As Barack Obama's calculated dismantling of the United States of America enters its fourth month, several recent items coming forth from his administration are enough to even dumbfound the incredulous.
When viewed as components of an overall strategy, which Obama's team most certainly possesses, it paints very alarming and disturbing pictures and large, looming questions about exactly whose interests Obama might really be serving; because it certainly is not the American people.
Item 1:
Last month Mr. Obama and his administration's lackeys decided that they were going to eliminate usage of the words terror, war on terror, and terrorism. How such an insidious decision brings one molecule of benefit to the American people, though, is a complete mystery.
So Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been going about her meetings concerning our nation's security, national defense and defensive strategies without so much as mentioning the word, 'terrorism.'
And this same woman also sent out a nation-wide directive to all police agencies which put dangerous people like American war veterans (those who protect American lives) and people who were against abortions (those who protect American babies) and those against illegal immigration (those who protect our borders/sovereignty) into the category of 'rightwing extremists.' Later in the report she equates 'rightwing extremist' with 'terrorist.'
Recently in a speech on national security, Napolitano failed to mention the word, 'terrorist/terrorism' even one time during her whole speech - except - when she applied it to American soldiers returning from war.
Item 2:
About a week and a half ago, Mr. Obama publicized several top-secret, highly confidential CIA memos which outlined the nature of our high-level interrogation methods and restrictions. The memos are available online. I have read them. I am also sure that our enemies have as well.
This insane act was stupid, it betrays the trust of all of our military and intelligence personnel, it betrays the American people, it destroys ally nations' confidence in us, but most of all, it provides aid, comfort and intelligence to our enemy. Which is TREASON.
When confronted about why he gave away such valuable intelligence, the administration responded something about openness and full-disclosure. Horse radish! If Mr. Obama was REALLY INTERESTED IN OPENNESS AND FULL DISCLOSURE, why doesn't he SHOW US HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?! Why doesn't he allow us to SEE HIS COLLEGE ADMISSION RECORDS?!
And the fact that he refuses to do either proves that he is a liar; he is NOT interested in openness, he is interested in some kind of political gain; likely international.
His release of the classified memos does not bring one atom of benefit to the American people, but it sure does benefit our enemies. He stopped prosecuting terrorists; he is closing the jail that houses them, and now he is greatly impeding the interrogation of our enemy.
Exactly who are Obama's decisions benefitting?
Treason
Packerwatch (PW), a regular RightHooks reader and commenter, has said some things about the topic of Treason. PW might be a lawyer, he might be a law student, or he might be educated by wikipedia. Nonetheless, concerning treason, here is what he says:
Treason, as defined by the Constitution: "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."
First of all, treason is not merely defined as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies. The accused must also have "[adhered] to [the] Enemies."
Additionally, you have to take a look at the precedent set by Cramer vs. United States, a WWII treason case:
"...a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason."
So essentially, to convict Barack Obama of treason, you would first have to convince everyone that Obama was intentionally trying to comfort terrorists ... Secondly, you would have to prove that his goal was to betray the United States. And thirdly, as is Constitutionally mandated, you would have to find two witnesses to provide direct, non-circumstantial evidence that Barack Obama wanted to betray the U.S. and that this [action] achieved that premeditated goal. (-Packerwatch) [Edits by RightHooks]
So, if PW is correct, for Obama to be convicted of treason, it would have to be proven that he was intentionally trying to provide aid and comfort to our enemies. It would also require two witnesses to provide direct evidence that he wanted to betray the US and that his actions did indeed achieve that goal.
Can we say that Barack Obama is providing aid and comfort to our enemies? Yes, we can say that. His actions clearly benefit the terrorist and have no benefit to Americans.
Can we say that he intentionally is providing aid and comfort to our enemies? Yes, we can also say that he is deliberatley, intentionally taking actions which aid and comfort our enemies. But can we say that this is his internal intention? No. Nobody can. Only God sees the heart. And though it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Obama can still claim that he's a pigeon until it can be proven what his intentions are, which is unlikely apart from some dissapation from within his administration.
