Obama’s Actions Declare Him Dictator, Terrorist & Traitor
Given the seriousness of the subject matter, I implore you: read this carefully, and apply your best reason to the argument I am about to present.
We have stated that form & function define things. To this extent, the following story represents a declaration of dictatorship, terrorism and treason by Barack Obama:
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Now, if you read the entire story (or the actual law), you will find provisions for allowing the President to wave the restrictions on selling weapons to nations associated with terrorist organizations or determined to support terrorism. Obama is claiming that he is rightly invoking the terms of this clause. However, the terms of this clause dictate that the President must prove that he is not giving weapons to an enemy of the United States. It is now well established that the Syrian rebels are directly connected to – and in some cases, may actually be – Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has declared war on this nation. Whether we acknowledge this or not is irrelevant: the President has a Constitutional duty to defend this nation from anyone who declares and acts to wage war on it. This means Al Qaeda is an enemy of the United States, and that means Obama cannot invoke the terms of this clause to waive the law so he can arm his Al Qaeda allies. But he is doing so anyway. This is an act of dictatorship:
1a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
b : one holding complete autocratic control
c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
I submit that – in practice, according to how he acts and what he does – this is exactly what Obama is: a dictator. He has violated U.S. law whenever it has suited his purposes (U.S. bankruptcy law with GM; the extortion of BP; going around Congress AND the Supreme Court on Cap & Trade by using the EPA; spying on Americans for purely political purposes; attacking Libya; arming the Syrian rebels, etc). Under our argument that it is not what we calls something but its form & function that defines it, Obama has assumed the role of a dictator.
Next, by arming the Syrian rebels, Obama has clearly sided with Al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization. According to the U.S. government, this makes Obama a terrorist:
(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section… or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act,…
This is not a matter of semantics or debate: Obama’s actions meet the legal definition of terrorist because his actions meet the legal definition of providing material support to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization. What’s more, Al Qaeda is at war with America, which means Obama is also a traitor:
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.
By definition – Constitutional definition – Obama is committing treason. We have 300+ million eye witnesses, and by his own admission. Obama should be impeached, convicted, removed from office, tried for treason against the United States, convicted again and sentenced accordingly. If this is not done, then the Congress has abdicated its authority, the rule of law has been destroyed, the Constitution dissolved and the nation as accepted a dictatorship by “elected” official – exactly what Woodrow Wilson argued would be the best form of national administration.
[NOTE: This is not a partisan attack. I fully understand that Bush committed many acts of subversion. However, Bush is not the President today; Obama is. Therefore, our focus must be on those in power. But it should be noted that I have leveled harsh criticism against the Republicans for refusing to impeach Obama. My concern is for the survival of individual rights and liberty – not for Party.]