BARACK H. OBAMA has OPENLY and BLATENTLY COMMITTED TREASON!!!

[Kilika]

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

PROVISIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Rule 19

The President shall preside over the meetings of the Security Council and, under the authority of the Security Council, shall represent it in its capacity as an organ of the United Nations.

Treason.......

Yep, that's what I'm thinking.

[911aware]

JT, let's get technical on this...dont get mad if i want to clarify this, please...I ask this with all respect...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress except [accept] of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

OK, a title of nobility is something like a duke, prince, knight....right?  Not a chair of a "comittee".

the next thing I think makes this slightly shaky is the accepting of "title" or "office" from any "King, Prince, or foreign State".  since the U.N. operates above any given "State", and therefore, this might not be applicable.  if "state" was in all lower case, this would be applicable, as my recent research is showing me that capitalization means quite a bit when it comes to stuff like this.  See the definition of STRAWMAN, setup for you at birth....

please prove me wrong, .  i need this kind of argument to back me up when talking to my father (who is a lawyer)....He has studied his whole life learning to argue points, so I am trying to arm myself.

[tracer7]

JT, let's get technical on this...dont get mad if i want to clarify this, please...I ask this with all respect...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress except [accept] of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

OK, a title of nobility is something like a duke, prince, knight....right?  Not a chair of a "comittee".

the next thing I think makes this slightly shaky is the accepting of "title" or "office" from any "King, Prince, or foreign State".  since the U.N. operates above any given "State", and therefore, this might not be applicable.  if "state" was in all lower case, this would be applicable, as my recent research is showing me that capitalization means quite a bit when it comes to stuff like this.  See the definition of STRAWMAN, setup for you at birth....

please prove me wrong, .  i need this kind of argument to back me up when talking to my father (who is a lawyer)....He has studied his whole life learning to argue points, so I am trying to arm myself.

While waiting for JT I will give my argument.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

PROVISIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Rule 19

The President shall preside over the meetings of the Security Council and, under the authority of the Security Council, shall represent it in its capacity as an organ of the United Nations.

By acting as an organ of the U.N. Obama must follow the oath of the U.N.:
"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."
That means Obama has to throw the constitution out, which he swore an oath to. Breaking his oath is grounds for impeachment.

[911aware]

While waiting for JT I will give my argument. By acting as an organ of the U.N. Obama must follow the oath of the U.N.:
"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."
That means Obama has to throw the constitution out, which he swore an oath to. Breaking his oath is grounds for impeachment.

a-ha!  that's the money shot!  it's not actually holding the chair, it's the oath he takes to hold that office.  now, because he took that oath AFTER his oath to the constitution, which one is applicable, then?  does one negate the other? 

[Kilika]

a-ha!  that's the money shot!  it's not actually holding the chair, it's the oath he takes to hold that office.  now, because he took that oath AFTER his oath to the constitution, which one is applicable, then?  does one negate the other? 

Yep, that is indeed the root problem. He, as an American, cannot pledge "allegiance" to any other entity outside the United states, especially if that allegiance would require ursuping the laws of the United states. And changing the wording like in a court to "affirm" makes no difference.

I see no legal way for the President of the United states to preside over any legal body outside America.

[TheCaliKid]

Yep, that is indeed the root problem. He, as an American, cannot pledge "allegiance" to any other entity outside the United states, especially if that allegiance would require ursuping the laws of the United states. And changing the wording like in a court to "affirm" makes no difference.

I see no legal way for the President of the United states to preside over any legal body outside America.

If Congress had any backbone, he would have been impeached yesterday.

[Kilika]

If Congress had any backbone, Obama would have never been elected President.

[TheCaliKid]

This is true.

[JT Coyoté]

JT, let's get technical on this...dont get mad if i want to clarify this, please...I ask this with all respect...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress except [accept] of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

OK, a title of nobility is something like a duke, prince, knight....right?  Not a chair of a "comittee".

the next thing I think makes this slightly shaky is the accepting of "title" or "office" from any "King, Prince, or foreign State".  since the U.N. operates above any given "State", and therefore, this might not be applicable.  if "state" was in all lower case, this would be applicable, as my recent research is showing me that capitalization means quite a bit when it comes to stuff like this.  See the definition of STRAWMAN, setup for you at birth....

please prove me wrong, .  i need this kind of argument to back me up when talking to my father (who is a lawyer)....He has studied his whole life learning to argue points, so I am trying to arm myself.

