Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where is the Constitution? 'Obama considers U.N. to be higher authority than Congress'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 3/21/11 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 03/21/2011 1:52:02 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.

Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.

Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.

He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhofascism; bhotreason; bhotyranny; breachofoath; congress; constitution; impeach; nwo; obama; tyranny; un; unconstitutional; usurper; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2011 1:52:08 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner; xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ...

Henry Lamb MEGA-PING!


2 posted on 03/21/2011 1:53:13 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

no muslim can ever be loyal to the United States, because it goes against their faith.


3 posted on 03/21/2011 1:59:03 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

4 posted on 03/21/2011 2:01:58 AM PDT by paulycy (Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Yes Obama is a UN puppet.
Has been elected as such in order to weaken USA and give up to the muslim world, China....meanwhile he is waging fake wars


5 posted on 03/21/2011 2:11:59 AM PDT by Ulysse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I said this after hearing him say we would not put ground troops in Libya cut would be part of a global coalition (or words to that effect)

zero is a traitor, just a half step away from legal prosecution and the feckless republicans are discussing NPR.


VALKYRIE !!!

6 posted on 03/21/2011 2:17:24 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

It is the New World Order and it is right in front of our noses.


7 posted on 03/21/2011 2:27:21 AM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

The Bamster don’t need no steenkin’ Constitution.


8 posted on 03/21/2011 2:31:47 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Just obama being obama.

We still get two more wonderful years of 'the recovery.'

Barry must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time for some ice cream. Time for a swim. Up yours America.

There's so much to hammer on here with this administration.

Time to step up Republicans!

Hoop Time

9 posted on 03/21/2011 2:37:00 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
MEANWHILE......

Where oh where is our Republi-tard leadership in Congress?

Crickets chirping!

Is there not ONE (not even Bachman?) willing to stand up and call for at the least, hearings, if not impeachment?

Have they ALL been cowed and neutered by the fear they will be demonized by the Leftist, Lame-Stream Media and be charged with being "Anti-Military" (as has been wrong-headely, IMHO, suggested here by some Freepers) if they should criticize the Fascist Dear Leader for hin UNCONSTITUIONAL, unilateral, actions?

Have the Demo-Rats suffered the least for having taken this Hate-America/Military, "Surrender and Defeat" attitude since Nam?

Of course with its inability to ever frame a debate in such a manner which would reflect favorably on itself--thus proving their ineptness going back for 40 years and willingness to simply roll over, time and again on every major issue--the Pubes are doing what they do best: simply hiding under their desks, fearful to open their mouths.

What a bunch of spineless, wusses.

They disgust me...all of them!

10 posted on 03/21/2011 3:35:08 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Why would anyone expect BO/BS to follow the Constitution when he is illegally occupying the Oval Office because he doesn’t fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?


11 posted on 03/21/2011 3:43:54 AM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

The second paragraph of the Declaration specifies how these matters should be handled.

“...when a long train of abuses and usurpations...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The question is; do we have the sand anymore?


12 posted on 03/21/2011 3:45:21 AM PDT by Tigerized (pursuingliberty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

BO/BS is positioning himself to be world leader since the term for the current Secretary General of the U.N. expires at the end of this year.


13 posted on 03/21/2011 3:46:54 AM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

I can’t recall a single US President/ or Congressman for that matter-since I was discharged that didn’t consider the UN indispensable—if not believing we were subject to its goals and decisions. some have pretended they could lead the UN to act on our behalf—But all of them have said we can’t kick them out —nor withdraw.The Muslim from ? is just more manifest in his subservience to foreign leadership.


14 posted on 03/21/2011 4:11:50 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
I'm with you on this. This is a disgraceful act of treason that should have a much higher profile. The Republicans should be screaming their damn heads off. You're right, they're damn useless.

Impeach Obama For Sending The US to War Without Congressional Approval

15 posted on 03/21/2011 4:12:46 AM PDT by wistful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

American diplomats and American politicians are going on British television and stating, repeatedly and vociferously, that America is NOT effecting a war of aggression against Gaddaffi - in fact, they’re even saying that Gaddaffi himself isn’t a target. Why do you think that is?

The War Powers Act doesn’t just talk about declared states of war. It also discusses “specific statutory authorization” which means a scenario other than a declared state of war... for example, situations described persuant to the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act (1976). “Peace keeping missions”. Multi-lateral action. Treaties which America has signed with regard to protecting an ally. And so on.

Congress and the Constitution have to allow for the possibility that a situation might arise in the future where POTUS and the Joint Chiefs agree some form of military assistance or action is necessary but it falls short of declaring war, BUT the action has to be both immediate and decisive.

These days, one guy with something in a rucksack can lay waste to a city block, and a country’s economy can be decimated by someone tapping away on a keyboard. You can’t expect Congress to spend a couple of days making an informed debate if things are that fluid. It’s not like Korea and Viet Nam where there was ample time to get Congress on side and the incumbent POTUS couldn’t be bothered to go through the proper channels.

The retrospective Congress approval is catered for in your legal process precisely because Congress knows it can’t always react in time.

Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.

He’s got two unhappy choices: take an executive decision to save the ally and let the diplomats sort out the diplomatic fallout later... or don’t.

Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you don’t agree with what he’s done or how he’s gone about it, but one thing’s for certain: he’s not the first POTUS to do it and he won’t be the last POTUS to do it.

There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.

Hard cases make bad law.


16 posted on 03/21/2011 4:18:19 AM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce

“There’s no easy way to completely close the loophole Obama exploited without impeding legitimate (and necessary) executive action in the future. But I’m not sure it should be closed.”

I don’t see that Libya is that much different to Iraq. If Congressional approval was necessary in the one case, why not the other?

It certainly wasn’t a bomb in a suitcase matter.


17 posted on 03/21/2011 4:31:39 AM PDT by wistful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Obama was allowed to piss on the Constitution by Congress when they did not positively verify his nationality. From that point on, it allowed to go on and on and on.

It was a question BEFORE he was elected and now we pay the price.


18 posted on 03/21/2011 4:31:50 AM PDT by DH (48th TFW, A&E Lakenheath England, 67-70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

bump


19 posted on 03/21/2011 4:35:22 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce

“Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.”

I’m at a total loss on the logic of this statement. How about Israel taking care of their own business? What would happen if the dirty bomb exploded as the attack occurred? What if innocent women and children were killed or injured?

No, No, No! ONLY immediate action that perils the United States directly are to be acted upon under these directives...NOT THE UN!


20 posted on 03/21/2011 4:38:04 AM PDT by DH (48th TFW, A&E Lakenheath England, 67-70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

“Where is the Constitution.”

More importantly, where the hell, is Congress? Oh, yes, I forgot off on VACATION. What a bunch of incompetent, stumbling, bumbling fools!

The whole bunch needs to be thrown out,and replaced with new members, who understand what the Constitution means. Then term limits on Congress needs to be imposed. Until this happens nothing will get done, and we will continue to be a Country in decline.


21 posted on 03/21/2011 4:48:21 AM PDT by Shane (When Injustice Becomes Law, RESISTANCE Becomes DUTY.----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shane

Probable quote from nobama: The US Constitution is crap...I wipe my a** with the Constitution.”


22 posted on 03/21/2011 5:17:50 AM PDT by hal ogen (1st amendment or reeducation camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

23 posted on 03/21/2011 5:25:16 AM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts!I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

IF I were a conspiracy follower, the whole Libya fiasco could be interpreted to be a cause that could forward the “One World Government” agenda of Soros/Obama/Progressives. (I’ll be convinced that’s true when the “rebels” in Libya push for Union Representation)


24 posted on 03/21/2011 5:54:39 AM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

You realize of course that none of this matters unless the Congress makes it matter and they’ve been sufficiently intimidated that they’ll remain mum and the MSM will bury the story altogether.


25 posted on 03/21/2011 6:11:10 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wistful

The basis for Gulf War 1 was to eject Saddam from Kuwait, and the basis for Gulf War 2 was the War On Terror. In both cases we *were* at war with the Iraqi regime.

