Has Barack Hussein Obama committed TREASON?

[AlwaysWrite]

On two presidential Inauguration Days, Barack Hussein Obama vowed "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The U.S. Constitution declares that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. Repeating and emphasizing: TREASON.

Under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, acts of treason include giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And "giving aid and comfort" is defined, in part as: Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or that weakens of tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.

Further, the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of TREASON, and it may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support. Actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.

DOESN'T THIS DEAL PROVIDE "AID AND COMFORT" TO IRAN IN THE FORM OF FREEING UP MORE THAN $100 BILLION, and won't that money strengthen Iran? Does that sound like "aid and comfort" or treason to you?

 

[Greg T.]

On two presidential Inauguration Days, Barack Hussein Obama vowed "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The U.S. Constitution declares that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. Repeating and emphasizing: TREASON.

Under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, acts of treason include giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And "giving aid and comfort" is defined, in part as: Any act that deliberately strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or that weakens of tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.

Further, the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of TREASON, and it may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support. Actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.

DOESN'T THIS DEAL PROVIDE "AID AND COMFORT" TO IRAN IN THE FORM OF FREEING UP MORE THAN $100 BILLION, and won't that money strengthen Iran? Does that sound like "aid and comfort" or treason to you?

This would be true is the ACTUAL oath is the same as the public oath everyone sees on TV. The president is sworn in behind closed doors before the public inauguration. So, who knows WTF they swear to?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

This would be true is the ACTUAL oath is the same as the public oath everyone sees on TV. The president is sworn in behind closed doors before the public inauguration. So, who knows WTF they swear to?

Dear Greg T:

As specified in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

[If Barack Hussein Obama didn't actually take the oath as specified in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, of the Constitution, he wasn't abiding by the Constitution ... but a strong case can be made that Obama doesn't always abide by the Constitution, anyway.]

 

[Greg T.]

Dear Greg T:

As specified in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

[If Barack Hussein Obama didn't actually take the oath as specified in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, of the Constitution, he wasn't abiding by the Constitution ... but a strong case can be made that Obama doesn't always abide by the Constitution, anyway.]

I know. And that's my point. Do we REALLY know the presidents actually take THAT oath? If they do, then why do it twice?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

I know. And that's my point. Do we REALLY know the presidents actually take THAT oath? If they do, then why do it twice?

... but in this day and age, under Barack Hussein Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, does the U.S. Constitution really mean anything anymore?

 

[Greg T.]

... but in this day and age, under Barack Hussein Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, does the U.S. Constitution really mean anything anymore?

By the looks of it.....not much.

 

[WAMO]

NOT THAT I AM A MASTER OF INTERPRETATION, BUT COULDNT THAT FALL ON THE RED CROSS AS WELL? AND ANY OTHER AMERICAN BORN "HELP" ORGINIZATION?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

NOT THAT I AM A MASTER OF INTERPRETATION, BUT COULDNT THAT FALL ON THE RED CROSS AS WELL? AND ANY OTHER AMERICAN BORN "HELP" ORGINIZATION?

Dear WAMO:
The Red Cross provides humanitarian aid ... and it doesn't make available billions of dollars (to an enemy of the U.S.) that can be used to buy weapons from Russia and finance terrorist activities in the Mideast and elsewhere.

 

[WAMO]

JUST QUOTING WHAT WAS WRITEN ABOVE; "GIVE AID AND COMFORT" , "ACTUAL HELP OR THE SUCCESS OF THE ENTERPRISE IS NOT RELEVANT". SO...?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

JUST QUOTING WHAT WAS WRITEN ABOVE; "GIVE AID AND COMFORT" , "ACTUAL HELP OR THE SUCCESS OF THE ENTERPRISE IS NOT RELEVANT". SO...?

Dear WAMO:

That reference to "relevance" simply means that if someone gives aid and comfort to the enemy, even if the attempt to aid the enemy doesn't succeed, THE ATTEMPT itself is sufficient to qualify as treason, according to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[MI2AZ]

We might want to consider putting a stop to the sale of weapons or monetary aid to countries. Today's friend is tomorrow's enemy (and vice versa - England, Russia, Germany, Japan, Iran, etc).

 

[AlwaysWrite]

We might want to consider putting a stop to the sale of weapons or monetary aid to countries. Today's friend is tomorrow's enemy (and vice versa - England, Russia, Germany, Japan, Iran, etc).

Dear MI2AZ:

That might be a logical consideration ... but it pales in comparison to making more than $100 billion available to an avowed enemy of the U.S. and the world's biggest supporter -- financial and otherwise -- of terrorism.

 

[WAMO]

DONT SEE WHERE HUMANITARIAN AID IS FORGIVEN. AID IN ANY FORM IS TREASON.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

DONT SEE WHERE HUMANITARIAN AID IS FORGIVEN. AID IN ANY FORM IS TREASON.

Dear WAMO:

I suppose it COULD be, if such aid is given directly to the leaders of Iran, Hamas or ISIS, but most humanitarian aid isn't earmarked in such directions. And even if an earthquake were to strike Iran, humanitarian aid to the affected civilians would hardly constitute aid to the enemy, in the true sense of the phrase.

 

[WAMO]

AND TOTALLY AGREE WITH MI2.

 

[WAMO]

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT A MASTER OF INTERPRETATION. AND WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THERE RENDERING AID, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO IS WHO? ISNT HELPING PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT IRAN, HAMAS, ISIS, ETC...THE SAME AS HELPING THE ENEMY? ITS ALL ABOUT INTERPRETATION. IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WEAK, DOES IT NOT FOLLOW THAT YOUR COUNTRY IS WEAK.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT A MASTER OF INTERPRETATION. AND WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THERE RENDERING AID, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO IS WHO? ISNT HELPING PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT IRAN, HAMAS, ISIS, ETC...THE SAME AS HELPING THE ENEMY? ITS ALL ABOUT INTERPRETATION. IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WEAK, DOES IT NOT FOLLOW THAT YOUR COUNTRY IS WEAK.

Dear WAMO:

I respect your opinions, but you are dealing with abstract examples. If someone or something attempts to provide humanitarian aid after a typhoon or an earthquake, should there be an attempt to help only those who support a certain political point of view? Or in order to receive aid, does a person who needs humanitarian aid need to pledge to support the nation and/or organization who is attempting to help (and perhaps renounce their own country, if the country has had a troubled history with certain other nations)?

 

[WAMO]

MY LAST ATTEMPT. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PICK AND CHOOSE FROM, NOR REFER TO, HUMANITARIAN NEEDS. FROM WHAT WAS WRITEN ABOVE, NOWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY "UNLESS". AND MY INTERPRETATION IS, DONT SEND HELP OVERSEAS TO THOSE THAT DONT REALLY APPRECIATE IT. KEEP IT HERE AT HOME! THIS HAS BEEN FUN GUYS. IM OUT.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

MY LAST ATTEMPT. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PICK AND CHOOSE FROM, NOR REFER TO, HUMANITARIAN NEEDS. FROM WHAT WAS WRITEN ABOVE, NOWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY "UNLESS". AND MY INTERPRETATION IS, DONT SEND HELP OVERSEAS TO THOSE THAT DONT REALLY APPRECIATE IT. KEEP IT HERE AT HOME! THIS HAS BEEN FUN GUYS. IM OUT.

Dear WAMO:

Surely you see a difference between humanitarian aid and monetary and (or relief) to foreign leaders that have a "Death To America" and "Death To Israel" policy -- but then again, perhaps you don't.

 

[9andaWiggle]

I think he knows the difference, but questions whether the Constitution specifies one form of aid being less/more treasonous than the other. Humanitarian aid to our enemies (even just giving food to the hungry low level fighters) strengthens them, does it not? It nourishes them and helps them return to the battle field to inflict more harm on our own.