911,

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, it wasn't until this very evening that I remembered, thanks to one of the mods here, that I even wrote The Article, that prompted this thread. It was the 29th of October when I was forced from my home, business, my computer, and all of my research and have still yet to return. The urgency of my plight removed this subject from my concern only to resurface now... thanks Femacamper.

To answer your questions it would be easiest if you read the article again at the link above, and keep in mind that the UN IS a foreign power and only by treaty power are we even a member... Pay close attention as you read to the reference to Marbury vs Madison... here is an excerpt of that Court decision:

"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."


The upshot is this, the UN cannot undermine or overthrow the Constitution by treaty power, nor can the president sit at it's head without violating the Constitution...

Hope this helps and sorry about the untimeliness of my reply.

JTCoyoté

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part
 in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.
Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances,
their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us.They are nations
of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor,
property and lives of their people."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823

[phosphene]

I think there's a strong argument for the UN being defined as "a foreign power". I don't think the UN qualifies as a "foreign state", as it's just an organisation started by some fatcats in suits.

We don't hafta study legalese and contract jargon for very long before we realize to pay attention to what they leave out. While it may be illegal for the President to accept those titles from x,y, and z. It's perfectly legal if he accepts those titles from anyone else.

What's funny is, according to those clauses, the president could accept the title of "King" from a child, or god, and it would be perfectly legal.

[Michal Ptacnik]

It is not universally true that treaties are not above constitutions; in fact, here in Europe, it is the other way around. I know it might seem strange to you but here, it is the rule that when a treaty says something else than the constitution, and is properly ratified, the treaty takes precedence.

Further on, it is questionable whether or not the UN is a foreign power. The UN holds little power of paper and is not a state, has currently no land, etc; it is in fact an alliance aimed at mutual cooperation and coordination of effort towards specific goals, which however the current US administrative completely endorses, and so does the majority of populace! Indeed, there is little wrong with the STATED UN agenda.

Only if the Founding Fathers had intended America to forever remain a neutral country I would consider such an alliance a foreign power. And with all the honesty, I would rather seek a more specific clause as whether or not the US will join international pacts, I believe you have one such in the constitution (I'm not an American so I don't know it precisely); subsuming this case under the "foreign power" clause would feel to me as somewhat twisting the meaning of the law.

[JT Coyoté]

I think there's a strong argument for the UN being defined as "a foreign power". I don't think the UN qualifies as a "foreign state", as it's just an organisation started by some fatcats in suits.

We don't hafta study legalese and contract jargon for very long before we realize to pay attention to what they leave out. While it may be illegal for the President to accept those titles from x,y, and z. It's perfectly legal if he accepts those titles from anyone else.

What's funny is, according to those clauses, the president could accept the title of "King" from a child, or god, and it would be perfectly legal.

Set the pipe down for a while there phosphene... Read it again...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

I could title him "King Barry Christos Soetoro," but it would not be recognized by the people of the USA, and if he were to use it in an official capacity, he could be empeached... and the LAWFULLY ratified, and UNLAWFULLY removed Original 13th Amendment clarifies even further the Constitutional provision against titles of nobility, and spells out some very specific penalties.

--Oldyoti

"If ever time should come, when vain and
aspiring men shall possess the highest seats
in Government, our country will stand in need
of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
~Samuel Adams

[JT Coyoté]

It is not universally true that treaties are not above constitutions; in fact, here in Europe, it is the other way around. I know it might seem strange to you but here, it is the rule that when a treaty says something else than the constitution, and is properly ratified, the treaty takes precedence.

Further on, it is questionable whether or not the UN is a foreign power. The UN holds little power of paper and is not a state, has currently no land, etc; it is in fact an alliance aimed at mutual cooperation and coordination of effort towards specific goals, which however the current US administrative completely endorses, and so does the majority of populace! Indeed, there is little wrong with the STATED UN agenda.

Only if the Founding Fathers had intended America to forever remain a neutral country I would consider such an alliance a foreign power. And with all the honesty, I would rather seek a more specific clause as whether or not the US will join international pacts, I believe you have one such in the constitution (I'm not an American so I don't know it precisely); subsuming this case under the "foreign power" clause would feel to me as somewhat twisting the meaning of the law.

It IS UNIVERSALLY true as per MARBURY vs MADISON however, that the Constitution for the United States of America is primary and above any treaty that would grow to usurp it's power... it was due to the fact this treaty power primacy after all, and was why Jefferson wrote what is reposted beneath my signature below...

JTCoyoté

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part
 in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.
Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances,
their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us.They are nations
of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor,
property and lives of their people."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823

[Michal Ptacnik]

To this I will say: The term of "alliance" has fundamentally changed since the 19th century. Back then, Alliance pretty much meant war, since alliances were made generally ad hoc for specific purposes, such as the mutual defense of two european countries against a third one, etc.
Today, alliances, as such, are made for peace and multilateral defense not against equal partners but against few weak "rogue state." Thus I would, if I were a judge, consider ruling a "distinction" in this case, since things did not stay as they were when the constitution was written.

Also, if we move to less down-to-Earth realms, I would consider it that the subject that is the US has changed as well. The US were not meant to be a "power" as such, just a federation of states that should provide freedom for the colonists. But since Wilson, this has been gradually changing and currently, the US is a classical nation state for which alliances are necessary, since it is a power player in the geopolitical arena and it would be in fact treasonous for it's president not to take a position in order to secure the particular interest of the US. There is, in this respect, no difference between the modern US and, say, WWI German Empire or Austria-Hungary, the archetypal power-nation-states.

I am not saying that this is good; I love the US as it was meant to be and dislike the modern nation state, of course; indeed, I am for a "global" old style US if it were possible and consider any kind of nationalism a very bad thing. But I am just pointing that by stating treason, by standard procedure, no one will ever achieve anything since there are arguments to the contrary easily used against such accusers and since the judicial and political arena is already biased for keeping the status quo, as it always has been.

[phosphene]

Set the pipe down for a while there phosphene... Read it again...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

I could title him "King Barry Christos Soetoro," but it would not be recognized by the people of the USA, and if he were to use it in an official capacity, he could be empeached... and the LAWFULLY ratified, and UNLAWFULLY removed Original 13th Amendment clarifies even further the Constitutional provision against titles of nobility, and spells out some very specific penalties.

--Oldyoti

lol, yeah i did read that wrong. It looks like the president can legally accept any title the congress consents to.

[chris jones]

What constitution??, was it not Bush who declared this to be a g**damed peice of paper, ins't it MR obama that is following his script & the destruction of this nation. We could make a list of constitutional betrayal, though it would take up pages, in short we are all ware of this sociopathic gang on high.
The general public are not interested.
Yes, we are involved and committed to the Constitution-Bill of Right, and the foundation of this nation.
Yes, we bear witness to the destruction of this nation base and principles.
Yes, we bring the truth to our fellow Americans where it is possible.

The bottom line, the Silent Majority will not be aware of this abomination untill their backs are against the wall, when their bank accounts are non existant, when their lifestyle is under seige, when their freedoms are lost..

Off subject*, I don't beleive so. Alex Jones and many other dedicated human beings have been fighting to bring truths to the masses, to expose the criminaly insane methodry of the regime and their Elitists.
The members have carried these truths to the people, we are vigilant.

Then why are the people in the majority have accepted whatever this sociopathic regime has stuffed down their throats, what has happened to the spirit of this nation the national conscience, has it become a populace of self centered apathetic citizenry, brainwashed go alongs, chicken shiite and uncaring.

I admit to having a problem getting my thoughts stated clearly, for that reason i will resort to a an episode in my past.

Upon returning to the USA after a tour in Nam I was deeply troubled by the lack of conscience shown  by the average Joe. I remember vividly during the gas crisis in the 70's the people came close to rioting in the streets, why, their lifestyles were effected. The war was something happenning far away, if they were not personelly effected by the consequences of the war personelly, the majority were silent, accepting the war and wiggling their flag. In short, what was the priority of the majority, was it the truth that American sons were being killed in a profit war, that millions of innocents were being slughtered, that in reality the tax dollars were being burned up to line the pockets of the profitearing parasites, NO.

The big picture has been exposed by Alex Jones! Those on this site are well aware of the abyss this nation has been tossed into, the general population will not open their eyes! Yes, some may bitch and moan, but isn't that the extent of their participation.There are those within our society that refuse to see the truth, it is so much simpler to roll along with societys general attitude of psuedo patriotism, those who are apathetic and concentrate on their individual lifestyles and could not give a twit about the state of this nation as long as they have food on the table, YES they can quote the MSN's headlines and wiggle the flag-keeping up the apearence of being a true American.