Do we have two witnesses to prove evidence that Obama wanted to betray the US and succeeded? Well, apart from some risky in-country intelligence maneuvers by the FBI, or some pinpointed investigations overseas by the CIA who can get the goods on some of Obama's co-horts, convicting him seems almost impossible.
But we don't have to do that.
For, you see, we do not need a treason conviction to IMPEACH this IMPOSTER! That is where our control is.
Summary
While Obama
a. makes classified information public, and hands it to our enemies
b. prohibits calling our enemy an enemy, and calls American war heroes 'terrorist' instead
c. stops the prosecution of the terrorists, and instead considers the prosecution of those who got intelligence from the terrorists (which protected Americans)
d. bows down to Arabian kings (then LIES about it) and schmoozes with dictators who plot our demise
e. makes this world a more dangerous place by showing weakness to predatory regimes
f. calls for American nuclear disarmament while our enemies acquire nuclear weapons or test missles for nuclear weapons
he certainly is acting like a traitor.
What else can you call his actions if not treason? Would one who intended to betray America have actions that would be any different?
We may not be able to convict him of the obvious betrayal he is subjecting this country to today, but we certainly can impeach him tomorrow.
Let's have the next TEA (Obama is a Traitor to Every American) Party be an IMPEACHMENT party!!
40 comments:
First of all, yes, I am a law student.
I can address all of your arguments one by one.
Obama still uses the word "terrorism," having used it as recently as Sunday's press conference (link to transcript below):
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/more-info/v-fullstory/story/1007396.html
Obama has said he doesn't like the phrase "War on Terror" because it isn't a war in the traditional sense of the word, where there's 2 or more clear, internationally recognized, sovereign entities engaged in armed conflict. It's really a matter of semantics, not treason.
The government has the power to declassify information, so Obama wasn't "publiciz[ing]...top secret, highly confidential memos." He was publicizing recently declassified memos. Additionally, it doesn't matter if "our enemies" read the memos because the techniques described in them have been explicitly banned by Obama, and are therefore not in use any longer and certainly not "valuable intelligence." Furthermore, the torture methods used under the Bush administration were almost certainly unconstitutional, as they violated international treaties to which the U.S. was a signatory, and according to Article 6 of the Constitution, these treaties along with the Constitution itself constitute "the supreme law of the land:"
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
So if ending torture of detainees constitutes treason, then following the Constitution leads to defying the Constitution, an obvious non sequitur.
Finally, PS, you say this:
"we do not need a treason conviction to IMPEACH this IMPOSTER! "
You apparently don't understand what impeachment is. No, you don't need a treason conviction impeach Obama. But you do need a treason conviction to remove him from office. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, a formal filing of charges. But once you impeach, or bring charges against, the President, you need to prove that he committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Therefore, you would need to convince 2/3 of the Senate that Obama has committed treason under the constitutional definition of the word. As you have already conceded, "convicting him seems almost impossible."
No matter how much you don't like Obama and disagree with his policies, there is literally no way you could remove him from office through the impeachment process, nor is there any way you can call him a traitor under the legal definition of the term.
YES!!! Sign me up for that impeachment party. Although he's not really our president (since he's never shown proof of citizenship) - sign me up just for grins :0) . . .
.
Kyrie Eleison,
Show proof of your citizenship.
~@:o?
.
PW, Law student? Dang, I'm smart.
Glad to hear that you are indeed a law student. Two of my very good friends are lawyers, as are some family. Their secret: do not compromise your ethical standards. Integrity seems easier to ignore in your field than many other fields, and too many make compromises. Beware.
I am pleased for you and wish you success.
Some comments on your comments...
Memos:
You say that the government has the right to de-classify document and are claiming, I suppose, that there is no damage done by the CIA memos released by Obama since someone might have declassified them. Well, a CIA executive today called the release of those memos, whether termed 'classified' or 'declassified,' as having the same effect "as if a bomb went off at the front door." Go ahead and justify Obama's actions and make excuses for him if you want, but releasing those memos was wrong on EVERY SINGLE LEVEL YOU CAN NAME, with the exception of successfully aiding our enemies. Prove me wrong; name ONE WAY in which the release of these memos HELPS AMERICANS.
