Defining treason

[freedombecki]

The House has a Republican majority and could vote to impeach Obama as soon as they drew up some charges of high crimes.

or misdemeanors, don't forget those.

Regent, as impeachment is a political process and NOT a judicial one, no CRIME, be it high crime or misdemeanor, IS actually necessary for the House to impeach.

The HoR can impeach for whatever reason it chooses.

Now obviously we'd all like it if the House only impeached for serious crimes, but the constitution doesn't say that, does it?

Misdemanors can decribe pretty much anything the HoR wants it to mean.

Strongarming the U.S. Treasury to make a same-day cashier's check to pay to the order of Solyndra is nothing Obama should write home about, but it could be a breach of the Constitution since Congress is in charge of funding, not the Executive Branch, and in particular, not the guardian of the Constitution the POTUS is expected to be by job description.

The other would be the routing of 600 billion dollars of Social Security designated to benefit those who put the money in there from their paychecks to fund a new bill called Obamacare may be considered an act of piracy against the middle class. Again, nothing to write home about and possibly, a transgression against the Constitutional assignments of disbursements ordered by Congress, and not the meddlesome administration of President Barack Obama, who is Robin Hood in his own mind, since all disbursements being paid are going to his contributors at this point. That is corruption, and it is nothing else. If by some chance President Obama is reelected and conservatives take the senate, the proverbial "his ass is grass" could take up the next two years of the nation's time with a put on his calling the Treasury to expropriate Congress' tasks..

 

[editec]

Freedombecki,

The House could elect to begin impeachment just because they don't like the Presidents tie, if they wanted to.


THAT was my point.

 

[uscitizen]

NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.

That's smarm, dear:
www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/​NAFTA/​nafta.asphttp://www.bing.com/search?q=nafta&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI#
Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994.

Nope thems the facts dear:
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

[freedombecki]

NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.

That's smarm, dear:
www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/​NAFTA/​nafta.asp
Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which sitting president signed the bill into law in 1994, which is a requirement for its contents to be a law.

And thank you for making my case.

 

[hazlnut]

Early in Clinton’s first term he was responsible for, and probably ordered, the slaughter in Waco, Texas.

When you say 'probably ordered' you come off as a conspiracy theory idiot and shoot yourself in the foot as far as people taking your seriously.

You put a lot of time into your post, but no intelligent person will read past 'probably ordered'. Next time stick with what you can prove with logic and facts.

 

[Flanders]

hazlnut;6301400

When you say 'probably ordered' you come off as a conspiracy theory idiot and shoot yourself in the foot as far as people taking your seriously.

To hazelnut: Interpreting and speculating on Clinton’s role in the Branch Davidian Massacre, or the aftermath, is not conspiracy theory by any definition. See this thread for a bit more about conspiracy theories:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/238318-matched-pairs.html

hazlnut;6301400

You put a lot of time into your post, but no intelligent person will read past 'probably ordered'.

To hazelnut: Were you appointed spokesman for the smart people? If not, how can you possible know their IQs? or when they stop reading?

Since I don’t know any more than you know about the IQs of people who read my messages, I’ll decide on the intelligence of those who RESPOND if you don’t mind.

hazlnut;6301400

Next time stick with what you can prove

To hazelnut: In other words only write text that you approve of. Get real!

hazlnut;6301400

with logic and facts.

To hazelnut: People exercising absolute power are always butchers; they are not stupid. Should critics ever be restricted to saying only those things a judge allows in a courtroom powerful people would never be criticized.

As to logic the aftermath supports my claim:

Quote OP
He certainly approved of it after the fact because no one in the government was ever punished for it; . . .

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, let me get your logic straight. The Republican Party would have to die in order to regain it's honor? So, we would have an honorable but dead Republican Party, and the U.S. would be left with only one party, the Democratic Party? Am I understanding you correctly?

Logic, rational thought, honor and truth are foreign concepts to TruthMocker. True story.

Perhaps. I haven't been around long enough to draw any conclusions that regard. I'll let him/her answer if he/she is willing, but I appreciate your input.

Still waiting for that answer huh?

Truthmatters NEVER responds when she's challenged or questioned.

The reason for that is because that would require critical thinking on her part. And that's an impossibility.

 

[regent]

One of the reasons the Republican party may have lost, is their goals sound goofy to many Americans. In this election they declared it was essential that Obama become a one term president. That became their bread and butter issue, find bad stuff about Obama. Enough already.
For corporations they wanted the usual backward shuffle, free business of regulations, taxes and expenses.
For people the backward shuffle was keep things the same, except maybe rid the nation of social security, Obama care, Medicare and the other communist social programs.
America needs two parties, one to represent corporations, and the other the people. In this regard the people know it is essential to keep our corporations alive, well--and home, and often see the need to help corporatations. Too often, however, the issues sound greedy, and using such arguments as social security makes us weaker as a people sound assanine.

 

[zakdavis]

I remember hearing somewhere, that the past ten years (this was a couple years back) have been a time of more executive power at the expense of legislative power, and that the ten years before that was an era of legislative power, and that the executive branch and the legislative branch are always fighting each other.

 

[Flanders]

I remember hearing somewhere, that the past ten years (this was a couple years back) have been a time of more executive power at the expense of legislative power, and that the ten years before that was an era of legislative power, and that the executive branch and the legislative branch are always fighting each other.

To zakdavis: Don’t believe it. If they fight at all they fight over which is the best way to screw private sector Americans while making it look they are helping them.

