CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution

Users Online Now: 2,482 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 1,345,904
Pageviews Today: 2,141,441	Threads Today: 777	Posts Today: 14,489
06:47 PM

Page 1 2 Bottom Search Replies Previous Page Next Page
Search Terms: Highlight Matches
CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Tweet
CE1 Offer Upgrade User ID: 738656 United States 06/18/2012 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution ANALYSIS/OPINION: “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.* “* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that.” — Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses. In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …” Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution. From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote). Read more [link to www.washingtontimes.com] Last Edited by CE1 on 06/18/2012 11:54 AM
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1513486 United States 06/18/2012 12:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution ANALYSIS/OPINION: “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.* “* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that.” — Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses. In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …” Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution. From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote). Read more [link to www.washingtontimes.com] Quoting: CE1 oh wow.....turning on the messiah.... ...
CE1 (OP) User ID: 738656 United States 06/18/2012 06:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution ANALYSIS/OPINION: “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.* “* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that. — Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses. In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …” Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution. From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote). Read more [link to www.washingtontimes.com] Quoting: CE1 oh wow.....turning on the messiah.... ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1513486 It appears that way...
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18084841 United States 06/18/2012 06:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Just like Romney, Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Clinton I, Clinton II, etc etc etc...
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18170139 United States 06/18/2012 07:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution
Troubled Waters... User ID: 13691415 United States 06/19/2012 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution DUST TO GLORY!!!