Impeachment:
By the time we get 2/3 of Congress to see that Obama is a turd, people will be starting to come forward to keep their own heads from rolling...an event which might not be that far away since there is a critical election beginning in about 12 months. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. And don't forget what they say about payback...
Torture:
What we did to the Muslim scum who attacked this country or killed our soldiers is FARRRRR from torture. As the memos reveal, we did nothing more to these pukes than is commonly known that our own US soldiers are subjected to in SERE school. NOTHING MORE. That is not torture. Of course beheading Nick Berg was torture...where is the liberal uproar about that? Instead Obama and the Liberal WHACKS want to prosecute AMERICAN interrogators!!!
Don't get me started...
Kyrie,
We need to have quarterly TEA Partys. We need to keep this moving until the 2010 election when the Dems will pay DEARLY.
HI Ema!I'll show you mine if you show me yours :0) . . .
P.W. I understand your confusion. B.O. doesn't even know what he's saying or doing-so of course YOU (and the rest of his minions) don't know whether he does or doesn't use the words "war on terror" (at least this week anyway). I know you're the law student and all so correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't USA Constitutional law pertain to USA citizens??? Last I checked, those convicted (and suspected) terrorists were not USA citizens so your point on torture being unconstitutional is???
Furthermore (since P.S. is far too much of a gentleman) I will go ahead and "get started": as for B.O. and his lunatic liberal friends wanting to prosecute American interrogators -- the "torture" methods used under the Bush administration (just so we're clear) pale in comparrison to what Al Qaeda uses. I'm sure Al Qaeda's victims would LOVE to have been water boarded (as adverse to oh let's say: being burned alive in a skyscraper, being beaten, burned by a blowtorch, had their eye(s) removed, drug behind a vehicle, electrocuted, had their limbs cut off, or finger/toe nails removed, a drill put through their hands/feet - just to name a few).
As for the TEA PARTIES P.S. you're right. The 15th was only the beginning.
Kyrie you make it way too easy.
"I know you're the law student and all so correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't USA Constitutional law pertain to USA citizens??? Last I checked, those convicted (and suspected) terrorists were not USA citizens so your point on torture being unconstitutional is???"
First of all, the War Crimes Act, a U.S. law, prevents prisoners from being tortured. Even disregarding that law, however, the U.S. is signatory to numerous international treaties that outlaw torture. Obviously, the rights established by international treaties are not limited to U.S. citizens only. And the U.S. has a constitutional duty to respect those treaties because of Article 6 of the Constitution, which includes the following paragraph (which you would have read if you'd read my original post thoroughly):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." (Emphasis mine)
Waterboarding is also clearly torture. The U.S. State Department cites waterboarding as a torture method in reports on other countries' interrogation techniques. The U.S. has viewed waterboarding as torture since the Japanese and Gestapo used the technique in prison camps during WWII. T relevant laws defining torture always define it as something along the lines of "severe physical or mental pain," and usually define "severe" as "prolonged." It's hard to argue that slamming detainees' heads into walls, waterboarding, stress positions, and dousing naked prisoners in icy water for hours at a time, all of which were explicitly allowed under the Bush administration, do not cause prolonged pain, mental or physical. Waterboarding is illegal; there's really not that much of a debate to be had.
Furthermore, as far as U.S. law is concerned, it doesn't matter that Al-Qaeda used far more brutal methods of torture than the U.S. It's still against the law. It's like saying robbing a gas station is ok because it's not as severe as robbing a large bank.
And, of course, it is against the law to be President if you were not born on US soil...
You see Obama is trying to enforce that we abide by Article VI, yet he looks the opposite direction when it comes to Article II...
And anyone who would insist that we abide by VI, and yet does not demand EQUAL 'openness' about Obama's relationship to Article II, is, well, is a flaming hypocrite.
Just sayin...
.
PackSmack,
"And, of course, it is against the law to be President if you were not born on US soil..."
First rule of public speaking, "Get the facts right. Then twist them into a lie."
