the ideals and ideas upon which it was founded. Obama is not doing that.

                It's a matter of choice and awareness. If you believe the Corporate Party media kool-aid, then you have one reality. If you believe the hardened conspiracy theorists, then you have another reality. Likely the truth is somewhere between the two.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                  Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello again. Thanks for a prompt reply, Lonestar.  Your extraordinary remarks always stimulate discusson.

                  The subject is not semantics. The subject is blatantly corrupting definitions. Again you used the word semantics only this time incorrectly. The 2+2 story is irrelevant. I am not talking about mathematical notation or rules, I talking about the meanings, i.e. definitions, of words in the English language. Syntax deals with “rules”; semantics is the study of meanings! Semantics are not just “good”; they are essential for meaningful and accurate communications. Unbelievable that you would say, “if you depend only upon semantics you potentially miss out.” Semantics do not cause readers to miss out; it causes them to tune in. Although I must admit it is a good strategy to deflect attention away from the fact that you created personal definitions to support an erroneous conclusion. And still, not one legal authority is offered to support your trumped up definition of a foreign state.

                  How prophetic of you to say, “If America ends up in a decade to be gone, dissolved and replaced by the UN, then whoever assisted in that dissolution is an enemy of America.” It may occur to you eventually, Lonestar, that you have enlisted in an organized and well-funded brigade of conspiracy enthusiasts who are trying to undermine the success and strength of this nation by convincing other Americans their government intends to “enslave” them. Now, I would consider that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country.  Furthermore, it takes huge egos and small minds to assume you and your cohorts are smarter than are others Americans. One day it might also occur to you that those who reject your unsupported, irrational theories already know something you have yet to learn.

                  You are not promoting patriotism when you say, “If you love America and what it used to stand for, then you might want to protect the ideals and ideas upon which it was founded. Obama is not doing that.” Actually, many Americans love this country, what it stands for, and what it has accomplished. The ideas and ideals of The United States were built on a Constitution that has been revised 27 times. Among these amendments you find the guarantee of a citizen’s right to vote, the elimination of slavery, the establishment of women’s right to vote, prohibition and its repeal, and a ban on poll taxes. To assert the Constitution is now perfect if ludicrous. True patriots encourage continuing improvements with the passage of time.

                  I admire your attempt to be fair minding by saying, “It's a matter of choice and awareness. If you believe the Corporate Party media kool-aid, then you have one reality. If you believe the hardened conspiracy theorists, then you have another reality. Likely the truth is somewhere between the two.” However, terms like “corporate party” and “media Kool-Aid” are part of a lexicon of politically charged words that disconnect you from the very people you hope to reach.

                  Stay well, Lonestar, and keep searching and questioning. The truth is out there but it is not always easy to find.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. lone77star profile image86
                    lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Improvements? You've got to be kidding!

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        +++

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Crapola. Most of Obama's unfulfilled campaign promises were blocked by the TeaTards in the House of Representatives.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Okay, @Ralph Deeds. Let's say you're right. Can you name some specifics?

        What about "no signing statements" because, as Obama pointed out, they're unconstitutional? And yet he uses them anyway. What kind of "constitutional" guru is this guy if he betrays a simple campaign promise like that which is easy to avoid simply by putting down his pen?

        And how about transparency and holding off on signing any bill until the public has a chance to view it? He started out doing it, but that wonderfulness didn't last long. Did he forget?

        Do you like the Constitution and what it stands for? Or is that merely more "crapola?"

      2. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Not a campaign promise, but Obama's Oath of Office must not mean much, for him to be trashing the Constitution repeatedly.

        He's supposed to consult with Congress before declaring war, but he had one of his cabinet tell Congress that the White House "might" notify them after the fact. Wow! The Tea Party had nothing to do with that faux pas.

        And what about Obama ignoring a Federal Court judge on the subject of indefinite detention? Obama used one of his infamous "signing statements" on NDAA, saying he would never implement indefinite detention for Americans, but the Federal Court judge's concerns went unanswered (ignored) by the White House. Oh, well. We can't blame this on the Tea Party, either.

