Obama Treason & Arizona

[hoosieridentity]

I thought this was a pretty good article that should be shared with my fellow Hoosiers.

Obama Proves Treason With Arizona|Liberty Defense League

Have a great weekend all!

Brian

 

[WWIIIDefender]

wowzerse that was a good article to read, it started out slow but by the third paragraph it was bomb dropping until the end.

 

[nova512]

people better wake up real f#$%^g fast,with this fake.

 

[308jake]

So we are subject to the rules of the UN. What happened to the Constitution? I guess it went to hell in the last election. Don't think the UN isn't here and aiding our "leaders" in decision making.

 

[mrjarrell]

As much as I dislike Obama, the one thing he's not guilty of is treason. That's a very specific crime and he's not met the criteria for it. Throwing buzzwords around to invoke a specific reaction make the speaker look like an idiot and damages the credibility of his opponents.

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. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[dukeboy_318]

wow, this makes me sick to my stomache, can we get him out of there yet, please please

 

[Bill of Rights]

As much as I dislike Obama, the one thing he's not guilty of is treason. That's a very specific crime and he's not met the criteria for it. Throwing buzzwords around to invoke a specific reaction make the speaker look like an idiot and damages the credibility of his opponents.

He's publicly sided with Mexico against one of our states whose action has been internal. He's intentionally avoided securing our border, which is a federal responsibility. Our country is being invaded by foreign nationals crossing unlawfully from Mexico northward. That's not to say that all of them are Mexican nationals, but only that it is that border where they choose to cross. Estimates have a low figure of 12 MILLION (to put that in perspective, if one person crossed the American border every minute, starting now, we would have six more Presidential elections before 12 million crossed. (12M/60/24/365=22.83 years))

Many of these unlawful trespassers would have America dilute itself further, giving deference to them and their ways from whatever the old country is, and if we fail to do so, somehow we are the ones in the wrong because we would choose to take care of our own first, then others. (at one time, those from other nations came here and were embarrassed that they could not speak the language everyone else spoke. It was a badge of shame and many worked hard not only to not use the old language but even to remove the accents from their voices. Today, we see quite a different circumstance. These people, from any and all countries, do not wish there to be an America, only the largess of the people who live here to be given to them.

By my definition, that would define an enemy. Obama has sided with Mexico's president and refuses to secure that border, a federal responsibility, and now takes one of our states which attempts to pick up the ball he has dropped before the federal court, the UN, and the World Court to prevent them from doing so.

If that does not constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it is at a minimum adhering to those enemies. It might constitute levying war against this country as well, but that would be slightly more difficult to prove. Nonetheless, the definition you gave states "...or adhering to their enemies..." not "...and..."

Looks like treason to me. What's the penalty for treason? Firing squad, hanging, or lethal injection?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hoosieridentity]

He's publicly sided with Mexico against one of our states whose action has been internal. He's intentionally avoided securing our border, which is a federal responsibility. Our country is being invaded by foreign nationals crossing unlawfully from Mexico northward. That's not to say that all of them are Mexican nationals, but only that it is that border where they choose to cross. Estimates have a low figure of 12 MILLION (to put that in perspective, if one person crossed the American border every minute, starting now, we would have six more Presidential elections before 12 million crossed. (12M/60/24/365=22.83 years))

Many of these unlawful trespassers would have America dilute itself further, giving deference to them and their ways from whatever the old country is, and if we fail to do so, somehow we are the ones in the wrong because we would choose to take care of our own first, then others. (at one time, those from other nations came here and were embarrassed that they could not speak the language everyone else spoke. It was a badge of shame and many worked hard not only to not use the old language but even to remove the accents from their voices. Today, we see quite a different circumstance. These people, from any and all countries, do not wish there to be an America, only the largess of the people who live here to be given to them.

By my definition, that would define an enemy. Obama has sided with Mexico's president and refuses to secure that border, a federal responsibility, and now takes one of our states which attempts to pick up the ball he has dropped before the federal court, the UN, and the World Court to prevent them from doing so.

If that does not constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it is at a minimum adhering to those enemies. It might constitute levying war against this country as well, but that would be slightly more difficult to prove. Nonetheless, the definition you gave states "...or adhering to their enemies..." not "...and..."

Looks like treason to me. What's the penalty for treason? Firing squad, hanging, or lethal injection?

Blessings,
Bill

No doubt his behavior and actions are treasonous. And these actions are coming from an individual who had a Social Security number issued to him from Connecticut, while he was a teen making ice cream cones at a Baskins Robbins in Hawaii. None of this makes a bit of sense. Given the fact that he wasn't vetted by the FBI, but by Nanci Pelosi, I stand corrected. It makes perfect sense, if you look at it through Marxist-tinted glasses.