History repeats itself: The orientals have a saying , before you step forward take a look behind you. In short do not let the tragedys of history repeat themsleves. The bottom line, I am convinced that a greater  majority of Americans have ingnored the courage of our founding fathers and the common man who sacrificed to free this nation from tyranic rule, that freedoms are not considered, that believe our constitution is exactly what Bush declared it to be. In short they will not give a shiite untill they find themselves under fire. To accept this (in my humble experiences) is the reality.

We the people are the true power, united we can overcome the evil madness that encompasses this nation and yes, humanity. I apoligize for going on a rant, please know i do remain with hope and faith, We will continue to be that voice of truth-and one day those who are lost in their fantasy world of escape will come to the realization that we were not tin hatted freaks, that we are truthers - patriots & were that voice in the wilderness calling them to bear witness the reality of this abomination.

[DireWolf]

Treason comes in many forms.

The nuts and bolts of this situation... any person, or organization which works at cross purposes, tries to to dismantle or subvert our United States Constitution, unless as prescribed within the Constitution itself is in fact committing treason. 

[jofortruth]

That is what he was put into office to do BY THE ELITE! COMMIT TREASON by doing the bidding of the ELITE.

It was the same with Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, etc. They got the jobs, because the elite knew they would do as they were told! THEY WORK FOR THEM!

Until we take back our Country from THE ELITE who control these spineless little boyz who do their bidding from the highest office in the land, nothing will change.

[JT Coyoté]

lol, yeah i did read that wrong. It looks like the president can legally accept any title the congress consents to.

No, The United States, Congress being the law conferring body thereof, can grant no such title...

Congress can agree to allow him or you to accept a title but it will carry no power in the United States. The States under the 10th Amendment, can even block that if there is outrage among the people. We the People have been absent from the republican process by placation and coercion, for well over 100 years...

The Original 13th Amendment specifically protects this power of the people and gives it some teeth... Congress after all, represents the will of the People, (9th Amendment) through the States, (10th Amendment)... Bottom line, the buck stops with the People.

When Bush called the Constitutional contract made by the people a G**D***** piece of paper, that should have sent up red flags around the nation and the congress should have been inundated with calls for censure and impeachment.

We are a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" Republic which requires that the people participate loudly... the globie minions know this... when are we the majority going to figure this out, then read and understand the Constitution and start using it in order to UPHOLD IT!!

JTCoyoté

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
~Thomas Jefferson
 

[JT Coyoté]

No, The United States, Congress being the law conferring body thereof, can grant no such title...

Congress can agree to allow him or you to accept a title but it will carry no power in the United States. The States under the 10th Amendment, can even block that if there is outrage among the people. We the People have been absent from the republican process by placation and coercion, for well over 100 years...

The Original 13th Amendment specifically protects this power of the people and gives it some teeth... Congress after all, represents the will of the People, (9th Amendment) through the States, (10th Amendment)... Bottom line, the buck stops with the People.

When Bush called the Constitutional contract made by the people a G**D***** piece of paper, that should have sent up red flags around the nation and the congress should have been inundated with calls for censure and impeachment.

We are a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" Republic which requires that the people participate loudly... the globie minions know this... when are we the majority going to figure this out, then read and understand the Constitution and start using it in order to UPHOLD IT!!

JTCoyoté

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
~Thomas Jefferson
 

The fact that we are a Republic is almost completely lost on most people today. The founders were mindful of this possibility from the beginning, which is why Franklin said, "We have given you a republic, madam, if you can keep it."
 
A republic requires participation by the people, each individual.  This is why the phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses for all of our representatives and even the Whitehouse are public and easily accessible. SO YOU CAN MAKE YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION KNOWN.
 
The repesentatives also know that for every person who "Squeaks," there are 100 more out there squeaking in silence. Every issue should be sounded off on, and the representatives should be constantly feeding back to their constituents their votes and why... the people when Constitutionally savvy, will naturally have control of their representative, by the short hairs if you catch my drift.
 
We have been conditioned to think that if you sound off you will be put on a list and harassed... this is an urban fallacy... YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SOUND OFF IN A REPUBLIC!