Anonymous Coward User ID: 851544 United States 06/19/2012 09:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution The dictator screwed up the oath of office on day one (intentionally IMHO) and then supposedly re-took the oath of office behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes of the American people. Barry had no intention of upholding the constitution as seen by his blatant disregard for our laws and our country in general.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18217201 United States 06/19/2012 09:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution As soon as he started appointing Czar's he should have been sacked.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14962676 United States 06/19/2012 09:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution It is a misnomer to view the Constitution, (including the Bill of Rights), as a "government" document". The Constitution belongs to the people, not the government. It is not something that government can hold up and say "yes, we can". It is a document the people hold up and say "no, you can't". Too many people leave it up to government to interpret the document's meaning, tantamount to trusting a fox to guard a chicken coop. As citizens, we all need to determine the Constitution's meaning for ourselves and vote and act accordingly. “The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” - Albert Einstein Many people have been brow beaten into believing that it is up to "smarter people than them" to decipher what the Constitution means. Every soldier and elected official is sworn to "support and defend" the Constitution and it is expected therein that the person doing the swearing has a reasonable understanding of the meaning of the document. However, no litmus test is required. It is up to each individual to make reason of the oath according to their own sensibilities. I believe it to be a matter of personal conscience and understanding, that when a certain threshold of constitutional usurpation is reached, an individual will say at some point "That's it. I have reached a line that I will not cross", or further, and will not allow others to cross this line either". Of course, everyone's interpretation of exactly where that line is will be different as will every individual's remedy to that usurpation within the confines of the law. That then begs the question; in that circumstance what is lawful? For example, in the military there is a huge difference between refusing to follow an order one considers to be unlawful and actively taking action to prevent the execution of that order. It ultimately boils down to a matter of conscience and understanding. The closer one gets to the line the blurrier the picture becomes. There was recent debate here as to what actually constituted an "enemy" as referred to generally in oaths of office "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic". I made the claim that the oath is left purposefully vague as to allow a reasonable person to make reasonable judgment about what constituted an "enemy" and what the phrase "support and defend" allowed for in the execution of that oath. I made the point that if domestic government were to attempt to disarm the citizenry, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, that there was little difference in the end result than if a foreign occupier was to do the same; the citizen would be left without the firearm either way. Of course, this is true not just with the 2nd Amendment but with any tenet of the Constitution as generally understood. The purpose of this post is to initiate a dialogue about the definition of an oath of office to a reasonable person and what remedies may be available to that person should they reach what they consider to be a reasonable conclusion that the tenets of the Constitution, as they understand them, are threatened. In short, what does the phrase "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually mean? Who makes the determination? Is one empowered to reach that conclusion themselves or is it implied that some entity higher up the chain is will let them know when such an act has occurred? What is the individual remedy? If enough citizens make such a determination, what is the collective remedy? What action, if any, would be considered "lawful" under such a circumstance? The question at hand is for those members of society who have taken oaths of office, (politicians, police, fire, military, civil service, etc.). The remedies available for violation of these oaths have been left purposefully vague to allow for reasonable interpretation by reasonable people. Assuming you fit this criterion, I'm asking: - What does one need to do, in your opinion, to qualify as a "domestic enemy", if such a thing can even be defined. - What reasonable measures constitute "support and defend" as they pertain to this perceived enemy? - Who defines the enemy, the President, the elected class, the layman? Is it left for each individual to determine their own threshold? - Are these oaths nothing more than meaningless pomp and circumstance that provide for no meaningful recourse? How does the oath of office of a policeman, sheriff, fireman, soldier or public servant factor into this if it is only for Congress or a panel of judges to decide what constitutes "constitutional"? The oath doesn't mention what is "constitutional" specifically. It mentions 'domestic enemies". Would domestic enemies only be defined by Congress? That would render the oath relatively benign and indicate that the oath is sworn not to the Constitution itself but instead to other men. What I'm getting at is that there is really no point to the oaths at all unless they empower the individual in some way, which I believe was the original intent as part of checks and balances.