In this new video, I discuss new revelations about how the Obama administration helped the Islamic Republic of Iran skirt sanctions, and discusses how Obama’s dealings with Iran are arguably treasonous.
Comments
Kilfinceltsays
I was of the opinion that Obama committed treason when he permitted Muslims linked to the Muslim Brotherhood become members of his administration and especially when he allowed Muslims to review training materials of the military, FBI, and other security organization and remove material they considered incorrect or offensive to them. I also called for his impeachment before 2012. Obama needs to be show as the traitor that he truly was.
Because he was the President, who I believe is Constitutionally above the law. In other words, Trump is right a President has the right to pardon himself. This is his Constitutional power so in effect a President can never do anything illegal. Our founding fathers, in fact, thought of the Presidency as tempory Kingship. The only way to Constitutionally deal with a President who is abusing his power is through the political mechanism of impeachment. The fact is that any President can be impeached at any time if the political will of the country is sufficient to achieve it. I am against all everything that attempts to undermine the Constitution such as Judicial activism and limitation, not prescribed in the Constitution, such as the power of fund the government and declaring war being a Congressional and Presidental act, on the chief executive of the U.S.
Consequently, a president can’t commit treason, but he can be impeached for any reason whatsoever.
Hogdudesays
Yes, sir.
David P Mulloysays
You cant say that Loud Enough or Long Enough to Suit Me!
Funny though, every act of Treason He Committed had something To Do with Islam!!
David G. Tippenssays
Yes, indeed. A study of Obama’s actions, words and those he kept close to him is enough to seriously consider him to be a traitor to this country and in violation of his oath of office. He should be charged and brought to trial along with his accomplices.
tzioniTsays
May he receive his just reward, in this world of the next.
tzionisays
May he receive his just reward in this world or the next.
No Muzzies Heresays
He committed treason. The media presented a sanitized picture of the situation to the people, who believed the picture. After all, the public has seen nothing but cleaned-up fairy tale representations of reality in the press and on TV. Only a tiny sliver of the truth has leaked through, which the public rejected because they are programmed to overlook the failures of affirmative action hires, as Obama eminently was.
Walter Sieruksays
Obama should be charged wit treason ,if for no other reason he scheming with the Muslim officials that cruel and oppress “mullah regime” of Iran for the betterment not of the USA but of the Islamic tyranny of Iran This friendship with that Islamic tyrannical regime of Iran also also involves Obama “stabbing Israel in the back” so to speak.
Therefore about that anti-Israel UN resolution that Obama may well have had a sinister hand in creating, or at least failed to veto, which called for the dividing of the State of Israel in to a “two state solution.”
This shows some things about Obama .That he was very busy to do a much harm as possible in the short time he had before he left Office. This also exposes the falseness on his claim that he is “a Christian.” For a real Christian would take seriously the teaching of Jesus. By Obama backing the UN resolution Obama Obviously doesn’t care what Jesus taught . For Jesus taught “If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24. {K.J.V.]
In addition , to risk sounding really far –out it had been reported that Obama’s national security advisor , James Jones, had declared the President Obama in the year 2009 had religious experience in the White House Office in the Obama believed that God appeared to him in a vision and told him the he should work for the dividing of the land of Israel into “two states.” [1] if this report of a supernatural experience of Obama actually occurred then the Bible contains the answer to this story . For the Bible teaches that Satan is so very deceitful that he can “appear as an angle of Light” Second Corinthians 11:14 . Furthermore, to divide is showing that Obama ,who is for sure not the Anti-Christ is Nevertheless influenced by the spirit of the coming Anti-Christ who is predicted, in the Bible ,to come in the future. So to divide the land that composes Israel according to the Bible is wrong . So wrong ,in fact , when the real arch – villain who is will be the Anti Christs comes to power in the Middle East he “shall divide the land” Daniel 11:39. As for Obama is the reported religious vision he had in which supernatural being told him to “divide the land ” that this instruction is in contradiction to the Bible in Daniel 11 39. It’s thus in the light of Isaiah 8:20. An instruction in error, folly and darkness. Shame on Obama for wanting to “divide the land” and likewise being taken in by a deceptive religious experience.
[1] THE TERRORIST NEXT DOOR by Erick Stakelbeack pages 218. 219.
Obama is guilty treason against America as well as scheming against the State of Israel.
Wellingtonsays
While I certainly think that Obama was the worst President in American history (I wrote him such shortly before he left office in January of 2017 detailing why I thought so) and did more damage to the American Republic than any person in American history, whether President or not, whether an American citizen or not, a charge of treason against Obama because of his exceedingly foolish Iran nuclear deal (which should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty as opposed to Obama just passing it off as an executive order), I do not think has merit because both Article III, Section III of the Constitution and US Code 18 Section 2381 has to date, as far as I am aware, been judicially interpreted with respect to the word “enemies” only those polities with whom we are technically in a declared or open war. This would not, constitutionally, legally and technically, include Iran while Obama was President.
I would very much welcome other lawyers opining about this on this thread. Frank Anderson, I hope you read this because I would value your take on this matter as I would any other lawyer’s.
Sons of Libertysays
Well said , Wellington ! However , did the Founding Fathers consider treason as aiding and abetting the enemy in a declared war or any adversary who has designs on damaging or eliminating the United States , such as in the Aaron Burr case with the vision of his own country ? I do believe that Obama was the worst ever to sit in the Oval Office of our Country with Bill Clinton right behind him . As Robert Spencer said and I agree we will be paying for Obama for years to come just as Bill Clinton’s actions were one of the most important things that led to the disaster of 9/11.
Wellingtonsays
Thanks for your reply, Sons of Liberty. Well, original intent, something I just mentioned on another thread yesterday, is often hard to pin down, important though it is, although, fortunately, it is often clear. But sometimes it just isn’t where the Constitution and laws passed under it are concerned. The “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is a good example of this.