JTCoyoté

"What has been the effect of coercion?
To make one-half the world fools and
the other half hypocrites. To support
roguery and error all over the earth."
~Thomas Jefferson

[adissenter2]

Belligerent Claimant in Person-The Method of Liberty & The Plan
http://www.lawfulgov.org/data_justsayno.htm

[JT Coyoté]

Belligerent Claimant in Person-The Method of Liberty & The Plan
Just Say No To Tyranny!
http://www.lawfulgov.org/data_justsayno.htm

Nice link above, adissenter2!

Everyone here should read and understand this clearly.

JTCoyoté

“Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are
not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard
the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily
life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for
that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American,
cannot succeed with any lesser effort.”
~ John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

[Kilika]

I just had to see those words in print more than once!...

The fact that we are a Republic is almost completely lost on most people today. The founders were mindful of this possibility from the beginning, which is why Franklin said, "We have given you a republic, madam, if you can keep it."
 
A republic requires participation by the people, each individual.  This is why the phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses for all of our representatives and even the Whitehouse are public and easily accessible. SO YOU CAN MAKE YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION KNOWN.
 
The repesentatives also know that for every person who "Squeaks," there are 100 more out there squeaking in silence. Every issue should be sounded off on, and the representatives should be constantly feeding back to their constituents their votes and why... the people when Constitutionally savvy, will naturally have control of their representative, by the short hairs if you catch my drift.
 
We have been conditioned to think that if you sound off you will be put on a list and harassed... this is an urban fallacy... YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SOUND OFF IN A REPUBLIC!

JTCoyoté

And if I may be so bold as to add...If the government doesn't listen or respond in a timely fashion once the public has sounded off, in our REPUBLIC, the people have a duty to take action and correct the problem.

[JT Coyoté]

Yep...

Right now, that action is getting more people aware and actively contacting their representatives!!  There are many who are on the verge, millions who are ready, they are frustrated, yet don't have a clue what to do... the last few posts spell out the very things that must be done in order to participate in our REPUBLIC!

If 3%, 10 million People, in this country were to actively participate in this REPUBLIC starting today -- calling on issues stating clearly the Constitutional course of this nation, you would see changes in a week... the bastards may even push their false flag forward... BUT THEY MUST START IT!!  Let me state that again, THEY MUST START IT!!!

We must use the levers of OUR REPUBLIC to get their attention, to point out the criminals to scream for their expultion, ARRESTS, and TRIALS...

WE HAVE WORK TO DO!

~Oldyoti

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in their struggle for independence."
~C. A. Beard

[phosphene]

WE HAVE WORK TO DO!

indeed. Government officials are public servants. In a master/servant relationship, the master is responsible for the servant's actions.

[JT Coyoté]

Treason comes in many forms.

The nuts and bolts of this situation... any person, or organization which works at cross purposes, tries to to dismantle or subvert our United States Constitution, unless as prescribed within the Constitution itself is in fact committing treason.  

This would all be found in a court of Law... after an indictment.

To take an oath to uphold the Constitution, is not very well accomplished by violating it at Article I; Section 9; Clause 8 like Soetoro here.

Nor is it upholding to say "I don't care about the Constitution." like Representative Hare of Illinois did at a town meeting last week. -- or like Bush calling it a GD piece of paper.  

All of these and many more no doubt, need to be called on the carpet and "spanked" at the very least.

~Oldyoti

"The happy Union of these States is a wonder;
their Constitution a miracle; their example,
the hope of Liberty throughout the world. "
~James Madison

[larsonstdoc]

  He and his minions have walked all over the Constitution.  He is not even eligible to be president of the USA.

[JT Coyoté]

  He and his minions have walked all over the Constitution.  He is not even eligible to be president of the USA.

You are 'SO' correct doc...

These toads are just seeing what the American people will put up with. Now they are openly bad mouthing the law -- taunting us with it...

They all have done enough violating in just the last 20 years to get most of them a good long prison sentence, and many a gallows trip!

JTCoyoté

"The internal effects of a mutable policy poisons
the blessings of liberty itself."
~James Madison

[larsonstdoc]

  They cannot stand the Constitution because it brings out what is true and what is right.  All they do is tell lies and do what is wrong.  It is easy to know which side of an issue is the right side--the side that Barry Soetero doesn't pick.

[larsonstdoc]

This would all be found in a court of Law... after an indictment.

To take an oath to uphold the Constitution, is not very well accomplished by violating it at Article I; Section 9; Clause 8 like Soetoro here.

Nor is it upholding to say "I don't care about the Constitution." like Representative Hare of Illinois did at a town meeting last week. -- or like Bush calling it a GD piece of paper.  

All of these and many more no doubt, need to be called on the carpet and "spanked" at the very least.

~Oldyoti

"The happy Union of these States is a wonder;
their Constitution a miracle; their example,
the hope of Liberty throughout the world. "
~James Madison

  HI JT COYOTE,  I would call this an act of treason, should it happen (the following article).  Soetero claims that HE WOULD NOT USE NUKES EVEN IN THE SELF-DEFENSE OF THE US.  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER

 
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Obama on Monday discussing his new nuclear strategy, which would limit the conditions for using such weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.
Multimedia


The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.

There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”

He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations.

“We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole,” he said.

An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment.

The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.

“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”

[JT Coyoté]

It looks very much like this president, is neglecting horribly the Sage advice of none other than the First President and many would call the Father of this Country, George Washington, who stated:

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual
means of preserving peace." ~George Washington,
first annual address to Congress, Jan. 8, 1790

JTCoyoté

"Let us therefore animate and encourage each other,
and show the whole world that a Freeman, contending
for liberty on his own ground, is superior to any slavish
mercenary on earth." ~George Washington,
general orders, Jul. 2, 1776

[Kilika]

Not using specific military hardware is not an act of treason. It's nothing more than a tactical decision. The word "treason" is getting used a tad too much, and is bleeding into areas it doesn't belong. And I suspect there's many out there that use it and don't have a clue what treason actually is, and what is required in order for the charge to be made.

[JT Coyoté]

Not using specific military hardware is not an act of treason. It's nothing more than a tactical decision. The word "treason" is getting used a tad too much, and is bleeding into areas it doesn't belong. And I suspect there's many out there that use it and don't have a clue what treason actually is, and what is required in order for the charge to be made.

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution for the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of 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.

It could be argued that disarming ourselves nationally, which includes gun regulation and confiscation of the people's arms IS aiding and abetting.  Yet the circumstances would have to prove this. If you are listening to today's show, the interview with Jesse Ventura... you will see that Barry S. is not in control of anything he does... the real control is being exposed on the show as we speak...

It is way past time for the American People to do a complete Constitutional house cleaning. And a shot will not have to be fired if we bring awareness to enough people and get a Constitutional ground swell rolling.

~Oldyoti

"If ever time should come, when vain and
aspiring men shall possess the highest seats
in Government, our country will stand in need
of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
~Samuel Adams

[Kilika]

It could be argued that disarming ourselves nationally, which includes gun regulation and confiscation of the people's arms IS aiding and abetting.

If one can prove in the witness of two or more that was/is the intent, to undermine the security of the united States, then yes, I agree it could be charged. Treason should not be taken lightly, and therefore requires people to be careful when they toos that word around, otherwise when it is a legitimate charge, people will take it very seriously. Otherwise you end up with the Chicken Little syndrome.

As is, I think one could definately make a case for fraud, dereliction of duty, insubordination, and outright incompetence for his overall presidency. So in that sense, he's got impeachment pretty much wrapped up. Treason? Need to dig deeper for more solid evidence, but he's well on his way though.

[JT Coyoté]

If one can prove in the witness of two or more that was/is the intent, to undermine the security of the united States, then yes, I agree it could be charged. Treason should not be taken lightly, and therefore requires people to be careful when they toos that word around, otherwise when it is a legitimate charge, people will take it very seriously. Otherwise you end up with the Chicken Little syndrome.

As is, I think one could definitely make a case for fraud, dereliction of duty, insubordination, and outright incompetence for his overall presidency. So in that sense, he's got impeachment pretty much wrapped up. Treason? Need to dig deeper for more solid evidence, but he's well on his way though.

I agree Lefty. It can be argued as well that the uncovering by the people of this undermining of the Constitutional American Nation by the European Royalty/global bankers and their myriad minions will begin with a single proved charge and a guilty verdict.  The "rats leaving their ship" festivities, along with the "turn-coating and ass-saving" will then commence.  

JTCoyoté

"I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism.
I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present
contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting
war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must
be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward."
~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Apr. 21, 1778

[Kilika]

When that kitchen light gets turned on, no doubt the roaches will scatter!

[kleis]

In following this thread, it appears a lot of you guys are well-educated when it comes to the Constitution of the US. And one comment about the silent majority of Americans that remain silent is true and accounts for less volume all the way around. And yes, there is intimidation or this silent-like rule of thumb-law, that speaking out or up or against anything and exercising freedom of speech could be (what) held against us? And some of the protesters that have been arrested and treated like criminals for voicing their opinions!

 More on the subject herein, though, what about the Counsel of 12 that Obama has added to the Congress, and if this is correct, is this for the purpose to supercede Congress on decisions, etc. and are they from, or are in affiliation with the UN?

[s3d1t0r]

Welcome, Kleis.

I'm not anywhere as learned as the veterans of this Forum are, but one thing I do know is that the Council of 12, a.k.a. the "Super Congress" is NOT a good thing.  Just like the 10 regional FEMA governors who answer directly to the President and NOT to the people in the states is a really bad sign.

In case of "emergency", this is FEMA's PUBLIC plan to divvy up the country, with the capitol of each region ruled by a hand picked UNelected governor who answers only to the White House via FEMA.


Sorry, I am unable to answer your questions about the UN, but one need only to judge a tree by it's fruits.

And as always, Follow the Money.

[Byrne0ut]

Welcome, Kleis.

I'm not anywhere as learned as the veterans of this Forum are, but one thing I do know is that the Council of 12, a.k.a. the "Super Congress" is NOT a good thing.  Just like the 10 regional FEMA governors who answer directly to the President and NOT to the people in the states is a really bad sign.

In case of "emergency", this is FEMA's PUBLIC plan to divvy up the country, with the capitol of each region ruled by a hand picked UNelected governor who answers only to the White House via FEMA.


Sorry, I am unable to answer your questions about the UN, but one need only to judge a tree by it's fruits.

And as always, Follow the Money.

at least my home city of Philadelphia will be the capital of something again. 

[JT Coyoté]

To this I will say: The term of "alliance" has fundamentally changed since the 19th century. Back then, Alliance pretty much meant war, since alliances were made generally ad hoc for specific purposes, such as the mutual defense of two european countries against a third one, etc.
Today, alliances, as such, are made for peace and multilateral defense not against equal partners but against few weak "rogue state." Thus I would, if I were a judge, consider ruling a "distinction" in this case, since things did not stay as they were when the constitution was written.

Also, if we move to less down-to-Earth realms, I would consider it that the subject that is the US has changed as well. The US were not meant to be a "power" as such, just a federation of states that should provide freedom for the colonists. But since Wilson, this has been gradually changing and currently, the US is a classical nation state for which alliances are necessary, since it is a power player in the geopolitical arena and it would be in fact treasonous for it's president not to take a position in order to secure the particular interest of the US. There is, in this respect, no difference between the modern US and, say, WWI German Empire or Austria-Hungary, the archetypal power-nation-states.

I am not saying that this is good; I love the US as it was meant to be and dislike the modern nation state, of course; indeed, I am for a "global" old style US if it were possible and consider any kind of nationalism a very bad thing. But I am just pointing that by stating treason, by standard procedure, no one will ever achieve anything since there are arguments to the contrary easily used against such accusers and since the judicial and political arena is already biased for keeping the status quo, as it always has been.

Actually Mike, alliance as the operative word means the same thing today as it did in 1791.  The words whose meanings have blurred considerably in the 220 years since the Constitution was ratified are the words war and peace, among others.  Phrases like "Coalition equilibrium" and others have also entered the lexicon in the meantime, but all this is beside the point...

Jefferson's ideas in his quotation I posted were regarding a more general term, namely the idea of treaty power.  The founders in framing the Constitution were very careful to remain broad in their language, holding the high ground with a wide view when circumscribing power and logical restrictions, yet were very specific on areas of known temptation for transgression.  

I have to disagree with your assessment of the United States of America being just a federation of states -- that may have been the case under the Articles of Confederation, yet not so under the Constitution.  Under the Constitution all international power utilization would be held at the federal level, with the states together gathering in consensus through the Congress on all such matters.  Under the Articles of Confederation this was not the case.  

Unfortunately, over the last 150 years or so, the federal power has usurped many state powers taking them as its own, and as further enhancement of power, has invented by vague interpretation broad and sweeping extra-constitutional powers for itself well beyond the scope of the founders original intent.  

Time to rein the fed in, and take out the trash.

JTCoyoté

"The care of human life and happiness
and not their destruction is the first and
only legitimate object of good government."
~Thomas Jefferson