The diplomats, politicians and even the army are very keen on emphasising that we are NOT at war with the regime in the case of Libya. This is more or less “true”. But it is not the “actualité”.

(Politicians and diplomats are completely familiar with the concept of “being economical with the actualité”. Google Alan Clark for a fantastic example of it.)

The actualité is, this whole Libya thing has been dressed up as a humanitarian intervention requiring swift and decisive international action. Precisely so that it *doesn’t* fit the exact same circumstances of a “war”.

Remember how the term “unlawful combatants” was coined simply to escape the “prisoner of war” jargon under which the Geneva Convention applied? Same thing.


26 posted on 03/21/2011 6:22:52 AM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ulysse

Of course 0bama thinks the UN is above Congress, and the UN Charter above the Constitution.

Like all leftists, he inherently believes the more centralized the government, the more authority it has, especially over less centralized authoritie.


27 posted on 03/21/2011 6:26:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce

Appreciate the explanation.

Still looks dodgy to me.

Do you reckon the US Armed Forces participating know they’re not really at war?


28 posted on 03/21/2011 6:37:57 AM PDT by wistful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DH

“How about Israel taking care of their own business?”

Those were entirely valid questions. But politicians also consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing at home”. Diplomats consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing with our allies”.

Armchair commentators and small-town hick politicians can get away with making blanket assumptions, passing the buck, or playing barrack-room-lawyer to avoid having to make a hard choice. But then, they’re not going to be held to account for the consequences.

Say the terrorists were travelling through Germany and were mere hours away from launching the attack; at the very least the Germans and the Israelis would have to be notified of the threat. In reality, the Israelis are unlikely to be in a position to respond.

Realistically, the German government would have great difficulty authorizing the use of deadly force at short notice, against foreign nationals carrying a dirty bomb through a crowded German town. So would Washington.

If POTUS can’t do anything at all until he’s had all of Congress navel-gaze over all the options on the table and Germany took the same by-the-book approach then the net consequence would be the use of a WMD against one of America’s allies, with both Germany and America forced to sit on their hands.

Is the survival of Israel less important than the rule book?


29 posted on 03/21/2011 7:05:34 AM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wistful
IIRC there was a specific bit of legislation in the 1970s, regarding arms imports and mentioning the Middle East, which pretty much set the legal precedent up for the action Obama has just taken.

So I expect the top brass know that they're taking out the SAM sites and control rooms primarily to disrupt the ability of Gaddaffi to coordinate strikes against his own people, and once done it'll be up to the Libyans themselves to decide what to do with their dictator. One of the US brass on the BBC this morning, said they were actively avoiding tracking Gaddaffi's movements because they don't want to be seen to have taken him out. If of course he just happens to be in a control room that goes kaboom then they're adamant that it won't be anything other than an unfortunate accident...

(This just in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939 - all the coalition partners are singing from the same hymn sheet on that point)

The USAF personnel on the ground may think they're at war, or they may think they're on a peace-keeping exercise. How they perceive the mission probably depends on the detail and content of their orders.

30 posted on 03/21/2011 7:22:33 AM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.

MSM mum but if Bush did that it would be 24/7 news,the msm is owned by Obama&Co.


31 posted on 03/21/2011 7:26:06 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

But, but...he’s a Constitutional Scholar....sez so on his resume- between Kommunity Organizer and NCAA Tournament Handicapper.


32 posted on 03/21/2011 7:32:34 AM PDT by TADSLOS (Tea Party. We are the party of NO! NO to more government! NO to more spending! NO to more taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce
You wrote "Those were entirely valid questions. But politicians also consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing at home”. Diplomats consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing with our allies”."

You for got to add: Mothers and Fathers ask "why did my son/daughter have to die to feed the egos of politicians and diplomats?"

33 posted on 03/21/2011 7:40:27 AM PDT by DH (48th TFW, A&E Lakenheath England, 67-70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Where is the Republican leadership?


34 posted on 03/21/2011 7:59:29 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Where is the Republican leadership?