It is against _WHICH_ law to be President if you were not born _ON_ US soil? Please list chapter and verse.
Funny, you are for 'law and order' before you are against 'law and order.' You make-up a law to say a intelligent black man cannot be president (his birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii). You piss all over yourself denying the facts and hope no one notices.
Law applies to _all_ people. Torture is against the law! Torture is against the law! Torture is against the law!
Which part of "Torture is against the law!" do you not understand.
___
As for your teabagging parties - love to watch. Will you be teabagging Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul while Kyrie Eleison teabags you?
~@:o?
.
Ema,
Feeling rather perverse today, are you?
What is the law that says one can not be a President unless he was born on US soil, you ask? Ema, even PW knows the answer to this one. It is in a document called the United States Constitution. You ought to read it.
And what was that swipe about a 'black man' you tried slipping in there? Are you accusing me of racism? Are you out of cards in your deck today so you're trying to play that one? Don't go there, Ema.
Obama is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be President because he cannot prove that he was born in the USA, and what he is doing to this country is good evidence that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they put that LAW in the Constitution. His allegiance is not to this country, he hates America and is seeking to destroy it.
Btw, the 'birth certificate' you claim proves his Hawaiian birth is not a Birth Certificate, rather is a Certificate of Live Birth which Hawaii gave to babies born OVERSEAS. Also, he was an adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, which does not allow dual citizenship. Also, he travelled to Pakistan in the early 80's; since US citizens were not allowed to go there, he had to have had INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP at the time.
Better drink some more coffee before trying to drool at your keyboard because you need to wake your brain up first.
But have a nice day.
Hi P.W. Thank you for your insight on Constitutional Laws for U.S. citizens and international law (that only certain people have to follow apparently). I wonder which constitution or law Al Qaeda is following? Any ideas?
Speaking of citizens of the USA - Until B.O. shows proof of HIS citizenship - HE should be in Gitmo getting water boarded for treason and impersonating a public officer.
Kyrie,
I like how you think! Let's let them dunk Obama until he can produce that birth certificate! What a complete FRAUD!
Here's Obama, letting terrorists off the hook, then enabling them by telling our secret intel, and then calling veterans and recent soldiers coming home from war terrorists, instead. What a complete CROCK!
He gets my vote in the Anti-Christ primary elections.
"Hi P.W. Thank you for your insight on Constitutional Laws for U.S. citizens and international law...I wonder which constitution or law Al Qaeda is following? Any ideas? "
The reason we are better than them is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I think even PS might agree with that.
...
Ema, it is a Constitutional requirement that a presidential candidate be born in the U.S. Additionally, a person born to U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. (such as John McCain) are also considered natural born citizens due to the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of common law on the subject.
I'm not ignoring Article II. Obama was born in the U.S. The reason he can't provide his long form birth certificate (instead giving the "certificate of live birth") is as follows:
"The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department."
And of course here's a picture of Obama's birth announcement in Honolulu:
http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/close-up.jpg
.
Packerwatch,
"Ema, it is a Constitutional requirement that a presidential candidate be born in the U.S. "
If ye be a law student, ye better go back and learn gooder. No where do de Constitution say a president has to be born _in_ USA. To the pigs of this blog (PackSmack and Kyrie Eleison) who disparately hate having an intelligent black man as President the little thing like _in_, is being made to be big.
Get over it, as the Supreme Court said. Mr Obama won the election.
Kyrie Eleison,
You call yourself an American? What kind?
You want to send the duly elected President to the concentration camp in Cuba. You call for torture, mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Let me guess, you're a christian too.
~@:o?
.
(by the way, it's me, PackSmack...I have changed my moniker to RightHooks)
Ema, you ARE having a bad day, aren't you? Calling us pigs, spatting with PW and attacking Kyrie...did you forget to take your Riddilin this morning, again? I hope your anti-social tendencies are not also practiced on those around you.
And what kind of a racist are you to specify that Mr. Obama is a BLACK president? Why is that significant? Why are you bringing RACIST adjectives into a discussion about an office? It shows that YOU ARE A RACIST because your usage of the word, 'black,' in the context of what you said infers that 'black' is either a qualifying distinction or a disqualifying distinction. Why is it that you FAVOR people solely on their race? Do you then HATE people based SOLELY on their race, too? Does one have to be 'black' for you to like them; that is, is being 'black' a prerequisite in determining the quality or credibility of a person? Have you been a hating, petty, despicable little racist your whole life, or is this something that just recently took control of your wicked little hating heart? Do your parents know that you are a RACIST? Are they proud of you, or are they hating racists themselves? What about your neighbors? Do they have to be 'black' in order for you to say hi to them? Do they know that you are a petty, snivelling, hate-filled, discriminating, wretched RACIST and despis-or of every human who is not 'black?' Did you receive the Most Likely To Be A Life-Time Racist Award in your high school yearbook? Can you interpret ANYTHING through something other than the small, selfish, hate filter of pure racism? I mean, when do you read a book, are you hating the fact that the pages are white but the words are black? Is it possible for anyone on this planet who is not of your race to do ANYTHING that is positive, or must one be OF YOUR RACE in order to accomplish anything significant at all? And when a member of your race accomplishes something, did this person do so BECAUSE HE/SHE was a MEMBER of YOUR RACE, or because of the God-created abilities and gifting of this person? How many people do you admire JUST BECAUSE they are of YOUR RACE? And how many do you HATE jest because they are NOT of your race? You, Ema, by playing the race card YET AGAIN, after TWO warnings, PROVE that you are a snivelling, simpering, whining, petty little racist puke. I TOLD you that I WILL NOT TOLERATE racism on this blog, and then I warned you to not go there. You must think that I am an idiot who does not mean what I say, and so you think that you can trifle with me with your despicable display of racism. I told you not to go there. So here's the deal. The VERY NEXT TIME YOU PLAY the race card, I will PERSONALLY BAN YOUR IP from this blog and every IP you have ever arrived on this blog from. Liberals are ignorant and lost; Muslims have believed a lie, but American black-white RACISM is PETTY, SELFISH HATRED and it WILL NOT BE TOLERATED on this blog.
I told you not to go there.
Have a nice day.
"No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
PS (or RH), I don't think Ema was being racist. I think she was trying to imply that you are. Although I disagree with you on most things, I'll come to your defense here and say I don't think you're racist. I think your, shall we say, distaste for Islam is largely unwarranted, but that's not racism and it's a debate for another time. Actually, I think we've already had that debate 3 or 4 times.
Ema,
OK, Sorry I blew up.
Look, your voice is welcome on this blog; you have earned a place here and I actually do appreciate your efforts and interaction. I am sure that I would like you if we met, though we disagree on many fronts.
Please do not play the race card.
Too much has been invested and too much has been lost in efforts to tear down walls between black Americans and white Americans.
Ideology may separate us, because one can change one's mind, but race may not, because none of us were irresponsible for being born.
Any place, this blog included, is a better place with the absence of racial tension.
Thank you.
Again, I'm sorry I blew up. I don't believe all those to be true which I wrote about you, I was hypothesizing to give you a thorough spanking; I had warned you that it was a boundary and you blatantly crossed it.
Ema:
Being a frontman goon for Gyorgy Schwartz (oops George Soros) does not exactly qualify a person as intelligent-even the worst of public school graduates (after 12, or 13 or 14 yrs) can read from a teleprompter.
I thought discussing one's faith (or lack thereof) was tabu for YOU Ema. Although I realize there a few double standards here with you -- please let me know if that rule has changed (again) -- because if it has I'd be happy to oblige you with what kind of American Christian I am.
.
Kyrie Eleison,
You really do hate intelligent people, don't you.
As far as what kind of christian yo claim to be, I care not. I'd like to hear how a person can claim to be a follower of the good jewish rabbi Jesus Christ and his wonderful teachings (you know, the beatitudes and such)- all the while call for torture and the mass killing of unarmed and defenseless people.
~@:o?
.
.
Kyrie Eleison,
What an utter absolute loser you are. Really.
"even the worst of public school graduates (after 12, or 13 or 14 yrs) can read from a teleprompter. "
George 'shrub' Bush?
Packerwatch,
Natural born citizenship comes from 'blood,' no matter where in the world a person is born. So, should a child be born in Kenya from a mother who is a citizen of USA at the time of the child's birth, then the child is a natural born citizen of USA. And eligible to become president. The fact that the child is also a citizen of another country does not affect USA citizenship. (It takes an active act (renouncement) by a citizen to lose one's citizenship, visiting a country is not grounds for loss of USA citizenship.)
Study gooder your law ;-)
~@:o?
.
Kyrie,
Last night Ben and I were communicating via email and were both a bit mystified that one European (French or Italian, can't remember which) had landed on this blog after searching for, "Kyrie Eleison". At first I thought that you had a stalker, or perhaps a reputation. Then as I checked on the visitor's search page I saw that there was a Kyrie Eleison Lighthouse and some Kyrie Eleison association with what seemed to be Catholic connections. So I figured that Kyrie Eleison must be your pseudonym. That's when Ben emailed me and was scratching his head about it too. We both knew that if we wanted, we could do a bit of a search on it and get more details and information, but it was time for me to turn in.
So two minutes after I turned off the computer, I picked up a book I am reading called Hildegard of Bingen, a book about this 11th century German spiritual mystic. The subtitle of it is called Companion of the Angles. Anyway, she was sent to live in a monastery when she was eight. Of course the monastery was Catholic. So as she's describing her experiences, she repeats verbatim what the monks and nuns are saying.
At the top of the second page, as I was reading and trying to understand the Latin, I almost dropped the book. For there in the Latin it said, "Kyrie Eleison! Kyrie!"
And just a few moments prior to that I had been discussing it at length with Ben! I was very surprised, and very intrigued.
Thankfully, the book provided the English translation of the all the Latin phrases in the footnotes below.
And now I understand.
Very nice, Kyrie, very nice. :)
Hi Ema:
You may want to read up in the Old Testament of the Bible regarding what Jews & Christians think about fighting for what you believe in (faith, country, freedoms, etc) - because I think you missed a few verses, chapters, and books in general where those subjects are concerned.
Nowhere in that Bible does it tell us to be passivists when terrorists (or people who refer to me and my countrymen as "infidels") threaten my people and my country-matter of fact it's pretty clear on what to do with "yeast." Nowhere in that Bible does it tell us to roll over and play dead to out of control gov'ts, who spend money recklessly -- like this CURRENT administration who seeks to move us (at lightning speed) into a socialist form of gov't -- which by the way has NEVER worked before and will NEVER work now (so PLEASE get a clue libs and learn from history).
Our forefathers worked & fought too long and hard to get us where we are for us to just roll over and surrender to this pathetic socialist agenda. It's time you socialists/liberals realized that while you're blabbing on endlessly about the "greedy" capitalist pigs-your socialist double standard of wanting to get into the capitalist's pockets is every bit as greedy if not moreso.
It's time you socialist pigs put up or shut up. Don't tell ME what to do with MY money and take MY freedoms from ME or shove your islamic religion down MY throat. Show me what YOU are doing for the "common good" with YOUR money & leave my Jesus, my gun and my freedoms in general alone (including my right to free speech).
Show me how you are "changing" things and making a difference. And while you're at it - show me where the Hollywood liberal bigmouths (like Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, Susan Sarandon, Jeanene Garafallo, et al) are making a difference (you know after they purchase those new double D's; the 400 billion dollar mansions; the Hummers, Porsches, and BMWs - that is).
Hey!!! I have an idea! Why don't we take all of these big mouth liberal hollywood folk's salaries -- combine them, and pay off the nat'l debt? They've been wanting this for years. Why not oblige them? Heck we could start over debt free in no time! Then redistribute what they have left and we should be good to go eh?
I know it's hard to believe that not everyone is fooled by this inane socialist crap that B.O., Pelosi and co. are selling you liberals. I know it's hard to believe that people actually DO care about this country and are proud of it. I know it's hard for you liberals to believe that there are people who would rather work for what they have then take a gov't controlled handout. I know it's hard for people like you (who are anti-family, anti-military, anti-faith, anti-freedom, anti-anything that makes sense essentially) to understand why this country, it's people, our faith, and our freedoms -- are not only worth protesting over, but worth FIGHTING for. But that's just the way it is-and it's not debatable. Only an idiot would argue against that.
Yes R.H. & Ben-that is a psuedonym and I chose it for good reason :0) as you have very aptly concluded. Although I know Who is ultimately in control and that in the end all will be well-I will NEVER give up the good fight of our faith as long as I have breath (or a keyboard and internet access). What's a good way to get you my email address w/o posting it publicly :0)?
"Natural born citizenship comes from 'blood,' no matter where in the world a person is born. So, should a child be born in Kenya from a mother who is a citizen of USA at the time of the child's birth, then the child is a natural born citizen of USA. And eligible to become president. The fact that the child is also a citizen of another country does not affect USA citizenship...Study gooder your law..."
"Citizenship" comes from blood. "Natural born citizenship" comes from being born in territory of the United States. While it is true that neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court have specifically defined "natural born citizen," English common law, whose language was the basis of the language used in the Constitution, has always considered natural born citizenship to require birth within the borders of the country in question.
Although it doesn't really matter because Obama was born in the U.S. This conspiracy theory bullshit is maddening.
"Show me where the Hollywood liberal bigmouths (like Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, Susan Sarandon, Jeanene Garafallo, et al) are making a difference (you know after they purchase those new double D's; the 400 billion dollar mansions; the Hummers, Porsches, and BMWs - that is).
Hey!!! I have an idea! Why don't we take all of these big mouth liberal hollywood folk's salaries -- combine them, and pay off the nat'l debt? They've been wanting this for years. Why not oblige them? Heck we could start over debt free in no time!"
The fact that you think Hollywood stars are anywhere near wealthy enough to pay off the entire national debt and the fact that you think that it's even remotely possible for a mansion to cost $400 billion speaks volumes about your intellectual prowess and is why I can't even begin to take a single thing you say seriously.
.
Packerwatch,
""Natural born citizenship" comes from being born in territory of the United States."
Not legally. The law has not been settled so narrowly by the Supreme Court. You will find natural born citizenship applies to a child born of citizen(s) of USA regardless of where they are born. (Service members of USA create children around the world (legitimately and illegitimately)who can claim natural born citizenship to run for president.)
~@:o?
.
.
Kyrie Eleison,
Drop dead.
"Our forefathers worked & fought too long and hard to get us where we are for us to just roll over and surrender to this pathetic socialist agenda."
How's your Social Security, Medicare, universal free education programs doing?
"a socialist form of gov't -- which by the way has NEVER worked before and will NEVER work now (so PLEASE get a clue libs and learn from history)."
USA Congress, USA corporations, and military all enjoy a very high standard of living from socialist form of gov't. Japan, China, Sweden, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Canada would disagree with you on a quality of life supplied through their socialist forms of government.
Modern life cannot exist without taking care of all the people.
~@:o?
.
"Not legally. The law has not been settled so narrowly by the Supreme Court."
As I said, it has not been settled either way by the Supreme Court. However, when looking at intent of the framers of the Constitution, it's reasonable to think that their definition of natural born citizenship would be similar to the definition used in English common law, the principles of which the Founders were very familiar with.
P.W.-You have a very valid point and I should have been more specific. What I should have said was, the hollywood bigmouths could pay off the nat'l debt BEFORE B.O. took office. But now, it will indeed take about 100 generations of stars & starletts salaries to pay off. Excellent point.
Ema-I'm still here . . .
To R.H. & Ben-How's the impeachment coming along guys? What's the latest?
"P.W.-You have a very valid point and I should have been more specific. What I should have said was, the hollywood bigmouths could pay off the nat'l debt BEFORE B.O. took office. But now, it will indeed take about 100 generations of stars & starletts salaries to pay off. Excellent point. "
Kyrie, I wish there were some kinder, more civilized way to express this sentiment, but there isn't: You're really fucking stupid.
First of all, Bush had already run the deficit up to $10 trillion by the time he left office. Now it's up to $11 trillion. Whoop-de-fucking-do. The time where you could have credibly complained about excessive spending without sounding like a partisan hack was 5 years ago.
Secondly, let's take a brief look at some interesting numbers. Here are the highest paid movie stars over the course of last year.
Will Smith--$80 million (.008% of the 2008 national debt)
Johnny Depp--$72 million (.007%)
Eddie Murphy--$55 million (.006%)
Leonardo Dicaprio--$45 million (.004%)
Good luck with your brilliant financial plan, Kyrie. Why the fuck don't you run for Congress or something?
By the way, there's no such thing as a "$400 billion mansion" you dumbass. Go take a high school econ class, moron.
Wow PW-I'm really starting to think you have a thing for me. Kind of like that elementary school scenario-where boy likes girl, so he's mean to the girl (cuz he doesn't know how else to act or how else to draw her attention towards him). If that's how you treat women in your hometown, I can see why you'd have trouble picking women up. Is that why you are taking it out on me and enlarging your territory with women you don't know on the internet? Care to take a swing at me while you're at it there big boy? Is that how your mother's boyfriends use to do her? Did they swing at her too? Do you talk to your mother like that? Gosh I sure hope not. How do you plan on justifying that to yourself, when as a lawyer, you know it's illegal to beat up women, but then go ahead and do it anyway?
Kyrie, you can lump "relationship expert" in there with "economist" in the list of things you're not.
.
Packerwatch,
"Kyrie, you can lump "relationship expert" in there with "economist" in the list of things you're not."
Zing!
~@:o?
.
PW-awww. I'm really disappointed with your response (or lack thereof really). But can't say I'm surprised. I realize you're young and in your ? year of that liberal college you are attending (that is brainwashing you rather nicely I see); as well as not running with a full deck - so I will excuse you this time.
But we really need to get things back on track here - which is - why we want this imbecile IMPEACHED. As I was saying . . . (since PW missed the point COMPLETELY the first time, I will go ahead and spell it out FOR you honey) B.O.'s out of control spending is not only inexcusable, it's completely irresponsible. And, as R.H. was saying:
"Summary
While Obama
a. makes classified information public, and hands it to our enemies
b. prohibits calling our enemy an enemy, and calls American war heroes 'terrorist' instead
c. stops the prosecution of the terrorists, and instead considers the prosecution of those who got intelligence from the terrorists (which protected Americans)
d. bows down to Arabian kings (then LIES about it) and schmoozes with dictators who plot our demise
e. makes this world a more dangerous place by showing weakness to predatory regimes
f. calls for American nuclear disarmament while our enemies acquire nuclear weapons or test missles for nuclear weapons
he certainly is acting like a traitor."
I'd say we have an ironclad case here :0). IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!!!
Kyrie, do you have any fucking idea what impeachment is?
Explain to me what, in your mind, impeachment is and what it means.
.
Packerwatch,
Kyrie Eleison, like RightHooks and Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul love to play the victim. Kyrie Eleison is a hand-grenade thrower. Kyrie Eleison has no interest in anything beyond hysterically screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater, laughing at the ensuing carnage, and then sniveling she is a victim, not responsible as she is carried away by the police.
She is probably receiving Social Security benefits along with Medicare all the while ranting against socialism.
~@:o?
.
P.W.-you might want to stop talking dirty to me. As a woman, I can tell you Ema is getting VERY jealous of the attention you are giving to me. You should back off a bit -- go by her/him some flowers and chocolate-that should just do the trick and calm her/him down a few notches. Is there ANY way we can salvage this IMPEACHMENT conversation and get this IMPEACHMENT party back on track - I know it's hard for you to concentrate but I know you can do it w/o talking dirty to me P.W.
Kyrie, you are quite the narcissist to think that pointing out your, to put it nicely, "lack of knowledge" is akin to online flirting. Grow up.
Post a Comment