Advertising is the very essence of democracy. Anton Chekhov (1860 - 1904)

Had television been around in Chekhov’s day he would have said government. Note that totalitarian governments also advertise their glories. And who advertises more than dictators!

 

[zakdavis]

I remember hearing somewhere, that the past ten years (this was a couple years back) have been a time of more executive power at the expense of legislative power, and that the ten years before that was an era of legislative power, and that the executive branch and the legislative branch are always fighting each other.

To zakdavis: Don’t believe it. If they fight at all they fight over which is the best way to screw private sector Americans while making it look they are helping them.

Um, I don't think you quite understand what I said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Treason? Maybe the signing of seccession papers?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

C Clayton Jones

Tancredo is a bitter partisan hack, just like the OP; desperate and angry that a democratic president is about to be re-elected.

That's from the first page and looky there ... He was right.

Old Rocks

Treason? Maybe the signing of seccession papers?

shhhhh ... We WANT them to leave.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Definition = THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Flame away.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why flame the mentally incompetant?

 

[beagle9]

Early in Clinton’s first term he was responsible for, and probably ordered, the slaughter in Waco, Texas. He certainly approved of it after the fact because no one in the government was ever punished for it; that is no one except federal employees and innocent children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing:

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Forensic evidence quickly linked McVeigh and Terry Nichols to the attack; Nichols was arrested, and within days both were charged. Michael and Lori Fortier were later identified as accomplices. McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer who was a Gulf War veteran, had detonated an explosive-filled Ryder rental truck parked in front of the building. McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, had assisted in the bomb preparation. Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege at Waco.

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clinton also used NATO to bomb Christians in the former Yugoslavia; Christians who never did anything to the American people, nor were they ever a threat to this country. His presidency went downhill from there, yet he was elected to a second term. In 1998 he was impeached but the Senate made a mockery of the trial and he remained in office. If there is one lesson government-watchers and campaign mavens can learn from Clinton it is this: A substantial portion of the American people yearn to be governed by the foulest of human beings.

Parenthetically, nobody, including me, wants to be governed by a dirty little moralist, but that is exactly what the country gets with maggots like Clinton and Hussein. They are not the opposite of Supreme Deity priests as liberals apparently believe. Their sick morality is just as tyrannical as any ever implemented by priesthoods throughout history. Their disease is so advanced they truly believe they are compassionate humanitarians. They believe this in spite of the brutality and bloodshed that attaches to them like a shadow.

In today’s column former Congressman Tom Tancredo states the obvious:

. . . Obama had earned impeachment even before the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. His open abuse of power in making recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

However, if treason is added to the mix, Congress will find it hard to shirk its duty to impeach him. The many people who think those other offenses do not rise to the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will not be so charitable with regard to the crime of treason.

Mr. Tancredo is partially correct. A large number of Americans would impeach Hussein in a flash, while his supporters will never agree to impeaching him, or any president for that matter. There are but two ways to impeach a president; 1) Congress must do it; 2) Violent revolution.

1. Congress will never impeach a Democrat traitor. They were ready to impeach Richard Nixon for getting caught engaging in dirty tricks, but no Congress will ever impeach a president for treason —— never —— not in a million years.

2. The American people will not turn to revolution so long as a president can be voted out of office. Traitors have been counting on that flaw in the American system since 1945. Traitors know that policies are not voted out of office. Business As Usual proves it in election after election, while impeaching a president for treason stands a good chance of impeaching his policies, too.

Tom Tancredo asks the most penetrating question of all:

Obama is unwilling even today to name the enemy that has declared war on the United States and to deal forthrightly with that imminent threat. Our pro-Islamist president will not name Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Iran as enemies of the United States even though they have declared war on us and are engaged in numerous plots to bring death and destruction to the American homeland.

Why are we so reluctant to call this by its right name – treason?

The answer is simple. It cannot be treason when the enemy is the United Nations. To name Iran an enemy of the United States names the United Nations as well.

Put Tancredo’s question aside and ask yourself this: Would Hussein and Bill Clinton be guilty of treason for making deals with the enemy if America was not a member of the United Nations?

In addition, naming the Muslim Brotherhood admits that fomenting the Arab Spring was treason from the outset. Note that those countries the Arab Spring handed to the Muslim Brotherhood are already member states in the United Nations. If those countries were not full-blown enemies before, they sure as hell are enemies now. Intended consequences: UN-loving Democrat traitors can betray the country openly with Muslim Brotherhood governments without fear of being charged with treason.

Finally, should Hussein somehow manage to get a second term there is not a chance he will be impeached or removed from office. The best Americans can hope for is that Hussein will be impeached and found guilty in a Senate trial after he leaves office.

Here’s the link to T. T.’s piece:

IMPEACH OBAMA FOR TREASON
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo says Benghazi amounts to giving 'aid and comfort' to enemy
Published: 13 hours ago
by TOM TANCREDO

Impeach Obama for treason

Define Treason ? Anyone associated with the documentory I just watched called "The Untold History of the United States', now showing on Showtime the movie channel.

As soon as I sat down to watch this, I knew exactly what it would be doing or suggesting, where as it is taking all of our past achievements, struggles and death over the years, in which had defintely made this nation peaceful and free for all these years, and is now turning us into the enemy instead of the enemies in which we had fought and died with over the years (they are the victims now and we are the bad guy's) eh?