As for treason, it has been very strictly and narrowly defined by the courts (including by Chief Justice Marshall in the Burr case—and remember, Burr was not convicted in that case) to only apply to giving aid and comfort to enemies that the US is in a declared war with or an open war (and with at least two witnesses to the alleged treasonous act).
There have been only five declared wars in American history (War of 1812, Mexican War 1846-1848, the Spanish-American War 1898, and the two world wars), but there have been some 200 conflicts that qualify as “open wars,” the American Civil War, Korean War and Vietnam War being three such examples—and why Jane Fonda could have been, and I think should have been, charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese. But with Iran during the Obama years (disastrous years to be sure), while there was much hostility and ill will between America and Iran and we didn’t even have diplomatic relations with that country (still don’t), I don’t see how, constitutionally and legally speaking, we were in an open war with Iran (and of course not a declared war) and thus I think a charge of treason against Obama for making that despicable deal with Iran simply does not meet the threshold requirement for treason, no matter how awful and stupid it was.
eduardo odraudesays
I wonder what Wellington as lawyer has to say to the following thoughts?
Even if a charge of treason were to be brought, and even if Wellington’s point about open war were ignored, I doubt a charge of treason would go anywhere, because Obama could always claim some sort of strategic foreign policy rationale for his actions. The most one could do in response to such a claim, I imagine, is charge that Obama’s decisions were poor. Without more definite proof of treasonous intent, conviction would be impossible.
Rather than treason, the question in my mind is what specific law or laws did Obama break in deceiving Congress about this business (assuming that’s what he did)? And what law did he break in not enforcing the sanctions and in secretly undermining them (assuming that’s what he did)? And how do those particular laws apply to the executive branch specifically? Doesn’t the executive sometimes have a certain legal leeway or prerogative in how to enforce the laws, especially with respect to exigent or dangerous foreign policy situations? From what I recall of my history, there has always been a certain accepted ambiguity in determining the executive’s enforcement responsibilities — the executive can to some extent determine the timing and method of enforcement, can prioritize enforcement in some areas over others, and so on. No?
Wellingtonsays
eduardo: Thanks for your reply. Well, a President can lie (as Obama did regularly, examples being able to keep your doctor and health care plan if you want it and going along with Susan Rice’s and Hillary’s contention that what happened in Benghazi was due to a spontaneous reaction to a video) and still this is not an impeachable offense or even a violation of law. Yeah, it’s scummy to be sure but not ipso facto illegal or impeachable.
The “best bet” for getting Obama legally is what Don McKellar mentioned in his 5:13 P.M. post below, i.e., Obama’s legally obstructing matters in the 2016 Presidential election. If there is a smoking gun that could “get” Obama, here is where it lies.
Pursuing a treason charge is a waste of time but an obstruction of justice charge respecting the 2016 election has the most merit, though I will convey to you and all others quite plainly like that because Obama is so powerful, as is Hillary, and because there is a decided double standard respecting what lefties do as opposed to what conservatives do (which I personally think is the single greatest threat to the continued rule of blind justice in America and this has been “building” since that most rotten of decades, the 1960’s), I think it quite unlikely that Obama will ever be legally held accountable for any of the rot he engaged in as President.
Pretty much count on it and thus conclude that so very often we live in a phony world, even in America which pioneered freedom as no other polity ever did (with the possible exception of ancient Athens) and where justice being blind has been, theoretically, a hallmark of the American Republic. Beautiful theory to be sure, and I uncynically uphold it, but reality has a way of interfering with laudable theory time and time again. Obama serves as a case in point. Time for a beer.
Brian hoffsays
The war of 1812 was declare by than Irish speaker of the house John Adam was against declareing war against England he want to use diplomats to settle matter. America was defeat when we try to invade canada. The royal navy bockade our harbors. In 1815 50 000 english soldier land in canada and invade america Maine an took over apart of it. Burn washington dc to the ground. John Adam took the spreaker of the house to burn ruin of washington saying that why I didnot war with england they got than huge powerful navy and army.
Darryl Kerneysays
my 2 cents,
the Iran regime HAS declared war on America, every friday since the beginning,
just because no US president or federal department has ADMITTED IT doesn’t change the fact that countless pieces of verifiable video showing them call for america’s destruction exists along with enormous amounts of hard evidence of their involvement with jihad terrorism to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that obama should have known that giving them 100’s of billions was completely counter to US interests ?
i’m not a lawyer, but if the laws become impossible for the general public to understand how can we know if they are being followed ?
in this case is seems clear to me in terms of what all citizens would likely agree with, that whether or not your gov’t has declared war on an adversary who openly call for your destruction, helping that adversary is indeed aiding and abetting and enemy.
enter liberal hair splitting of definitions, that they themselves say can be “fluid”, ie: meaning whatever they feel they do at the time.
but anyone should be able to see the Iran regime is an enemy if presented with as much hard evidence as everyone in the obama admin had to have had access to.
if they ignored it, which we know, that shows INTENT right there, willful denial of verifiable facts.
as we saw from hillary’s email scandal, the next defence is INTENT, which she miraculously was saved by, but in such a serious situation it would seem prudent to me that lack of intent is irrelevant, just as it is with far less serious “mistakes” where liability is still accessed, prosecuted and punished.
in everyday terms, if i can’t say oops i didn’t mean it and get away with breaking a law,
why should anyone sworn to defend the nation getting away with what hillary and obama might get away with ?
but, that’s just how i see it.
Wellingtonsays
America has many enemies and some of them even call for America’a destruction (at least until very recently North Korea as another example—and time will tell how NK will respond to matters in the future since the Trump-Kim summit earlier this month), but this does not equate constitutionally and legally to a declared war by America or being in an open war.
If one wants to charge Obama with treason, it will have to be done smart-like, with full knowledge of present constitutional and statutory law. As of present, I see no way Obama, a wretched excuse for a President to be sure, can be charged with treason, because of his putrid Iran nuclear deal, considering the way treason has been interpreted by the Supreme Court from Chief Justice Marshall onwards.
infidelsays
As I have been saying here on this forum.. these are the treason that U can see out and for which he has and most probably will never be persecuted….The deep state is with him..
But what about the TREASON THAT IS NOT YET COME OUT IN THE OPEN AND MAY NEVER!! WHAT ARE STATE SECRETS THAT HE HAS LEAKED TO THE ISLAMIC ENEMIES OF THE USA….WHAT DAMAGE WILL THEY BRING IN THE LONG RUN!! ONE SHUDDERS TO THINK!!
We in India too, have our share of treacherous Obamas…who are still doing deep state damage to its Hindus and accelerate the process of Islamization..
As for Robert Spencer,, GOD BLESS HIM WITH A VERY LONG LIFE AND GOOD HEALTH so that he can continue to bring out these bitter truths.. Because what Robert says will not only help the USA but also the rest of the free world.. That’s all I can say.
CogitoErgoSumsays
We live in a world of illusion. Look for more tricks and deceptions to be spread by way of Netflix following Obama’s latest deal.
I would also like to add that Obama is one of the most cunning persons in the world today..cunning and totally unethical..
Walter Sieruksays
There are many good reasons why Obama should be charge with treason. This does very much ,bring to mind that back in the month of August of the year 2010 I had attended a lecture at a church about the subject of Islam. The speaker was, in times past, a Shiite Muslim , a Hezbollah member and an Iranian citizen. He is now a Christian and an American citizen . After the lecture ,during the question and answer part , he was asked “Is Obama Muslim ?” The speaker replied “I don’t know if he is a Muslim but his deception is Islamic.” and then he said of Obama “Whenever he talks he sounds just like a Muslim.” After those two statement he also added about Obama “he is going to hurt this country.”
As already keyboarded above that lecture was held in the year of 2010. and since then Obama had indeed hurt America by and through his words, actions, politics and policies.
Voytek Gagalkasays
There are laws but there needs to be PEOPLE WILLING to EXECUTE those laws! Currently, the USA clearly is so corrupted with two gears of law application for two different classes of peoples that chance of execution of those laws against powerful elites are extremely slim or non-existent! Perhaps, only through revolution… But remember this: during the French Revolution of 18th century only very small number of aristocrats was brought to the guillotine while THOUSANDS of innocents were slaughtered.
Sons of Libertysays
I agree Robert Spencer 100% . I said before his election in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama would be a DISASTER for our Country and you only have to look at the evidence to see it is true. Obama CORRUPTED our government as malicious as anyone since Bill Clinton ! He USED the IRS , FBI , CIA and Justice Department as no one before him and we see it being revealed more everyday. He was excited to travel the world and tell everyone HOW BAD the United States was and apologized to every Marxist dictator he could find . His actions would have destroyed our economy if the Federal Reserve had not come to the rescue with cheap money for 8 years. HE NEVER HAD 1 quarter with 3% GDP growth ,…not 1 ,…but President Trump might achieve 4% GDP growth this year in the second quarter. Look at the Muslim invasion of the US , the hijra , that Obama was MORE than willing to make SURE IT HAPPENED. Americans have already paid a price for Obama and we will for years to come.
Darryl Kerneysays
the Fed “rescue” may be the worst of the injuries, and may have been intentional, with the openly stated desire of leftists far and wide for a collapse to overthrow Trump, it seems entirely plausible. as well as totally within the tactics of socialist revolutionaries the world over these last 100 years.
Flavius Claudius Iulianussays
He will never be charged. But we can make this argument for charging him well known in the public domain. This may be worse that an actual charge because he will be tried repeatedly in the court of public opinion.
JW readers! Make Robert Spencer’s valid argument, well known to all. Repeat the argument for treason charges to as many as you can.
Don McKellarsays
Obama actually has two charges coming his way.
1) Interference with the 2016 election.
2) Treason with Iran.
The first one is getting closer and closer and CLOSER every day to actually being charged. The massive cover-up and stonewalling from the government agencies that is gradually being ripped apart, layer by layer, by congress is headed DIRECTLY towards Obama. That’s why he is keeping such a low profile these days — he knows he is doomed if he sticks his head out too far.
All that Trump needs to do is order all documents related to the ongoing investigations be released in their complete entirety and all will be revealed. Trump knows this. That’s why he continues on, saying whatever the hell he wants, dismissing the con of the Russian witch hunt. I only wonder about his timing. Is it because he’s waiting until just before the 2018 elections to drop the ultimate bombshell, or is he going to wait until after? If things don’t work out as they seem to be headed for with a red wave for 2018, then he has a huge wrecking ball to throw at the Democrats. However, why not destroy them before the elections and really have an incredible next two years to build on his already excellent first two he’s headed to? He could have the most spectacular first term of just about any president aside from Lincoln who literally saved the country and ended slavery. It would then be Lincoln, Trump, Washington. Or perhaps Lincoln, Washington, Trump.
Terry Gainsays
As someone who greatly admires Robert Spencer and detests Barack Obama, I am disappointed that Robert Spencer has posted this video. There is no question that the Iran deal was atrocious. Indeed, given that the deal did nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons once the deal expires, I have described the Iran deal as insane. But claiming that entering into the deal constitutes treason is unwise.
Before one claims that Obama should be charged with treason one needs to fully review the case law to determine how the courts have interpreted the law of treason, and in particular what is meant by an enemy. Ironically there is no indication that Robert Spencer, who carefully researches Islamic doctrine before opining on same, has researched the American law of treason.
Wellington, the only American lawyer who has opined on the subject has expressed his opinion that Obama is not guilty of treason by reason of entering into the Iran deal.
I think nothing good will come from this departure from Robert Spencer’s usual standards. His credibility will take a hit. This therefore is an unforced error which is reminiscent of the demands of the Left that Trump should be impeached.
Professor Dershowitz has, numerous occasions, advised the nation not to criminalize political differences. He is absolutely right.
eduardo odraudesays
Yes, Dershowitz, a brilliant lawyer and Harvard professor of constitutional law, and a Democrat, has come out in defense of Trump in just that respect. Dershowitz has argued that the Dems, in seeking an endless legal inquisition against Trump, have been criminalizing political differences and should stop.