Oxymoron
35 posted on 03/21/2011 8:10:03 AM PDT by crosshairs (Appeasement is surrender in slow motion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DH

>Obama was allowed to piss on the Constitution by Congress when they did not positively verify his nationality. From that point on, it allowed to go on and on and on.
>
>It was a question BEFORE he was elected and now we pay the price.

And this may only be the downpayment.


36 posted on 03/21/2011 8:26:59 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DH

If a politician or a diplomat had children serving in the Forces then you’d be right. But these days, they’re rarer than hen’s teeth in the United Kingdom.

Our Royal Family are just about the only people in any branch of the entire British parliamentary system that still encourages their children to go into the military AND serve at the front line AND muck in with everybody else.

Tony Blair and his ilk absolutely wouldn’t allow their kids to serve in the military for all the tea in China, unless they could wangle a nice desk job for their offspring.

But they were all quite happy to send our troops to the Middle East without the necessary equipment.


37 posted on 03/21/2011 8:30:47 AM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

It is the New World Order and it is right in front of our noses.


And right in front of our rifle sights.

38 posted on 03/21/2011 8:48:27 AM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Unbelievable. With NO congressional approval.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Ill-Air-National-Guard-Unit-Deployed-to-Libya-118359004.html?dr


39 posted on 03/21/2011 8:49:46 AM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

OK who will you shoot? The Amercican public is just ignoring it.


40 posted on 03/21/2011 9:00:30 AM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

*


41 posted on 03/21/2011 9:01:53 AM PDT by Beaten Valve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Of course he does, he’s a “citizen of the world” and someday hopes to be President of it.


42 posted on 03/21/2011 9:03:20 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Obama in his own works in 2007 -- states what he is doing is unconstitutional

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

— Senator Barack Hussein Obama, December 20, 2007

link

43 posted on 03/21/2011 9:12:09 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Maybe he has to send back the Nobel ??


44 posted on 03/21/2011 9:46:06 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty
Why would anyone expect BO/BS to follow the Constitution when he is illegally occupying the Oval Office because he doesn’t fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Those were my exact thoughts upon reading this ridiulous headline. Where is the Constitution ... INDEED!
Where has it been for the past 26 months?

45 posted on 03/21/2011 10:06:51 AM PDT by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce
Ultimately any POTUS has to be able to make an executive decision to act in those situations. This time round it just happened to be Obama exercising that decision and you don’t agree with what he’s done or how he’s gone about it

WTH does the current illegal war have to do with any of "those situations." There is/was no imminent threat to the US, France or England -- that broadest of broad coalitions. The only threat from Daffy was to "rebels" to his government. We do not even know who those alleged "rebels" are. For all we know they could be the MB or AQ. It is simply mind boggling that there is anyone of FR trying to defend the actions of the usurper.

46 posted on 03/21/2011 10:29:48 AM PDT by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MalPearce
Remember how the term “unlawful combatants” was coined simply to escape the “prisoner of war” jargon under which the Geneva Convention applied?

Are you insinuating the term "unlawful combatant" only appeared during the WOT?

...the distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants (also referred to as “unprivileged belligerents”) has deep roots in international humanitarian law, preceding even the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907 contemplated distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants, and this distinction remains to this day.

As Professor Adam Roberts told the Brookings Speakers Forum in March 2002, “There is a long record of certain people coming into the category of unlawful combatants— pirates, spies, saboteurs, and so on. It has been absurd that there should have been a debate about whether or not that category exists.”


47 posted on 03/21/2011 10:45:07 AM PDT by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Blue helmets or other jack boots, when they send them. Until then, we continue the soft war and vote out the commie rats. Election 2012 is critical.

I’d guess within the next 6 to 12 month the American public will finally open their eyes when the fascist NWO economic policies hit them hard.


48 posted on 03/21/2011 10:54:57 AM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Good quote ... here are a few more.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

All quotes taken from Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War when he was nothing more than a 2 bit state senator.

49 posted on 03/21/2011 11:09:37 AM PDT by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Bflr.


50 posted on 03/21/2011 11:27:34 AM PDT by Prince of Space
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson