Treason or not, it was childish. :nope:

Probably those who the Tea Party would call RINOs.

Cruz is a presidential contender? :wah: (Can't find a vomit smilie, so this will have to do.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...us-115170.html

Politico is a "liberal rag"?

Careful August, your political bias is showing, I guess you missed the highly flattering article they published on Trey Gowdy. :ping:


http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...o#.VQRJLWc5Cpo

In this age of increasingly partisan politics, Politico is one of the best and most objective source for what is really going is in U.S. politics.

Anyway the name of the "political insiders" are all listed at the end of the article.

I read it nearly every day and that has not been my experience.

The last I knew,, or understand and was taught in the Marine Corps,, aiding and abedding ones enemy is treason,, so if,, Obama is pathing a way for Iran to get a nuke hows that not treason ???? There is also alot of chatter that US tax dollars are funding Al Qaeda .. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08...a-and-taliban/

Asking the tough questions here.

So by trying to prevent Iran from getting nukes, he is actually helping them get nukes. Nice reasoning.

So I guess if Obama did nothing and thus had no part in "pathing" a way for Iran to get nukes, he would be innocent of treason? It's only by attempting to prevent them from going nuclear that he's engaging in treason? :doh:

And no, the US is not funding Al Qaeda. It is not funding supporters of Al Qaeda. It is contracting out services in Afghanistan, and this article claims that some of the contractors are supporters of Al Qaeda.

And nice source you cite. Look into the author's background, and look at the articles on the main page, and tell me how trustworthy it is.

If Obama did absolutely nothing, nothing at all in the eight years of his presidency, people would still find a way to claim he was committing treason.
Heck, the birth certificate crowd didn't even wait until he became president before they started. :haha:

Well of course not, since if true it would have disqualified him from becoming President. When would have been a better time to bring it up if not before the fact?

But it wasn't true, it was in fact complete and utter nonsense which had probably already been verified by the people who verify these things. It was grasping at straws, that's what it was, by people who really, for whatever reason, didn't want Obama to become president.

Haha....proof!!!!

http://twitpic.com/show/large/aufduf

Probably 'Shopped...


<O>

Lol some people make me laugh with how have lost their minds over this letter, screaming words they probably do not understand such as sedition, treason etc. Invoking a law "Logan Act" they do not understand, it is quite comical.

We live in uncertain, frightening times with an elected president and administration that is absolutely naive in it's approach towards Iran and it's nuclear program.Good men(women as well) of conscience can not stand by and remain quiet while such utter incompetence(just assuming to be fair, it is not intentional) in dealing with such a dangerous foe. A real violation of the logan act would have been offering different terms , trying to pass it as official.Elected US Senators who represent large portion of US citizens sent a letter stating the fact that the agreement Obama would in fact be nothing more than an executive agreement that does not have popular support or that of many in the government. Obama, despite what he and his cheerleaders want, is not a king, an emperor etc and while such affairs are under the purview of the Executive for making official agreements, people are not obligated to support or remain quiet when it is so clearly such a dangerous.Fact is doing so would be the antithesis of our system, checks and balances, open discussion, debate etc.

These brave people refuse to stand by and allow such ignorance to make the world even more of a dangerous place.History showed us what appeasement of evil bring, what a Chamberlain will get us, and most of us agree NEVER AGAIN.

that's because the document he provided and claimed was the birth certificate called him a "African-American" which that term did not even exist in the human language until he was in his 20's.

the term for all people of black decent was "negro" which is not politically correct to use today and proves without a doubt the birth certificate was faked.

now that just only means the document is fake, it doesn't answer the question behind it and i'll leave that to you guys to sort out but there is no doubt they produced a forged fake document as proof of his citizenship to qualify to run for president.

some say that disqualifies his candidacy but who cares, he has shown he is above the law, all democrats are and will remain so as long as the borders stay wide open so 10 million new democrat votes enter this country every year.