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Infamous "signing statements?" Obama has a long, long way to go before he even remotely approaches Bush's record use of signing statements.

          1. lone77star profile image86
            lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So, this is now a contest on quantity?

            If we were talking about murder, does one person's dozens of murders justify another person's handful of murders?

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              No.

              I was objecting to your use of the word "infamous." Obama's use of signing statements hasn't reached infamous levels. My apologies for not making that clearer.

              1. lone77star profile image86
                lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I understand. And thanks for the clarification. That helps.

                But I think even one signing statement by Obama would be infamous. Why? Because he, as a constitutional expert, knew they were wrong and said he'd never do it. And he did it anyway. Like I said, one murder isn't any better than thousands.

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Except that signing statements aren't wrong, in and of themselves, nor did Obama pledge not to use them.

                  What he said was, "We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

                  And: “While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the President does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.”

                  And: “No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that."

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    +++

                  2. lone77star profile image86
                    lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Chasuk, excellent.

                    I suppose it's ironic that Obama would use a signing statement on the NDAA to say that he would not follow the unconstitutional provisions of indefinite detention for American citizens without due process. Why ironic? Because he seems to be doing just what he said he wouldn't. And a federal court judge is upset with the Administration's lack of responsiveness on her judgment on the topic and her questions of the Administration.

                    I saw a video recently, produced a few years ago by Gov. Jesse Ventura, documenting "residential centers" surrounded by two 20-foot-high barbed wire fences, and gym sets and swings for the kiddies. In the video, the swings were in use by kids, and the front door to the center was locked. After several minutes, representatives came out to be interviewed, but they remained pretty tight-lipped.

                    It's not likely that you will end up there, Chasuk... I hope.

    6. topquark profile image79
      topquarkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If I was a US citizen, yes, I would vote for Obama no matter what he did. I am scared for what will happen to women in the US under a republican govt.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Well, @topquark, I don't know what you've heard about Republicans, but I suspect that it's not all true.

        If Obama murdered all women, would you vote for him, then? Your blanket acceptance of Obama is troubling. You say, "no matter what he did." That leaves the door wide open for abuses. It's okay for Obama to do whatever he wants, but Republicans, if you had your way wouldn't be allowed in government. I hope you realize how illogical that sounds.

        What is it you fear from a Republican government?

        I wouldn't vote for most Republicans or Democrats. What I fear is a Corporate Party government, and unhappily, most Republicans and Democrats work for that other party.

        Here's one Republican I would vote for and he's not like any other. At least he made it to the Republican convention, though they won't allow him to speak, they did create the following tribute video.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ1aXD3_cVw

      2. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't vote for Obama _literally_ "no matter what he did," but I understand your hyperbole. I expect I'll be voting for him in this election, considering the alternative.

    7. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is funny that when the Patriot Act was passed giving "W" sweeping powers that closely resemble this hatchet job by Fox News. The reporter is very good at his dramatization but fails to inject any presedence of past administrations that have in affect pushed for and been granted the same powers.
      I don't agree with the ability of government to suspend habeas corpus but clearly this is not the  first time. Just look at Lincoln to see if it was a good tool for him at the time.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image83
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Neither Romney or Obama will change the fact that the government of the United States has become a dictatorship.  No longer representing the will of the people.

    Over 90% of Americans want NDAA and Patriot Acts repealed, yet those in government overwhelmingly support them.  The time has come, we have the tools, it is time for those in power to testify before the people!  The jurors are anticipating, the people are clamoring!

    We will not frorgive

    We will not forget

    Expect us!

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks @Reality Bytes for your powerful words. Hopefully no violence, please. Even if the jackboots get rowdy, we should persist with non-violence. It can work. Just look at Gandhi and the liberation of India, despite the bloodshed from overzealous British administrators.

      Forgiveness is a good thing, too. Being attached to anything tends to hamper ones maneuverability.

      90%? Wow. I didn't know the figure was that high. I suspected a majority, but that's a positive sign.