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18319953 United States 06/21/2012 03:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution It is a misnomer to view the Constitution, (including the Bill of Rights), as a "government" document". The Constitution belongs to the people, not the government. It is not something that government can hold up and say "yes, we can". It is a document the people hold up and say "no, you can't". Too many people leave it up to government to interpret the document's meaning, tantamount to trusting a fox to guard a chicken coop. As citizens, we all need to determine the Constitution's meaning for ourselves and vote and act accordingly. “The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” - Albert Einstein Many people have been brow beaten into believing that it is up to "smarter people than them" to decipher what the Constitution means. Every soldier and elected official is sworn to "support and defend" the Constitution and it is expected therein that the person doing the swearing has a reasonable understanding of the meaning of the document. However, no litmus test is required. It is up to each individual to make reason of the oath according to their own sensibilities. I believe it to be a matter of personal conscience and understanding, that when a certain threshold of constitutional usurpation is reached, an individual will say at some point "That's it. I have reached a line that I will not cross", or further, and will not allow others to cross this line either". Of course, everyone's interpretation of exactly where that line is will be different as will every individual's remedy to that usurpation within the confines of the law. That then begs the question; in that circumstance what is lawful? For example, in the military there is a huge difference between refusing to follow an order one considers to be unlawful and actively taking action to prevent the execution of that order. It ultimately boils down to a matter of conscience and understanding. The closer one gets to the line the blurrier the picture becomes. There was recent debate here as to what actually constituted an "enemy" as referred to generally in oaths of office "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic". I made the claim that the oath is left purposefully vague as to allow a reasonable person to make reasonable judgment about what constituted an "enemy" and what the phrase "support and defend" allowed for in the execution of that oath. I made the point that if domestic government were to attempt to disarm the citizenry, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, that there was little difference in the end result than if a foreign occupier was to do the same; the citizen would be left without the firearm either way. Of course, this is true not just with the 2nd Amendment but with any tenet of the Constitution as generally understood. The purpose of this post is to initiate a dialogue about the definition of an oath of office to a reasonable person and what remedies may be available to that person should they reach what they consider to be a reasonable conclusion that the tenets of the Constitution, as they understand them, are threatened. In short, what does the phrase "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually mean? Who makes the determination? Is one empowered to reach that conclusion themselves or is it implied that some entity higher up the chain is will let them know when such an act has occurred? What is the individual remedy? If enough citizens make such a determination, what is the collective remedy? What action, if any, would be considered "lawful" under such a circumstance? The question at hand is for those members of society who have taken oaths of office, (politicians, police, fire, military, civil service, etc.). The remedies available for violation of these oaths have been left purposefully vague to allow for reasonable interpretation by reasonable people. Assuming you fit this criterion, I'm asking: - What does one need to do, in your opinion, to qualify as a "domestic enemy", if such a thing can even be defined. - What reasonable measures constitute "support and defend" as they pertain to this perceived enemy? - Who defines the enemy, the President, the elected class, the layman? Is it left for each individual to determine their own threshold? - Are these oaths nothing more than meaningless pomp and circumstance that provide for no meaningful recourse? How does the oath of office of a policeman, sheriff, fireman, soldier or public servant factor into this if it is only for Congress or a panel of judges to decide what constitutes "constitutional"? The oath doesn't mention what is "constitutional" specifically. It mentions 'domestic enemies". Would domestic enemies only be defined by Congress? That would render the oath relatively benign and indicate that the oath is sworn not to the Constitution itself but instead to other men. What I'm getting at is that there is really no point to the oaths at all unless they empower the individual in some way, which I believe was the original intent as part of checks and balances. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14962676 an oath should never be taken unless one can uphold it if violated hot coals usually follow usurpers should be removed treasonists as well
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17513468 United States 06/21/2012 10:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution He's not just a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, he's an enemy of the United States.