- Brian

 

[Eddie]

As much as I dislike Obama, the one thing he's not guilty of is treason. That's a very specific crime and he's not met the criteria for it. Throwing buzzwords around to invoke a specific reaction make the speaker look like an idiot and damages the credibility of his opponents.

Quote:
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. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Corruption of Blood, now that was a punishment.

Attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thunderchicken]

That's a powerful article.

 

[Indyrich]

Sad Obama decides to sue an American state instead of bringing charges against the criminals......only so he can pander to hispanics for votes. He needs to wake up to the security realities of todays world. That is what happens when a one term state legislator serves two years in congress and then becomes president. It takes longer to earn a Bachelor degree than for him to start his political career and become president. Such a charlaton.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

He's publicly sided with Mexico against one of our states whose action has been internal. He's intentionally avoided securing our border, which is a federal responsibility. Our country is being invaded by foreign nationals crossing unlawfully from Mexico northward. That's not to say that all of them are Mexican nationals, but only that it is that border where they choose to cross. Estimates have a low figure of 12 MILLION (to put that in perspective, if one person crossed the American border every minute, starting now, we would have six more Presidential elections before 12 million crossed. (12M/60/24/365=22.83 years))

Many of these unlawful trespassers would have America dilute itself further, giving deference to them and their ways from whatever the old country is, and if we fail to do so, somehow we are the ones in the wrong because we would choose to take care of our own first, then others. (at one time, those from other nations came here and were embarrassed that they could not speak the language everyone else spoke. It was a badge of shame and many worked hard not only to not use the old language but even to remove the accents from their voices. Today, we see quite a different circumstance. These people, from any and all countries, do not wish there to be an America, only the largess of the people who live here to be given to them.

By my definition, that would define an enemy. Obama has sided with Mexico's president and refuses to secure that border, a federal responsibility, and now takes one of our states which attempts to pick up the ball he has dropped before the federal court, the UN, and the World Court to prevent them from doing so.

If that does not constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it is at a minimum adhering to those enemies. It might constitute levying war against this country as well, but that would be slightly more difficult to prove. Nonetheless, the definition you gave states "...or adhering to their enemies..." not "...and..."

Looks like treason to me. What's the penalty for treason? Firing squad, hanging, or lethal injection?

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, Jarrel is right. Obama is NOT guilty of treason. Come on, How can Obama be guilty of treason to the U.S? His home is Kenya, is allegiance is not to America, that much can be said.

How he's still in Office is beyond me; But if it was not him, it'd be another cronie, red or blue - NO difference.

(In case you didnt notice, Im just giving you a hard time, I love to argue with you, even though you often show me my error.)

 

[88GT]

As much as I dislike Obama, the one thing he's not guilty of is treason. That's a very specific crime and he's not met the criteria for it. Throwing buzzwords around to invoke a specific reaction make the speaker look like an idiot and damages the credibility of his opponents.

Somebody else already used the term, but just because someone's actions don't rise to the legal definition of treason and are not convictable doesn't mean they aren't treasonous in spirit.

Not being able to see the forest for the trees makes one look just as foolish and ignorant. I once argued that with the institution of the welfare state funded by taxpayers' income, we've become slaves. I was harangued as a fool for exactly the same reason you gave: accusations of attempting to incite emotional responses without logical justification. He simply couldn't fathom the notion that slavery went beyond the elementary school textbook definition of chains and beatings. He was so stuck on one or two specific trees (chains and beatings), he failed to see the forest (that taking the fruits of a man's labor without his consent for the express benefit of others who've done nothing to earn it IS a form of slavery).

In this case, your myopic viewpoint only allows you to see a legal definition without considering that there are other definitions of treason not limited by the law. Namely:

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]trea·son[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

He may not be convicted for his crimes, but he is certainly NOT pledging his allegiance to the U.S...neither in words nor deeds. What would you call it when the leader of a country puts foreign interests first?

 

[reload4ever]

Impeachment

 

[GIJEW]

As much as I dislike Obama, the one thing he's not guilty of is treason. That's a very specific crime and he's not met the criteria for it. Throwing buzzwords around to invoke a specific reaction make the speaker look like an idiot and damages the credibility of his opponents.

OK "obeyme" hasn't been CONVICTED of treason except in some parts of public opinion. However, refusing to secure the border inthe face of foreign criminal cartels running amok on our side of the border, if not actually taking control of parts of our country, certainly is "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies.