8
   

President Barack Obama a Traitor to the United States...

 
 
IVIr
 
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 11:18 am
Before you freak out, read it and try to refute it. I will make a simple logical statement:

On taking the office of the President Obama and all other Presidents took the oath to:
"... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But President Barack Obama recently stated (about those who wouldn't vote for him): "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

The Constitution which the President/traitor has sworn to uphold, garantees the "right to bare arms" and protects religious freedom.

President/traitor Barack Obama is a closed minded bigot. If you read the statement that he made in full its clearly a prejudiced statement:
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama is clearly assuming the people who won't vote for him are religious hicks.
I've got a news flash for him: I work with a gay African-American who didn't vote for Barack Obama!

Note: I am not religious, and do not own a gun; but I am against someone who would try to infringe on these rights!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 3,762 • Replies: 39

 
IVIr
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 11:41 am
@IVIr,
I noticed this post got categorized in the "Republican Hysteria" forum. I resent the "prejudice" that assumes anybody who doesn't vote Obama is a republican. I'm an independent, and I voted Bill Clinton!
parados
 
  9  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 11:59 am
@IVIr,
You voted for Bill Clinton and now that Obama wants to do LESS gun regulation than Clinton did it somehow makes Obama a traitor?

Frankly you are an idiot no matter who you voted for.

Traitor is someone that commits treason. The Constitution clearly defines treason. None of the acts you are complaining about meet the Constitutional definition of treason. If you really were so concerned about the Constitution you would know these things. I suspect you don't really know a black man or a gay man. They are just figments of your imagination so you combined the 2 to make this composite person so you could claim you aren't a bigot.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:08 pm
The only thing I can add to what parados said is: "bear."
0 Replies
 
IVIr
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:10 pm
@parados,
Oh, then please enlighten a stupid man:
Here is the entire text of the United States constitution and all amendments:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

And no where in here does it even have the word traitor. Which Constitution are you referring to?
You can use the search function on your web browser and type in traitor to verify that.
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:18 pm
@IVIr,
IVIr wrote:

Oh, then please enlighten a stupid man:


Sure thing!

IVIr wrote:

And no where in here does it even have the word traitor. Which Constitution are you referring to?


parados wrote:
Traitor is someone that commits treason. The Constitution clearly defines treason.


Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:23 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:



Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Sure and being the constitutional wizard Obama says he is, he's probably capable of creating
scenarios that allow him to do pretty much anything without violating Article 3, Section 3.
0 Replies
 
IVIr
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:24 pm
@parados,
Since the United States constitution had nothing to say about traitor I went to the Dictionary to see if it would help us decide whether or not Barack Obama is a traitor.

Definition: Traitor (Noun)
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Well by definition 1 certainly a traitor he's obviously against what his oath guarantees he will protect.
But definition number 2 is obviously more applicable so I had to look up treason.

Definition: Treason (noun)
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Since he is probably the closest to it's sovereign lets rule that one out.
It's obviously treason by 3, betrayal of a trust of confidence or dare a say: "solemn oath", and then again violation of allegiance and violation of oath of office seem to be pretty synonymous, so I'd say treason by number 2 as well.
IVIr
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:31 pm
@Kolyo,
Quote:
Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Honestly, I've always found the constitutional definition of treason a little vague:
"...or in adhering to their Enemies..."
What exactly are the enemies of the state?
Anybody who held the communist ideal was once considered an enemy of the state. Ultimately because communism was an opposing ideal to our government.
By that logic anyone, and particularly a President with opposing ideals to the constitution, could easily be committing treason.

0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:32 pm
@IVIr,
IVIr wrote:

2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.


That's "traitor". Do you need us to define "traitors" or are you all set on that one? Rolling Eyes
IVIr
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 12:34 pm
@Kolyo,
Refer to my reply directly above yours.
It spells out the whole issue of treason.

You can knee jerk all you want.

But he is a traitor by the dictionary.
And he has committed treason according to the constitution and legal precedent.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 01:12 pm
You first want to quibble about what constitutes treason, but now you want to allege that Mr. Obama has committed treason by a tortured argument referring to communism. But you haven't shown that Mr. Obama has adhered to any communist enemies of the United States. Something is not true just because you say it is. You haven't made a plausible argument.
IVIr
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 01:27 pm
@Setanta,
I didn't say that Obama was a communist. But I pointed out that enemy of the state was a vague concept, but the courts had ruled that communists were enemies of the state for their opposing ideals. Then I concluded: "By that logic anyone, and particularly a President with opposing ideals to the constitution, could easily be committing treason." I didn't even say that logic was correct just indicated that that was a way of interpreting enemy of the state.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 02:44 pm
@IVIr,
When did the courts rule that communists were enemies of the state?

I'm sorry but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Nor do you get to decide what is in opposition to the US Constitution. For you to do so violates the US Constitution and under your rules would make you a traitor to the United States.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 02:49 pm
@IVIr,
IVIr wrote:


And he has committed treason according to the constitution and legal precedent.

No, he hasn't. The statement is pretty clear in the US Constitution

Quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Treason requires an overt act of giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy that is witnessed by at least 2 people. The legal precedent is that an OVERT act be an actual OVERT act not one made up by you because you disagree with him. Your ridiculous reading of the US Constitution that involves leaving out major parts of it shows you are silly and ignorant. Or can we consider this an overt act of trying to undermine the US President and therefore it would be treason?
IVIr
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 07:04 pm
@parados,
I don't really know how to respond to your statement. Your using a lot of emotional words like ridiculous and idiot. But you're not making a claim that amounts to anything.

Ultimately you're saying he hasn't committed treason because to be "convicted" of treason two witnesses would have to testify to an overt act or treason. I didn't say anything about convicting him of treason. There are a lot of murderers that will never and can never be convicted of murder. It doesn't make their actual act any less a murder.

Yes, I do not feel this act of treachery by Barack Obama is an act for which he could be convicted according to the constitution because according to the constitution: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

But the actual act of treason is much less restricted. It is simply: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
And I've already discussed: "...adhering to their Enemies..." above.
JPB
 
  5  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 07:17 pm
@IVIr,
IVIr wrote:

President/traitor Barack Obama is a closed minded bigot. If you read the statement that he made in full its clearly a prejudiced statement:
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama is clearly assuming the people who won't vote for him are religious hicks.



If you read the statement he made in full it's clearly not a prejudiced statement.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Any why do you assume he's talking about people who won't vote for him? He's talking about the frustrations of people in middle America.
IVIr
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 10:49 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Any why do you assume he's talking about people who won't vote for him?


It's from a speech he's giving while campaigning before the primaries talking about the the segment of voters he's having trouble rallying to his cause:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment..."
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 11:36 pm
@IVIr,
IVIr wrote:
But he is a traitor by the dictionary.

Then by the dictionary he shall be punished!
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 11:36 pm
Gotta wonder at the state of knowledge of some of the newbies we get here.
IVir says:
Quote:
The Constitution which the President/traitor has sworn to uphold, garantees the "right to bare arms".


No, it doesn't. The Constitution is absolutely silent about bare arms. I really doubt that the Founding Fathers ever cared much about whether or not people went around in sleeveless shirts or considered barring mandates that everybody had to wear sleeves.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » President Barack Obama a Traitor to the United States...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:34:26