      Perhaps the best thing we can do is to create million-person groups for peaceful marches. Unlike Occupy movement's lack of a clear message and spokespersons, each group should have a very specific agenda and a spokesperson for talking to the press. Why not march on the local news of a major metropolis. I think most, if not all, of those are corporate owned. A million person march on the Los Angeles or New York studios of ABC, CBS or NBC would certainly prove newsworthy. If the message is kept short, most of the American public might actually get it.

      Organize through the Internet (and please help keep SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and similar damaging legislation from being passed, so the Internet will stay free). Get permits for the marches, if possible. Get policemen (out of uniform) to participate. Ensure that all members of each march understand the importance of non-violence no matter what anyone else does. No doubt, if they feel threatened enough, they will insert agent provocateurs into the march to stir up trouble and elicit arrests.

      Some Americans will be too lazy to do something like this. Move on to those who aren't.

      But we need to educate our fellow Americans and perhaps the best way is to ask powerful questions and listen politely to their answers. Some will get it; some won't.

      If we have a tree of responsible parties, each person can manage a handful of participants, getting RSVPs for an upcoming march. Passing the counts back toward the trunk, the one getting permits would know just how strong to expect the march.

      Take a particularly nasty corporation, like Bank of America, and start a boycott campaign, educating Bank of America customers on the dastardly things the bank has done. Many corporations depend upon individual customers and that's how we can hit them to affect change. But it's a peaceful disruption.

      On elections, I suspect electronic voting fraud. Exit polling could help pinpoint such fraud, but that requires volunteers. But these kinds of actions could help peacefully take back our country from the Corporations.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      These laws have all come about after 911 to address the totally failed foreign policies carried on by the past and current administrations. Just look at what if anything has changed in the military solutions to unrest in the world and rise of terrorism. We started this mess in the middle east with planting Israel in the hornets nest and backing whatever they want for fear of the Chicago jewish vote and the power it wields in elections. It is like starting a fire with kerosene and trying to put it out with gasoline because it is just a different chemical. When you turn your back on somebody elses rights you place your own in jeopardy.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree, @rhamson. Failed foreign policies... at least from the viewpoint of solutions.

        But what if this is only a small part of the larger picture?

        What if there is a group that wants to create problems and unrest? Why? At the very least, the military-industrial complex needs wars to fight for those juicy contracts. But I think it's about far more than merely money.

        When there is chaos, changes are easier to make in governments and legislation.

        Problem-Reaction-Solution is being used in a step-by-step fashion to walk us into a trap called the New World Order. The real solution is merely not to react, but to expose the truth.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    "YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann"

    YouTube holds about as much inherent credibility as a news source as as Fox.

    What else ya got on this?

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Did you even watch it?

      Certainly there is a ton of garbage on YouTube, but you have to view things intelligently. Do you believe everything you read or hear from the Corporate Party media?

      And @Mighty Mom, do you know anything about news affiliates? They are not corporate. This isn't corporate Fox news. Mr. Swann works for an affiliate of Fox and thus doesn't tow their biased line.

      We're losing America. Can you help? Help us legalize the Constitution again, otherwise America may as well be Gulag Amerika, Inc.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image87
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        So Ben Swann is unbiased because he's schilling for Ron Paul.
        I see.

        1. lone77star profile image86
          lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I think you mean "shilling." But how did you get that idea? Mr. Swann found some juicy stories of injustice and reported on them. Is that shilling? That Romney gave so many opportunities for such juicy stories is perhaps his fault. Its his team that cheated -- stuffing ballots (even on video), attacking the competition physically (Missouri and Louisiana), changing votes (Iowa and Maine and maybe elsewhere, too). Not reporting on such fraud and unethical behavior might be shilling for Romney; then again, it might not.

          Do you love America?

          What does America mean to you?

          What if the government took all of your liberties away, locked up you and your children and held you indefinitely without access to an attorney or the courts? How would you feel about such a government? That's the kind of power they've been giving themselves, slowly and methodically for the past several years.

          If you want more of the same, then I'd start to suspect that you are shilling for Wall Street and the Rockefellers. Their New World Order is pretty scary. You can have it, if you want. I like a sovereign America and citizen liberty. But hey, I'm shilling for the Constitution.

    2. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I know it's hard for some to believe, but the Corporate Party media kool-aid is actually poisoned in favor of the corporations (not the citizens).

      Living 5 years out of the States has helped me to see this in startling clarity. So, independent news and foreign news play on YouTube. Corporate Party news is garbage -- just enough truth to make it seem real.

  4. schoolgirlforreal profile image85
    schoolgirlforrealposted 5 years ago

    Thanks for sharing. I'm not into politics; don't trust em!

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, @schoolgirlforreal, I don't blame you, but this is one thing that's gonna come back and bite all of us, if we don't do something about it.

      Remember the Jews in Nazi Germany? They stood by and did nothing, hoping it would all go away. Normalcy bias trapped them into inaction. Alas, many of them died because of their inaction.

      1. schoolgirlforreal profile image85
        schoolgirlforrealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't vote for Obama no.

        1. lone77star profile image86
          lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @schoolgirlforreal, I understand that you won't be voting for Obama, but would you vote for Romney if he was the same as Obama on every policy critical to America's future?

          On war, military, fiscal insanity, and trashing the Constitution, Romney = Obama. And sadly, these are the topics critical to the puppet masters who pull the government's strings. They want America to fail. They want the nation state named "United States" to dissolve. Why? Because they have a better idea -- one-world government with them running it all.

          Who's them? The Rockefellers and Rothschilds are some of them. Often enough, they reach out their hand to other elites of business and government to suborn them to the "dark side" of humanity's future. They have the power and the money to make it seductive. The Rothschilds have been working on it for over 200 years. The Rockefellers have been at it for nearly 150 years.

          There's every indication that the Rothschilds and their friends have been behind every major war since Napoleon lost at Waterloo. And it seems they were behind the War of 1812 in America, too. Why? Because they desperately wanted a Central Bank in America, and Congress refused to renew the charter in 1811.

  5. HowardBThiname profile image84
    HowardBThinameposted 5 years ago

    I won't vote for Obama - but violating the War Powers Resolution is not treason.

    Lying about campaign promises is not treasonous - it's par for the course.

    I'm disappointed that in the United States of America, we can't come up with something better than Obama and Romney - but it appears we're stuck voting for the lesser of two evils again.

    Obama's not a traitor. He's not a foreigner. He's not some sort of Communist.

    He's just a lackluster President with bad ideas.

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield."
    Is it treason?

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No.

      The US Constitution itself defines treason:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      If the Constitution had said, "Treason against the United States, shall consist of presidential termination or suspension of habeas corpus," then yes, Obama would be guilty of treason.

      But it doesn't, so he's not.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @Chasuk, if someone methodically destroys the document which gives America its meaning, that would make them an enemy of America -- perhaps a domestic enemy. If that individual were the president, they would not be above the law. And yet Obama continually acts as though he is above the law. He promised not to use signing statements on legislation, because it is unconstitutional (he said so, himself). But he continues to use signing statements.

        One of his cabinet had the gall to tell Congress that the White House would let Congress know "after the fact" if they ever went to war again. That's unconstitutional, too. And Obama knows it. As a constitutional lawyer, it shows intent (not incompetence or ignorance).

        Any president who attacks the Constitution repeatedly is an enemy of the state. Who is he working for? The corporate elite? The UN? The Rockefellers and Wall Street? Who knows!? But the bottom line is that his actions speak for themselves. An enemy of state in high office is still an enemy of state. That's treason. Using your own quote: "adhering to their Enemies." It's difficult to be an enemy of state and not adhere to yourself.

        And recently in the news, Obama ignores a Federal Court judge on the subject of standing down from indefinite detention of American citizens (NDAA).

        So, Emperor Obama is ignoring the judicial branch and the legislative.

        The really sneaky aspect to this version of tyranny is that there is no one figurehead, like Hitler or Stalin. We have a revolving door of figureheads to keep up the illusion of choice.

      2. H P Roychoudhury profile image50
        H P Roychoudhuryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, Obama extended the unpatriotic Act, he signed into law the NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens, he added his executive comments upon signing laws (attempting to thwart the authority of Congress), he ignored Congress in attacking Libya (consulting the UN, instead), he floated the idea of bypassing Congress altogether and ignoring the Supreme Court (thus suggesting a one-branch government), he sat on a foreign body of government as a sitting president (head of UN security -- illegal),- but why look to the reasons with care. Does the President things to do something for self pride or for the Nation? To bring any change revolutionary it requires wisdom, vision and courage. He is going ahead to fulfill the objective with courage jeopardizing his future status. Very few have the vision of such objective.

        1. lone77star profile image86
          lone77starposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          @HP, I don't understand your reply.

          "He is going ahead to fulfill the objective with courage jeopardizing his future status."

          What objective. Treason? Dismantling the very country he swore to serve? By his actions, he is serving some other purpose than the one for which he swore allegiance. That's treason and insanity.

          You make it sound like the crime is wonderful -- something to be admired. Either I have entirely misinterpreted what you've written, or you've gone completely crazy. Please help me understand your intent.

  7. Wayne Brown profile image84
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    I would not vote for him even if I discovered that he had not! ~WB

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, @Wayne Brown. And would you vote for Romney if you discovered that he was exactly like Obama on everything critical to the future of America?

      War, military, fiscal insanity and trashing the Constitution, Romney = Obama. And the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are no doubt happy with that. They don't mind dissolving America, because they have their place guaranteed in the New World Order Bush Sr. talked about.

      What we need is a real president who won't get assassinated and will stand a chance of cleaning house of the corruption and influence peddling.

  8. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Obama.....

    He appointed Michael Taylor as head of the Food and Drug Administration - incidentally, Michael Taylor is the single LEAST capable person in the entire nation to run the Food and Drug Administration.

    Michael Taylor has less concern for your health, and my health than Dick Cheney has concern for the million and more Iraqis we murdered for the purpose of profit.

    Ben Bernake....lets see, Obama appointed Ben Bernake over the federal reserve.  Ben Bernake refuses to give straight answers to anyone in congress in regards to where various and sundry billions of OUR money went, why, so forth, so on. 

    Ben Bernake - TREASONOUS pig, one of the most successful crooks in the history of crime.

    Obama....he won a Nobel Peace Prize, and has had a US Citizen that happened to also be a child assassinated over seas, his remote control video game playing drone planes (one of them has his name on it) murdering over 240 children in Pakistan alone....um.  No  thanks!

    I do not support anyone who murders children, and to intentionally have a child killed - what a pig that man is.  I can't wait until he faces the gallows like the Nazis at Nurmeberg...that would be Justice for Obama

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Strong words, Wesman Todd Shaw. I regret that so many can't wrap their mind around the fact that the Constitution is being eroded. @Quilligrapher, for instance, thinks it's being improved upon. Sure, we've had many wonderful amendments, and some not so wonderful, but Obama and Bush did nothing to improve upon it.

      JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Obama did something EVEN Hitler did not do!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      " Obama appointed Ben Bernake over the federal reserve."

      Correction: Obama RE-APPOINTED Bernanke chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was originally appointed chairman by George W. Bush. Your comment reveals your ignorance of economics. Thanks to the TeaTards blocking of Democratic measures to combat the recession, Bernanke's actions to keep interest rates down have been the last line of defense against a double-dip recession.

      1. lone77star profile image86
        lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Written out of complete ignorance. The private Federal Reserve bank creates debt-based money that can never be paid back. The United States effectively stopped being a sovereign nation in 1913, enslaved by the private bankers behind the Fed. The Fed created the financial troubles of the 20s and deepened the Great Depression when they could've eased the fiscal burden.

        Why are we letting a private banking cartel run our country's economy? Just look what they did in 2008. Corruption and bailouts. And the Fed gives billions to overseas banks.

        You'd think Obama worked for Wall Street, rather than American citizens. But so was Bush.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Do you know what an Ad Hominem is?

        "Tea Tard" - would be an example.  In debate, an Ad Hom, as it is often shortened to, is known as a "logical fallacy," and then, you go on to call me "ignorant," which is another Ad Hominem.

        You need to brighten up, fella!

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I agree that "Tea Tard" was an ad hominem, but I don't necessarily agree that "ignorant" was. Speaking personally, I don't consider being called ignorant an attack.

          While I'm not defending Deeds, I do understand his reaction. When you bring intemperate language to a debate --  justified or not -- similar language is often volleyed back.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well that sure is interesting.  That is, in fact, a logical fallacy so huge I can barely comprehend it.  You see, Ralph Deeds is neither Ben Bernake, nor is he Barry Obama.

            What does it say when a person feels personally tied to people who don't even know he exists?  Irrational, maybe?

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I'm confused. Are you saying that I've just perpetrated a logical fallacy? if so, which one? Or are you saying that it is irrational for Deeds to react with hostility towards your dissing of Bernake and Obama? If  your point is the latter, I agree.

              1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                The latter, of course smile

  9. proudlib profile image60
    proudlibposted 5 years ago

    But you will vote for Romney, "no matter what he did?"

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not at all! Romney is a joke.

      I'm not voting for either Obama or Romney. They're essentially the same on the issues critical to the country -- war, military, economy and liberty. I'm afraid either one would do very little to remove the threat of a national Debt Bubble burst. That would ruin the economy of the planet, not just America. That would leave the bankers owning the entire planet. Just what they want.

      All other issues are distractions from the fact that we're losing this country to the bankers and the military-industrial complex.

      Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would be far better. I'm voting for Ron Paul.

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Voting for Paul _is_ potentially voting for Romney or Obama.

        If the election would have gone to Obama, voting for Paul might swing it to Romney. If the election would have gone to Romney, voting for Paul might swing it to Obama.

        Simple math.

        1. lone77star profile image86
          lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No. Voting for Ron Paul is voting for a Constitutional government. And it's voting for Ron Paul. Nothing else! If most of the people woke up to this, and joined me, then they would be voting for Ron Paul, too, and Ron Paul would be president; not Obama or Romney.

          Incredible that so many people are playing the "a vote for X, will be a vote for Y" insanity. A vote for X is a vote for X, period!

          If we had JFK, Hitler and Stalin running for office, a vote for JFK would not be a vote for Hitler or Stalin. Duh!

          And calling Patriot Act by that name does not remove the tyranny from it. Stop being so "1984" newspeak.

          Romney = Obama:
          * Wars and military -- more of the same
          * Economy -- greater spending into national Debt Bubble oblivion: POP!
          * Liberty -- more trashing of the Constitution and eroding of the liberties that gave this nation meaning. Soon, armed forces defending this nation will not have a Constitution to defend and presidents' oaths of office will have to be changed, because they're betraying that Oath.

          Other issues are certainly important to individuals for their own personal beliefs and needs, but with the above 3 items, we won't have an America and the other "important" issues will be background chatter in Gulag Amerika, Inc., the debt slave company.

          If you thought 2008 was a mess with the housing bubble burst, when the USA goes POP the entire planet will be toast and America will be ground zero. The proverbial fan will be vaporized by what hits it. How could we Americans ever pay off $25 TRILLION dollars in debt in today's dollars when the dollar suddenly is worthless? Perpetual servitude. Nice. You can have it.

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If Paul had the same chance of being elected as Romney or Obama, then you would be right.

            However...

            The contents of Paul's crazy newsletter are too widely known for Paul to ever be a serious contender, and, at 77, he is too old, considering that the life expectancy of the average male in the US is just under 76.

            In other words, all things being equal -- equal charisma, equal press coverage, etc. -- Paul would still lose.

            Voting for Paul would indeed be throwing my vote away.

            I support same-sex marriage, the GOP doesn't. I support Roe Vs Wade, the GOP doesn't. I support national healthcare. I support our continued involvement in the UN. I also favor liberal appointments to the Supreme Court. I couldn't vote for any presidential candidate who would sabotage any of those things.

            To vote for Paul could make me culpable in electing Romney, which my conscience does not allow.

            1. lone77star profile image86
              lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              See my response above to your "social issues" comment. Your reasons are good, but misguided. Ron Paul is not the other GOP you make him out to be. He supports your choices, because he's a liberty candidate, not a judgmental old guard Republican.

              I ate up Obama's speeches 4 years ago. The guy is a veritable silver-tongued devil. He could coax the fur off of a polar bear. He could sell tyranny better than Hitler. He's much slicker than Hitler. His speech voice has a seductive, easy-going cadence that's almost hypnotic. Wow!

              Voting by fear! Nice.

              Voting by ego. He can't win, so I won't vote for him. It's not popular. Well, Hitler was popular once.

              Obama=Romney on everything vital to America. Ron Paul will help reverse the tide of tyranny that is eroding even your rights.

              Crazy newsletter? Yes, even Dr. Paul admits it was crazy and he's glad the guy who wrote the article no longer works for him. Now, do you have something of substance to say about Dr. Paul, or is your gripe mainly with the GOP old guard who shut Paul out?

              Here's some of Obama at work:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUZkxyYJUk

              1. profile image0
                Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You write, " Ron Paul is not the other GOP you make him out to be."

                If I had made Paul out to be the "other GOP," this would be accurate.

                You write, "Voting by fear! Nice."

                The man who invokes Hitler accuses me of voting by fear? Nice.

                You write, "Voting by ego. He can't win, so I won't vote for him. It's not popular. Well, Hitler was popular once."

                Invoking Hitler again so soon? As for choosing not to vote for Paul due to his lack of popularity, that's not what I said, nor can it be inferred.

                As for Paul's newsletter, I have no reason to believe that he was unaware of its contents.  Paul isn't stupid, and it would have been stupid in the extreme to lend his name to a newsletter without personally vetting its contents.

  10. lone77star profile image86
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Here's a new video showing some of the unintended consequences of our dear Obama. Some of them sound like such sweet ideas, until you see all of the unintended consequences.

    Top 10 Politicians' Promises Gone Wrong
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUZkxyYJUk

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not every good intention ends up with a good outcome.

  11. ITcoach profile image60
    ITcoachposted 5 years ago

    Hi Every one,

    May be some one or everyone does not agree with me. But it is a truth that Obama itself is nothing all the major issues even the budget and wars are discussed in the Congress and then further proceeding to them is furnished. It is not the sin committed by the Obama that American are dying in the Iraq and Afghanistan, Perhaps I will vote Obama again because it eradicate the discrimination of Blackish one to be president. So a good impression to society goes after Obama is a president.

    Thanks for sharing ideas by the Hub Forum author.

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And yet Obama could pull all troops out of Afghanistan immediately. And Obama could have kept his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq immediately, but he didn't. As commander in chief, he has that power and does not need to consult congress on this. But he does need to consult congress about attacking Libya, but he didn't.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZ0CSTJiM8

      Well, I supported Obama 100% last time. I didn't vote for him because he was part white and part black, but it thrilled me that discrimination had died a little more because of it. But there were so many things that Obama could've done, that he promised to do, but didn't and only has himself to blame.

  12. lone77star profile image86
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Obama and his impeachable offense:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZ0CSTJiM8

  13. lone77star profile image86
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7028112_f248.jpg

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7133932_f520.jpg

    Here's Judge Napolitano on Obama's treason:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edij2CTWrx4

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7133933_f520.jpg

  14. howtolearnmore profile image60
    howtolearnmoreposted 4 years ago

    As long as the battles are fought on the Internet, and not "outside," not much will change.

    1. lone77star profile image86
      lone77starposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good point, @howtolearnmore. Part of the beauty of the Internet is the ability (at least for the time being) to spread the word and to educate others.

      For 10 years I believed the Bush "conspiracy theory" simply because I hadn't investigated. Then someone who was loving and kind in spreading the word helped me to understand enough to get me interested. Digging up the dirt of 9/11 made me more aware of the dirty politics of the guy I wholeheartedly supported in 2008 (Obama).

      I don't like any battles on the Internet, except perhaps snuffing out ignorance and muddy thinking, where possible.

      But what do you suggest? What actions can be taken that would prove effective?

 
working