We should be wary of doing the same thing to Dems — just because we think they are usually dead wrong, it does not follow that they are criminal.
Wellingtonsays
I agree, eduardo, that just because someone in power is dead wrong should not equate to criminalizing such dead “wrongness.” This has been my overall point all along with my comments on this thread, BUT Obama, whom I don’t think guilty of treason, skunk though he is, may very well be guilty of obstruction of justice, as I have already indicated in my 7:35 P.M. post above.
My God, what a disaster Obama’s Presidency was. America will pay for it for a long time to come.
eduardo odraudesays
I agree with your comments, Wellington.
I think some extraordinarily nefarious stuff would have to be incontrovertibly proved for Obama to suffer. Anything evidence in the least bit ambiguous will roll off his back like hot air.
And maybe we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater — his presidency was pretty bad, but at least in many people’s minds it erased a certain racial taint from American institutions. It is now a little bit harder to argue that the US is a terrible racist discriminatory place (though people still of course try to argue it — but those who do so argue get much less traction now, I feel).
Mr Spencer Spencer is a layman while Mr Obama is lawyer, how can he know better than Mr Obama whether the nuclear deal with Iran constitutes a reasonable felony ?Under the American legal system before an act is considered as a crime it has to be defined by a codified law. There is no codified American law, whether state or federal, which defined reaching a multilateral treaty as criminal offense. I, therefore, submit that Mr Obama has not committed any reasonable felony and as such Mr Spencer is wrong for his assumption that Mr Obama has committed treason by reaching nuclear deal with Iran.
Terry Gainsays
Obama’s opinion is not reliable. He has a conflict. Only an idiot would ask an accused lawyer for his legal opinion on his own guilt.
eduardo odraudesays
+2
gravenimagesays
I see that Ibrahim itace muhammed–whose idea of jurisprudence is dragging a rape victim off to a hole and having her stoned to death by a ravening mob–is lecturing us on American law.
Rather the same way he has lectured us on American economics, telling us that Muslims have destroyed the US economy and that the dollar is now worth $0…
duh swamisays
Ibrahim’s hero Obama not only committed serial treason, he lied
with every breath….He lied on his law license application, he told a criminal whopper with that forged birth certificate, he lies about being a Christian and more…’DISCLOSURE will eventually finish him off…
Duh swami, do you know what is treasonable felony at all? Can cite any written American law, which says reaching a multilateral treaty of peace even with hostile enemy is listed as one of the acts constituting treasonable felony? Try again
gravenimagesays
Robert Spencer video: Why isn’t Obama charged with treason for his Iran dealings?
………………
If only. Unfortunately, all too many idiots think this was some great act of negotiating for peace, instead of the enabling of Jihad that it was.
Indiana Tomsays
Why isn’t Obama charged with treason for his Iran dealings?
Because he is part of the Clinton Deep Swamp Critters.
xsays
I have noted the various comments and I think their is a solution and it is something that should have been done a long time ago.
What is the reality? Iran is in an undeclared war with us. They did not declare it because they knew that they would lose. But that does not change the fact that they are doing activities with the intent of destroying this country. However, since we are not at war with them it gives them legal options. They have groups in this country that are financed by Iran for simply trying to influence politically to their benefit and our detriment. They are probably involved in nefarious activities as well. And when somebody like Obama aids them, he can always claim that we are not at war with them so it is not treason.
So here is the solution. We simply declare war on them. People will whine that this is too extreme, because they envision a WWII situation (but they are not thinking creatively). We declare war on them to acknowledge the real state of things, but we do not even have to attack them per se.
The beauty of it is that by putting the situation in the correct context, it gives us the tools to combat their subversion taking place on our own soil. Once war is declared, anyone who aids them can be tried for treason. Any Iran supporting groups can be expelled (or dealt with accordingly).
Any anti-government groups in Iran will of course receive military and logistical support. And if an Iranian ship is being annoying we can sink it…after all we are at war.
granddaddysays
I’ve heard these allegations before. If Obama wants to enjoy any legitimacy in politics, you would think he would want it cleared out of the way. It’s not like he’s nobody.
IF IT PROSPER
All the sins of the Clintons are bared,
Yet you’d think not a single soul cared,
But we know what’s the reason
None dare call it treason:
They’re complicit, complacent, or scared.
Wow, Ibraham the Thigning Master is also an expert in law–So he knows the law about anyone who abandons or exposes a child under the age of 10, so that his life is or is likely to be endangered ……
gravenimagesays
The only law he is an expert in is Shari’ah.
Hogdudesays
Believe it or not, I consider Barack Obama as a closet Moose-lim. Taking all his statements, actions and background into consideration, he damaged and divided America as much as he could while not openly attacking our systems. For that, he’ll be remembered. The rest of his administration will be chaff in the wind.
Why not indict Trump for treason for abandoning his allies in Europe for Russia?
Wellingtonsays
I hope you’re a comedian rather than someone being serious, because, if the latter, you are so in the dark about so many matters and issues, not the least being your woeful understanding of what constitutes treason under American constitutional and statutory law, that, in effect, you managed something difficult to do, i.e., becoming a parody of oneself.
Bowen Gustafsensays
Let’s go back to 2015 when even the G-20 were asking the same questions…
Obama is being accused of treason
America has been so ineffectual in dealing with terror that some people are wondering…
At the 2015 G-20 summit in Turkey, Barack Obama made the surreal comment that Islamic state (ISIS) is not “a traditional military opponent” and then labeled it a “violent extremist group” that occupies land where he feels they can be “contained.” Obama sounded delusional.
Now we know why the United States has been so ineffectual in defeating this enemy and the Paris attacks only confirm the fear that we have been fighting on the wrong side of the War on Terror.
The truth is extremely cruel: The imprudent Obama administration is simply detached from reality and has no strategy to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. To defeat Islamic terrorists before they kill us, we need to be proactive in identifying the enemy and take this war to them without mercy, hesitation or restraint.
Kilfincelt says
I was of the opinion that Obama committed treason when he permitted Muslims linked to the Muslim Brotherhood become members of his administration and especially when he allowed Muslims to review training materials of the military, FBI, and other security organization and remove material they considered incorrect or offensive to them. I also called for his impeachment before 2012. Obama needs to be show as the traitor that he truly was.
Charleen McDade says
Amen
Savvy Kafir says
Agreed.
Aaron says
Because he was the President, who I believe is Constitutionally above the law. In other words, Trump is right a President has the right to pardon himself. This is his Constitutional power so in effect a President can never do anything illegal. Our founding fathers, in fact, thought of the Presidency as tempory Kingship. The only way to Constitutionally deal with a President who is abusing his power is through the political mechanism of impeachment. The fact is that any President can be impeached at any time if the political will of the country is sufficient to achieve it. I am against all everything that attempts to undermine the Constitution such as Judicial activism and limitation, not prescribed in the Constitution, such as the power of fund the government and declaring war being a Congressional and Presidental act, on the chief executive of the U.S.
Consequently, a president can’t commit treason, but he can be impeached for any reason whatsoever.
Hogdude says
Yes, sir.
David P Mulloy says
You cant say that Loud Enough or Long Enough to Suit Me!
Funny though, every act of Treason He Committed had something To Do with Islam!!
David G. Tippens says
Yes, indeed. A study of Obama’s actions, words and those he kept close to him is enough to seriously consider him to be a traitor to this country and in violation of his oath of office. He should be charged and brought to trial along with his accomplices.
tzioniT says
May he receive his just reward, in this world of the next.
tzioni says
May he receive his just reward in this world or the next.
No Muzzies Here says
He committed treason. The media presented a sanitized picture of the situation to the people, who believed the picture. After all, the public has seen nothing but cleaned-up fairy tale representations of reality in the press and on TV. Only a tiny sliver of the truth has leaked through, which the public rejected because they are programmed to overlook the failures of affirmative action hires, as Obama eminently was.
Walter Sieruk says
Obama should be charged wit treason ,if for no other reason he scheming with the Muslim officials that cruel and oppress “mullah regime” of Iran for the betterment not of the USA but of the Islamic tyranny of Iran This friendship with that Islamic tyrannical regime of Iran also also involves Obama “stabbing Israel in the back” so to speak.
Therefore about that anti-Israel UN resolution that Obama may well have had a sinister hand in creating, or at least failed to veto, which called for the dividing of the State of Israel in to a “two state solution.”
This shows some things about Obama .That he was very busy to do a much harm as possible in the short time he had before he left Office. This also exposes the falseness on his claim that he is “a Christian.” For a real Christian would take seriously the teaching of Jesus. By Obama backing the UN resolution Obama Obviously doesn’t care what Jesus taught . For Jesus taught “If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24. {K.J.V.]
In addition , to risk sounding really far –out it had been reported that Obama’s national security advisor , James Jones, had declared the President Obama in the year 2009 had religious experience in the White House Office in the Obama believed that God appeared to him in a vision and told him the he should work for the dividing of the land of Israel into “two states.” [1] if this report of a supernatural experience of Obama actually occurred then the Bible contains the answer to this story . For the Bible teaches that Satan is so very deceitful that he can “appear as an angle of Light” Second Corinthians 11:14 . Furthermore, to divide is showing that Obama ,who is for sure not the Anti-Christ is Nevertheless influenced by the spirit of the coming Anti-Christ who is predicted, in the Bible ,to come in the future. So to divide the land that composes Israel according to the Bible is wrong . So wrong ,in fact , when the real arch – villain who is will be the Anti Christs comes to power in the Middle East he “shall divide the land” Daniel 11:39. As for Obama is the reported religious vision he had in which supernatural being told him to “divide the land ” that this instruction is in contradiction to the Bible in Daniel 11 39. It’s thus in the light of Isaiah 8:20. An instruction in error, folly and darkness. Shame on Obama for wanting to “divide the land” and likewise being taken in by a deceptive religious experience.
[1] THE TERRORIST NEXT DOOR by Erick Stakelbeack pages 218. 219.
Obama is guilty treason against America as well as scheming against the State of Israel.
Wellington says
While I certainly think that Obama was the worst President in American history (I wrote him such shortly before he left office in January of 2017 detailing why I thought so) and did more damage to the American Republic than any person in American history, whether President or not, whether an American citizen or not, a charge of treason against Obama because of his exceedingly foolish Iran nuclear deal (which should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty as opposed to Obama just passing it off as an executive order), I do not think has merit because both Article III, Section III of the Constitution and US Code 18 Section 2381 has to date, as far as I am aware, been judicially interpreted with respect to the word “enemies” only those polities with whom we are technically in a declared or open war. This would not, constitutionally, legally and technically, include Iran while Obama was President.
I would very much welcome other lawyers opining about this on this thread. Frank Anderson, I hope you read this because I would value your take on this matter as I would any other lawyer’s.
Sons of Liberty says
Well said , Wellington ! However , did the Founding Fathers consider treason as aiding and abetting the enemy in a declared war or any adversary who has designs on damaging or eliminating the United States , such as in the Aaron Burr case with the vision of his own country ? I do believe that Obama was the worst ever to sit in the Oval Office of our Country with Bill Clinton right behind him . As Robert Spencer said and I agree we will be paying for Obama for years to come just as Bill Clinton’s actions were one of the most important things that led to the disaster of 9/11.
Wellington says
Thanks for your reply, Sons of Liberty. Well, original intent, something I just mentioned on another thread yesterday, is often hard to pin down, important though it is, although, fortunately, it is often clear. But sometimes it just isn’t where the Constitution and laws passed under it are concerned. The “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is a good example of this.
As for treason, it has been very strictly and narrowly defined by the courts (including by Chief Justice Marshall in the Burr case—and remember, Burr was not convicted in that case) to only apply to giving aid and comfort to enemies that the US is in a declared war with or an open war (and with at least two witnesses to the alleged treasonous act).
There have been only five declared wars in American history (War of 1812, Mexican War 1846-1848, the Spanish-American War 1898, and the two world wars), but there have been some 200 conflicts that qualify as “open wars,” the American Civil War, Korean War and Vietnam War being three such examples—and why Jane Fonda could have been, and I think should have been, charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese. But with Iran during the Obama years (disastrous years to be sure), while there was much hostility and ill will between America and Iran and we didn’t even have diplomatic relations with that country (still don’t), I don’t see how, constitutionally and legally speaking, we were in an open war with Iran (and of course not a declared war) and thus I think a charge of treason against Obama for making that despicable deal with Iran simply does not meet the threshold requirement for treason, no matter how awful and stupid it was.
eduardo odraude says
I wonder what Wellington as lawyer has to say to the following thoughts?
Even if a charge of treason were to be brought, and even if Wellington’s point about open war were ignored, I doubt a charge of treason would go anywhere, because Obama could always claim some sort of strategic foreign policy rationale for his actions. The most one could do in response to such a claim, I imagine, is charge that Obama’s decisions were poor. Without more definite proof of treasonous intent, conviction would be impossible.
Rather than treason, the question in my mind is what specific law or laws did Obama break in deceiving Congress about this business (assuming that’s what he did)? And what law did he break in not enforcing the sanctions and in secretly undermining them (assuming that’s what he did)? And how do those particular laws apply to the executive branch specifically? Doesn’t the executive sometimes have a certain legal leeway or prerogative in how to enforce the laws, especially with respect to exigent or dangerous foreign policy situations? From what I recall of my history, there has always been a certain accepted ambiguity in determining the executive’s enforcement responsibilities — the executive can to some extent determine the timing and method of enforcement, can prioritize enforcement in some areas over others, and so on. No?
Wellington says
eduardo: Thanks for your reply. Well, a President can lie (as Obama did regularly, examples being able to keep your doctor and health care plan if you want it and going along with Susan Rice’s and Hillary’s contention that what happened in Benghazi was due to a spontaneous reaction to a video) and still this is not an impeachable offense or even a violation of law. Yeah, it’s scummy to be sure but not ipso facto illegal or impeachable.
The “best bet” for getting Obama legally is what Don McKellar mentioned in his 5:13 P.M. post below, i.e., Obama’s legally obstructing matters in the 2016 Presidential election. If there is a smoking gun that could “get” Obama, here is where it lies.
Pursuing a treason charge is a waste of time but an obstruction of justice charge respecting the 2016 election has the most merit, though I will convey to you and all others quite plainly like that because Obama is so powerful, as is Hillary, and because there is a decided double standard respecting what lefties do as opposed to what conservatives do (which I personally think is the single greatest threat to the continued rule of blind justice in America and this has been “building” since that most rotten of decades, the 1960’s), I think it quite unlikely that Obama will ever be legally held accountable for any of the rot he engaged in as President.
Pretty much count on it and thus conclude that so very often we live in a phony world, even in America which pioneered freedom as no other polity ever did (with the possible exception of ancient Athens) and where justice being blind has been, theoretically, a hallmark of the American Republic. Beautiful theory to be sure, and I uncynically uphold it, but reality has a way of interfering with laudable theory time and time again. Obama serves as a case in point. Time for a beer.
Brian hoff says
The war of 1812 was declare by than Irish speaker of the house John Adam was against declareing war against England he want to use diplomats to settle matter. America was defeat when we try to invade canada. The royal navy bockade our harbors. In 1815 50 000 english soldier land in canada and invade america Maine an took over apart of it. Burn washington dc to the ground. John Adam took the spreaker of the house to burn ruin of washington saying that why I didnot war with england they got than huge powerful navy and army.
Darryl Kerney says
my 2 cents,
the Iran regime HAS declared war on America, every friday since the beginning,
just because no US president or federal department has ADMITTED IT doesn’t change the fact that countless pieces of verifiable video showing them call for america’s destruction exists along with enormous amounts of hard evidence of their involvement with jihad terrorism to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that obama should have known that giving them 100’s of billions was completely counter to US interests ?
i’m not a lawyer, but if the laws become impossible for the general public to understand how can we know if they are being followed ?
in this case is seems clear to me in terms of what all citizens would likely agree with, that whether or not your gov’t has declared war on an adversary who openly call for your destruction, helping that adversary is indeed aiding and abetting and enemy.
enter liberal hair splitting of definitions, that they themselves say can be “fluid”, ie: meaning whatever they feel they do at the time.
but anyone should be able to see the Iran regime is an enemy if presented with as much hard evidence as everyone in the obama admin had to have had access to.
if they ignored it, which we know, that shows INTENT right there, willful denial of verifiable facts.
as we saw from hillary’s email scandal, the next defence is INTENT, which she miraculously was saved by, but in such a serious situation it would seem prudent to me that lack of intent is irrelevant, just as it is with far less serious “mistakes” where liability is still accessed, prosecuted and punished.
in everyday terms, if i can’t say oops i didn’t mean it and get away with breaking a law,
why should anyone sworn to defend the nation getting away with what hillary and obama might get away with ?
but, that’s just how i see it.
Wellington says
America has many enemies and some of them even call for America’a destruction (at least until very recently North Korea as another example—and time will tell how NK will respond to matters in the future since the Trump-Kim summit earlier this month), but this does not equate constitutionally and legally to a declared war by America or being in an open war.
If one wants to charge Obama with treason, it will have to be done smart-like, with full knowledge of present constitutional and statutory law. As of present, I see no way Obama, a wretched excuse for a President to be sure, can be charged with treason, because of his putrid Iran nuclear deal, considering the way treason has been interpreted by the Supreme Court from Chief Justice Marshall onwards.
infidel says
As I have been saying here on this forum.. these are the treason that U can see out and for which he has and most probably will never be persecuted….The deep state is with him..
But what about the TREASON THAT IS NOT YET COME OUT IN THE OPEN AND MAY NEVER!! WHAT ARE STATE SECRETS THAT HE HAS LEAKED TO THE ISLAMIC ENEMIES OF THE USA….WHAT DAMAGE WILL THEY BRING IN THE LONG RUN!! ONE SHUDDERS TO THINK!!
We in India too, have our share of treacherous Obamas…who are still doing deep state damage to its Hindus and accelerate the process of Islamization..
As for Robert Spencer,, GOD BLESS HIM WITH A VERY LONG LIFE AND GOOD HEALTH so that he can continue to bring out these bitter truths.. Because what Robert says will not only help the USA but also the rest of the free world.. That’s all I can say.
CogitoErgoSum says
We live in a world of illusion. Look for more tricks and deceptions to be spread by way of Netflix following Obama’s latest deal.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a9694/what-barack-obama-is-doing-now/
infidel says
I would also like to add that Obama is one of the most cunning persons in the world today..cunning and totally unethical..
Walter Sieruk says
There are many good reasons why Obama should be charge with treason. This does very much ,bring to mind that back in the month of August of the year 2010 I had attended a lecture at a church about the subject of Islam. The speaker was, in times past, a Shiite Muslim , a Hezbollah member and an Iranian citizen. He is now a Christian and an American citizen . After the lecture ,during the question and answer part , he was asked “Is Obama Muslim ?” The speaker replied “I don’t know if he is a Muslim but his deception is Islamic.” and then he said of Obama “Whenever he talks he sounds just like a Muslim.” After those two statement he also added about Obama “he is going to hurt this country.”
As already keyboarded above that lecture was held in the year of 2010. and since then Obama had indeed hurt America by and through his words, actions, politics and policies.
Voytek Gagalka says
There are laws but there needs to be PEOPLE WILLING to EXECUTE those laws! Currently, the USA clearly is so corrupted with two gears of law application for two different classes of peoples that chance of execution of those laws against powerful elites are extremely slim or non-existent! Perhaps, only through revolution… But remember this: during the French Revolution of 18th century only very small number of aristocrats was brought to the guillotine while THOUSANDS of innocents were slaughtered.
Sons of Liberty says
I agree Robert Spencer 100% . I said before his election in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama would be a DISASTER for our Country and you only have to look at the evidence to see it is true. Obama CORRUPTED our government as malicious as anyone since Bill Clinton ! He USED the IRS , FBI , CIA and Justice Department as no one before him and we see it being revealed more everyday. He was excited to travel the world and tell everyone HOW BAD the United States was and apologized to every Marxist dictator he could find . His actions would have destroyed our economy if the Federal Reserve had not come to the rescue with cheap money for 8 years. HE NEVER HAD 1 quarter with 3% GDP growth ,…not 1 ,…but President Trump might achieve 4% GDP growth this year in the second quarter. Look at the Muslim invasion of the US , the hijra , that Obama was MORE than willing to make SURE IT HAPPENED. Americans have already paid a price for Obama and we will for years to come.
Darryl Kerney says
the Fed “rescue” may be the worst of the injuries, and may have been intentional, with the openly stated desire of leftists far and wide for a collapse to overthrow Trump, it seems entirely plausible. as well as totally within the tactics of socialist revolutionaries the world over these last 100 years.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
He will never be charged. But we can make this argument for charging him well known in the public domain. This may be worse that an actual charge because he will be tried repeatedly in the court of public opinion.
JW readers! Make Robert Spencer’s valid argument, well known to all. Repeat the argument for treason charges to as many as you can.
Don McKellar says
Obama actually has two charges coming his way.
1) Interference with the 2016 election.
2) Treason with Iran.
The first one is getting closer and closer and CLOSER every day to actually being charged. The massive cover-up and stonewalling from the government agencies that is gradually being ripped apart, layer by layer, by congress is headed DIRECTLY towards Obama. That’s why he is keeping such a low profile these days — he knows he is doomed if he sticks his head out too far.
All that Trump needs to do is order all documents related to the ongoing investigations be released in their complete entirety and all will be revealed. Trump knows this. That’s why he continues on, saying whatever the hell he wants, dismissing the con of the Russian witch hunt. I only wonder about his timing. Is it because he’s waiting until just before the 2018 elections to drop the ultimate bombshell, or is he going to wait until after? If things don’t work out as they seem to be headed for with a red wave for 2018, then he has a huge wrecking ball to throw at the Democrats. However, why not destroy them before the elections and really have an incredible next two years to build on his already excellent first two he’s headed to? He could have the most spectacular first term of just about any president aside from Lincoln who literally saved the country and ended slavery. It would then be Lincoln, Trump, Washington. Or perhaps Lincoln, Washington, Trump.
Terry Gain says
As someone who greatly admires Robert Spencer and detests Barack Obama, I am disappointed that Robert Spencer has posted this video. There is no question that the Iran deal was atrocious. Indeed, given that the deal did nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons once the deal expires, I have described the Iran deal as insane. But claiming that entering into the deal constitutes treason is unwise.
Before one claims that Obama should be charged with treason one needs to fully review the case law to determine how the courts have interpreted the law of treason, and in particular what is meant by an enemy. Ironically there is no indication that Robert Spencer, who carefully researches Islamic doctrine before opining on same, has researched the American law of treason.
Wellington, the only American lawyer who has opined on the subject has expressed his opinion that Obama is not guilty of treason by reason of entering into the Iran deal.
I think nothing good will come from this departure from Robert Spencer’s usual standards. His credibility will take a hit. This therefore is an unforced error which is reminiscent of the demands of the Left that Trump should be impeached.
Professor Dershowitz has, numerous occasions, advised the nation not to criminalize political differences. He is absolutely right.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, Dershowitz, a brilliant lawyer and Harvard professor of constitutional law, and a Democrat, has come out in defense of Trump in just that respect. Dershowitz has argued that the Dems, in seeking an endless legal inquisition against Trump, have been criminalizing political differences and should stop.
We should be wary of doing the same thing to Dems — just because we think they are usually dead wrong, it does not follow that they are criminal.
Wellington says
I agree, eduardo, that just because someone in power is dead wrong should not equate to criminalizing such dead “wrongness.” This has been my overall point all along with my comments on this thread, BUT Obama, whom I don’t think guilty of treason, skunk though he is, may very well be guilty of obstruction of justice, as I have already indicated in my 7:35 P.M. post above.
My God, what a disaster Obama’s Presidency was. America will pay for it for a long time to come.
eduardo odraude says
I agree with your comments, Wellington.
I think some extraordinarily nefarious stuff would have to be incontrovertibly proved for Obama to suffer. Anything evidence in the least bit ambiguous will roll off his back like hot air.
And maybe we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater — his presidency was pretty bad, but at least in many people’s minds it erased a certain racial taint from American institutions. It is now a little bit harder to argue that the US is a terrible racist discriminatory place (though people still of course try to argue it — but those who do so argue get much less traction now, I feel).
eduardo odraude says
“Anything evidence” should read “any evidence”
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer Spencer is a layman while Mr Obama is lawyer, how can he know better than Mr Obama whether the nuclear deal with Iran constitutes a reasonable felony ?Under the American legal system before an act is considered as a crime it has to be defined by a codified law. There is no codified American law, whether state or federal, which defined reaching a multilateral treaty as criminal offense. I, therefore, submit that Mr Obama has not committed any reasonable felony and as such Mr Spencer is wrong for his assumption that Mr Obama has committed treason by reaching nuclear deal with Iran.
Terry Gain says
Obama’s opinion is not reliable. He has a conflict. Only an idiot would ask an accused lawyer for his legal opinion on his own guilt.
eduardo odraude says
+2
gravenimage says
I see that Ibrahim itace muhammed–whose idea of jurisprudence is dragging a rape victim off to a hole and having her stoned to death by a ravening mob–is lecturing us on American law.
Rather the same way he has lectured us on American economics, telling us that Muslims have destroyed the US economy and that the dollar is now worth $0…
duh swami says
Ibrahim’s hero Obama not only committed serial treason, he lied
with every breath….He lied on his law license application, he told a criminal whopper with that forged birth certificate, he lies about being a Christian and more…’DISCLOSURE will eventually finish him off…
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Duh swami, do you know what is treasonable felony at all? Can cite any written American law, which says reaching a multilateral treaty of peace even with hostile enemy is listed as one of the acts constituting treasonable felony? Try again
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer video: Why isn’t Obama charged with treason for his Iran dealings?
………………
If only. Unfortunately, all too many idiots think this was some great act of negotiating for peace, instead of the enabling of Jihad that it was.
Indiana Tom says
Why isn’t Obama charged with treason for his Iran dealings?
Because he is part of the Clinton Deep Swamp Critters.
x says
I have noted the various comments and I think their is a solution and it is something that should have been done a long time ago.
What is the reality? Iran is in an undeclared war with us. They did not declare it because they knew that they would lose. But that does not change the fact that they are doing activities with the intent of destroying this country. However, since we are not at war with them it gives them legal options. They have groups in this country that are financed by Iran for simply trying to influence politically to their benefit and our detriment. They are probably involved in nefarious activities as well. And when somebody like Obama aids them, he can always claim that we are not at war with them so it is not treason.
So here is the solution. We simply declare war on them. People will whine that this is too extreme, because they envision a WWII situation (but they are not thinking creatively). We declare war on them to acknowledge the real state of things, but we do not even have to attack them per se.
The beauty of it is that by putting the situation in the correct context, it gives us the tools to combat their subversion taking place on our own soil. Once war is declared, anyone who aids them can be tried for treason. Any Iran supporting groups can be expelled (or dealt with accordingly).
Any anti-government groups in Iran will of course receive military and logistical support. And if an Iranian ship is being annoying we can sink it…after all we are at war.
granddaddy says
I’ve heard these allegations before. If Obama wants to enjoy any legitimacy in politics, you would think he would want it cleared out of the way. It’s not like he’s nobody.
Creole Gumbo says
It’s not “Leftish Privilege”it’s BLACK PRIVILEGE.
F.R. Duplantier says
IF IT PROSPER
All the sins of the Clintons are bared,
Yet you’d think not a single soul cared,
But we know what’s the reason
None dare call it treason:
They’re complicit, complacent, or scared.
Politicianophobia says
Wow, Ibraham the Thigning Master is also an expert in law–So he knows the law about anyone who abandons or exposes a child under the age of 10, so that his life is or is likely to be endangered ……
gravenimage says
The only law he is an expert in is Shari’ah.
Hogdude says
Believe it or not, I consider Barack Obama as a closet Moose-lim. Taking all his statements, actions and background into consideration, he damaged and divided America as much as he could while not openly attacking our systems. For that, he’ll be remembered. The rest of his administration will be chaff in the wind.
Lorensacho Byzantine says
Why not indict Trump for treason for abandoning his allies in Europe for Russia?
Wellington says
I hope you’re a comedian rather than someone being serious, because, if the latter, you are so in the dark about so many matters and issues, not the least being your woeful understanding of what constitutes treason under American constitutional and statutory law, that, in effect, you managed something difficult to do, i.e., becoming a parody of oneself.
Bowen Gustafsen says
Let’s go back to 2015 when even the G-20 were asking the same questions…
Obama is being accused of treason
America has been so ineffectual in dealing with terror that some people are wondering…
At the 2015 G-20 summit in Turkey, Barack Obama made the surreal comment that Islamic state (ISIS) is not “a traditional military opponent” and then labeled it a “violent extremist group” that occupies land where he feels they can be “contained.” Obama sounded delusional.
Now we know why the United States has been so ineffectual in defeating this enemy and the Paris attacks only confirm the fear that we have been fighting on the wrong side of the War on Terror.
The truth is extremely cruel: The imprudent Obama administration is simply detached from reality and has no strategy to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. To defeat Islamic terrorists before they kill us, we need to be proactive in identifying the enemy and take this war to them without mercy, hesitation or restraint.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17910