CE1 (OP) User ID: 9145865 United States 06/21/2012 10:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution He's not just a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, he's an enemy of the United States. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17513468 Vote them out! November is a way off...
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17513468 United States 06/21/2012 10:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution He's not just a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, he's an enemy of the United States. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17513468 Vote them out! November is a way off... Quoting: CE1 I can say that there alot of people where I'm at that would love to see nothing better than the arrest of Obummer and friends... He is a usurper and is doing everything in his power to distroy this country. All the men that have fought for our freedom in the past(not the most recent wars), are so ashamed of our president, and today given the same choice to fight or not to fight would choose not to fight.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17513468 United States 06/21/2012 10:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution He's not just a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, he's an enemy of the United States. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17513468 Vote them out! November is a way off... Quoting: CE1 And you can bet, I'll be doing my part in voting his ass out!!!!!
Jenny Knows User ID: 8545334 United States 06/21/2012 10:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Yes, the presidents before Obama disregarded the Constitution at times, but this administration is on steroids in doing so. My belief, it is the shadow government that has upped its game on the American people. Where is my John Wayne?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1711362 Canada 06/21/2012 10:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution The dictator screwed up the oath of office on day one (intentionally IMHO) and then supposedly re-took the oath of office behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes of the American people. Barry had no intention of upholding the constitution as seen by his blatant disregard for our laws and our country in general. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851544 Thats because Barry has never considered America his country nor chritianity his religion. He holds absolutely no loyalty toward these. He spent most of his life as a foreigner in the USA and as a muslim from Kenya. Which is also the reason why he has no sympathy toward Israel. In his heart he doesnt consider america his country.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2773589 United States 06/21/2012 11:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Just like Romney, Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Clinton I, Clinton II, etc etc etc... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18084841 I pretty much say after Reagan we have all been pretty fucked!
anonimalle User ID: 4342983 United States 06/21/2012 11:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution The dictator screwed up the oath of office on day one (intentionally IMHO) and then supposedly re-took the oath of office behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes of the American people. Barry had no intention of upholding the constitution as seen by his blatant disregard for our laws and our country in general. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851544 Agreed and you are correct. Behind every myth lies a mystery, and every legend holds an echo of the truth …… anonimalle " At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war." Gates of Vienna. "May we smite our enemies to the darkest chamber of hell, for we wish only to live in peace, and they desire only to put their boot upon our neck."
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12538775 United States 06/21/2012 11:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution The dictator screwed up the oath of office on day one (intentionally IMHO) and then supposedly re-took the oath of office behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes of the American people. Barry had no intention of upholding the constitution as seen by his blatant disregard for our laws and our country in general. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851544 Yes, he did, but nonetheless, he shall be held accountable for every jot and tittle of the oath.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15292827 United States 06/21/2012 11:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution And yet Americans sit on their asses waiting for the next election to fix the problem.I have news for you people,we can have 50 elections and none of them will fix the problem because we keep letting our leaders get selected rather than elected.
CuriosityCat1 User ID: 1445528 United States 06/21/2012 11:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution The dictator screwed up the oath of office on day one (intentionally IMHO) and then supposedly re-took the oath of office behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes of the American people. Barry had no intention of upholding the constitution as seen by his blatant disregard for our laws and our country in general. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 851544 ^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^ Keep Calm And Carry On
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3579277 United Kingdom 06/21/2012 12:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Send in the Marines.....oh....no....that won't work will it...they are the chaps protecting him! Send in the Cavalry! Yeah that might work instead??
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4528419 United States 06/21/2012 12:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution You do know that when they say they'll protect the constitution- they mean they will protect the physical piece of paper and not the ideals written on it, right????
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5073312 United States 06/21/2012 12:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Send in the Marines.....oh....no....that won't work will it...they are the chaps protecting him! Send in the Cavalry! Yeah that might work instead?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3579277 Would be cool if some SEAL team dropped into the White House Chuck Norris style. Problem is the military leaders here are complete cowards and also are on the corporate payroll.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15339449 United States 06/21/2012 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Vote them out. yeah, that has worked out for the past 200 years. When the hell are people going to realize that all the talking, huffing and puffing and party lines are bullshit? Just turn your back on the whole system and walk away, you are not going to change it, because the system is dependent on you believing you have some say in its operation, when in reality, your say means nothing.
CE1 (OP) User ID: 9145865 United States 06/21/2012 12:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution Send in the Marines.....oh....no....that won't work will it...they are the chaps protecting him! Send in the Cavalry! Yeah that might work instead?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3579277 Would be cool if some SEAL team dropped into the White House Chuck Norris style. Problem is the military leaders here are complete cowards and also are on the corporate payroll. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5073312 Compromise SEAL TEAM Six and DEVGRU further.....NOT!!! No thank you Mabus! The SEALS have more important clean up matters than this.... The US Marshall Service can round them up just fine... After they arrest "Howdy Doody" Last Edited by CE1 on 06/21/2012 12:43 PM
Shingen User ID: 11870625 United States 06/21/2012 01:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution It is a misnomer to view the Constitution, (including the Bill of Rights), as a "government" document". The Constitution belongs to the people, not the government. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14962676 Sorry, but you're wrong. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the several States and Federal government. The private individual has no standing when it comes to that document. This is why the "people" can not use the Constitution as a defense in court, nor can the private individual sue the government for Breech of Contract for violating the "terms and conditions" in the Constitution. As long as the States and the Feds agree, they can do whatever they want to with that document, or ignore it completely. "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based of five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, or county commissioners." - Edward Abbey Since government is force, every bill and law passed is an act of violence. - Me "If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skin into their clothing, and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order." - Firefly
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1067150 United States 06/21/2012 04:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution VOTE NO ON bARRY O!!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1326056 United States 06/21/2012 04:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution why do I care what some cult follower at a moonie-owned publication has to say? Oh wait, I don't.
Orelinde1954 User ID: 16801330 United States 06/21/2012 04:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution What happens when everyone votes for Romney and Obama wins due to electoral votes. How is that right? And in the end The love you take Is equal to the love you make.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 18252414 United States 06/21/2012 05:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation	Re: CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution OP ...... Others .... The ' Constitution HAS N OT been in effect since 1871 ! Your article would make as much sense, IF you had said Obummer is in trouble because the Boogy Man is opposed to him, AFTER HIM !
Page 1 2 Top Previous Page Next Page

Related Threads

Join Now, Free! (& No Ads!) Forgot Your Password?
Email	Password	Remember

1	Drudge editor Joseph Curl: ‘CIA source says still one more shoe to drop’ for Obama admin	05/14/13
2	Wash Times: CURL: Divide and conquer — Obama knows exactly what he’s saying and it is already working	04/05/12
3	CURL: Hip-hop legend MCA passes on; Obama says not a word	05/06/12
4	CURL: Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases	01/06/13
5	Time for a laugh: hair curling gone wrong	02/23/13
Related Topic: Barack Obama (US Politics)

Rate this Thread

CURL @ Washington Times: Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution

News