Obama Violates the Fundamental Doctrine of the Constitution
Articles Blog

Obama Violates the Fundamental Doctrine of the Constitution

October 8, 2019

On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots
declared that we were a people created equal — free to think and worship and live as we
please.  It was a declaration heard around the world — that we were no longer colonists,
we were Americans, and our destiny would not be determined for us; it would be determined
by us. It was a bold and tremendously brave thing
to do.  It was also nearly unthinkable.  At that time, kings and princes and emperors
ruled the world.  But those patriots were certain that a better way was possible. 
And this tyrant has robbed us of that better way, structured in our U.S. Constitution.
President Obama has taken it upon himself the power of a king or emperor.
Now, once again we stand poised at a precipice — forced to the edge by an Administration
which has thrown caution to the winds and our Constitution to the ground.
It is abundantly clear from a careful reading of our Declaration of Independence that our
nation was born from nothing less than the rebellion of the human spirit against the
arrogance of power. More than 200 years ago it was the awareness
of the unchecked arrogance of George III that led our Founders to deliberately and carefully
balance our constitution by articulating the rights of Congress in Article I, as the primary
check by our citizens against the dangers they foresaw for our republic. Our constitution
was derived from the human and political experience of our Founders who were aware of what happens
when one person took it upon himself to assume rights and privileges which place them above
their fellow citizens. The power to declare war is firmly and explicitly
vested in the Congress of the United States under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
THAT is the Law. Let us make no mistake about it, dropping
2000 lb bombs and unleashing the massive firepower of our air force on the capital of a sovereign
state is in fact an act of war and no amount of legal acrobatics can make it otherwise. It is the arrogance of power which the former
Senator Fulbright, saw shrouded in the deceit which carried us into the abyss of another
war in Vietnam. My generation was determined we would never again see another Vietnam.
It was the awareness of the unchecked power and arrogance of the executive which led Congress
to pass the War Powers Act. Congress, through the War Powers Act provided,
the executive with an exception to unilaterally respond only when the nation was in actual
or imminent danger; to “repel sudden attacks.” Mr. Speaker, today we are in a constitutional
crisis because our me have an administration that has assumed for itself powers to wage
war which are neither expressly defined nor implicit in the Constitution, nor permitted
under the War Powers Act. A President has no right to wrest that fundamental
power from Congress — and we have no right to cede it to him. We, Members of Congress can no more absolve
a president of his responsibility to obey this profound constitutional mandate then
can absolve ourselves of our failure to rise to the instant challenge to our Constitution
that is before us today. We violate our sacred trust to the citizens
of the United States and our oath to uphold the constitution if we surrender this great
responsibility and through our inaction acquiesce in another terrible war. We must courageously defend the oath we took
to defend the Constitution of the United States or we forfeit our right to participate in
representative government. James Madison, the father of the Constitution,
warned us of all these forces that are in conspiracy against the desire and duty of
peace. He didn’t say “let’s just trust the president.” He was saying, you cannot trust
the president with the power to make war. He said the most important clause of our Constitution
was the one that kept that power out of the president’s hands. “In no part of the constitution
is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” And this arrogant tyrant, he’s dropping bombs
on people and killing innocent people in countries where there’s no declaration of war. This
man is a tyrant and shouldn’t remain in office. And if we had representatives that cared about
our Constitution, he would be impeached. Please share this video by clicking here and
sharing the playlist. Even if you don’t live in America, share it with people you think
will pass it on to others. Use the tools below, let’s make sure every American gets to see
this, every American. All you have to do is click on them and you can share the playlist
on Twitter and on Facebook and with other people. And please subscribe to this channel
of over 40,000 subscribers. Let’s get moving this year to change things.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. No need to refuse. Just say, "I have nothing to say to you". It is a specifically crafted phrase designed to avoid any possibility of being charged with any offence (UK spel.).

  2. America, watch your back. But in this video, you should also be arrogant to the things that are in front of you. This video is truth and the modern day patriot Mr. Kuchinich. This is the 21st century, and unlike the 1770's, we do not have muskets that propel our army. We have technology that makes for senseless violence and propaganda The best adage I have learned in my 55 years of existence is 'times change, people don't'. The fathers who outlined the constitution were ever aware of this.

  3. ??? Have you just read the statements you made? Unbelievable! If you mean Romney, you must be listening to the left demonize him like they do all their opponents, but even with that, he is still superior to Obama. Not enough room to list the facts, issues and comparisons, but then not sure you would accept them anyway, due to your statements. The media has done a good job of being biased, lying, not reporting, etc. They are a big factor in the cause for division in this country.

  4. Maybe because when congress authorizes the use of force, that's not the same thing as "allowing a president to declare war at will?"

    Just a shot in the dark.

  5. I understand your argument. The problem is where to draw the line between use of force and war. Sending troops into Iran to free the hostages is a use of force. So is sending a drone into Yemen to kill – what was it around 45 people, mostly civilians? I am just not comfortable with the Executive having so much power especially in this age of secrecy for the government but no secrecy for the people.

  6. We can start with supporting Wolf PAC which is an org geared at restoring the republic to the people with free and fair elections. We need to stop the unfettered amount of money that political campaigns receive from outside organizations. Visit Wolf Pac.com to sign the petition and spread the word.

  7. Your "nation" was born on the genocide of 10s of millions of people who had lived there for 1000s of years. The birds have come home to roost.

  8. "I am just not comfortable with the Executive having so much power"

    Great. So what? It doesn't in any way somehow make GOPers hypcrotical about the const.

    If congress authorizes military action, regardless if they say "we declare war" or "We authorize the use of force," that satisfies any Article 1, Section 8 requirement. There is no hypocrisy in "Republicans who quote the Founding Fathers about the constitution all the time" Accepting that the Article 1, Sect 8 requirement is met by either.

  9. Really? The party that emphasizes the constitution and emphasizes executive control over initiating wars are not hypocritical?

    About your second point – "[Congress shall have Power…] To declare War". Seems pretty clear to me. And yes I have hear every argument under the sun and all of them are wrong. The spirit and letter of the law are the same here since the founding fathers wanted to restrict the power of the executive to initiate force. We can disagree with the founding fathers…

  10. You are confused, Congress DIDN'T authorize the use of force so what are you trying to say? And no, it is not legit to say "oh I'm just directing a "use of force" but I am not doing an act of war. That's BS, if someone uses force then they're just a dirty gangster, hardly a president. It's CRYSTAL clear what the Father of the Constitution intended because he spelled it out as I explain here! ANYONE claiming to adhere to the Constitution while accepting President use of force is a hypocrite al

  11. I believed that 7jerryv7 was referring to the Iraq war in his comment. So that's what I replied about.

    The joint resolution for the use of force in Iraq was passed in early October 2002, and enacted October 16 of that year.

    If he wasn't talking about Iraq, I'd need to obviously retract my part of the conversation.

    But my comments were a reply to 7jerryv7's comments, not a statement on the content of the video.

  12. 1) Straw man argument–Check!

    2) There is no required language in the Constitution for the Art1, Sect8 requirement. The Const doesnt require the words "declare war" have to be included.

    As this video explains, this issue isn't what you call it. The issue is that congress approves it. So both the sprirt and the letter were met.

    Class dismissed. =]

  13. 1) This is easily proven with facts. The war on terror and illegal surveillance. Done. So take a logic course. Class dismissed.
    2) You are joking? So the explicit statement that the executive should not have the power to start wars and the quotation above are not enough? Plus the fact that there were discussions in writing to support my claim? Do you think a cute little argument about well we can engage in violence short of war is adequate? Done. Class dismissed little boy.

  14. I do not know how else to point it out. My sources are the Constitution or James Madison:
    1. [Congress shall have Power…] To declare War
    2. …the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war…
    3. "War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement"
    I will not even grant you the argument that small scale military action, involving 30-100 soldiers, might be acceptable. Why? Because any aggression could trigger war

  15. if you read the joint resolution for the use of force, it is conditional, so what Bush did was NOT authorized since it what he did was not "work with the United Nations Security Council" nor "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
    Violating is NOT "enforcing" IGNORING isn't "working with." So Bush's actions were illegal every way you look at it. There was an inspection process which Bush halted! The Security Council DIDN'T authorize war on Iraq.

  16. Take your own advice. Read it.

    The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


    They gave him the latitude to do what he did. Sorry.

  17. I have read it. I remember congress people explaining at the time they voted on it to compel Saddam to accept the inspections. No lawyer is going to say that authorizes illegal acts or that when Congress signed that they agreed to actions outside of the law. There were no relevant Security Council resolutions which authorized force. A legal reading is IF the UN authorized an attack on Iraq, Bush would be allowed to order US forces to participate. There was an understood process WHICH BUSH SAID!

  18. A LEGAL reading of the authorization is that it doesn't sign away laws of our land to allow for Bush to break laws if he deems it "necessary and appropriate" The understanding was that if a second resolution was approved at the UN which did authorize the use of force (Bush said he would ask 4), then Bush didn't need to go to Congress to ask for war since they already approved of enforcing relevant UN resolutions. violating isn't "enforcing" Bush violated international law + Congress's conditions

  19. "I remember congress people explaining…"

    Which is the problem. The reality is what does the document say. Because that is what was voted on, and sent to the president. Positions that politicos backpedal to later are irrelevant.

    I feel your frustration. you want to believe your rep. You want to believe your senators. We all do. So when they told you of non-existent conditions, you accepted their word.

    But that's a mistake. Lesson learned.

    Congress auth' military force, at pres discretion

  20. and to be clear, Bush said he would ask for a second resolution. As "At the time when Resolution 1441 was being written, Colin Powell explained the process: "I can assure you if he doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means""
    And Bush promised that the US would go to the UN to get that 2nd resloution: ''No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Presdient Bush claimed. (he lied)

  21. "The understanding was that if a second resolution was approved at the UN"

    Sorry. But none of that is in the resolution.

    You really haven't read it, have you?

    Trust me. Reading it yourself will be much more reliable than listening to politicians explain it for you.

  22. "Bush said he would ask for a second resolution."

    1st) 1441 was the UN resolution. Not the US one. So what 1441 says has nothing to do with whether or not the congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.

    2nd) None of your conditions exist in the resolution. Bush lie about a 2nd vote? Doesn't change the fact that congress authorized the force, as used.

    I can get you a copy of the resolution, if you want.

  23. I know what 1441 was and it was not a UN SC authorization for war on Iraq, that's the very reason Colin Powell "assured" us that they would go back to the UN to get a 2nd resolution (as Bush promised to do too) I told you I read the resolution, it was not the understanding of many of Congress people that the resolution was a repeal of laws. "Enforce" doesn't mean "violate," The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 is not a repeal of the rules of war.

  24. What Congress authorized was conditional. Do you think Bush could have attacked Japan using that resolution as an excuse? "The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
    President to–
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
    Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
    and encourages him in those efforts"

    " Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
    Forces of the United States …" cont.

  25. None of that changes the FACT that the congress–the US congress that the US constitution (Art1, Sect8) says "declares war" DID authorize the use of force.

    The ONLY thing that matters is "what did congress authorize?"

    There was no violation. Actions taken were in accordance with the resolution.

  26. Authorization The President is authorized to use the Armed
    Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
    appropriate in order to-
    (1) defend the national security of the United States
    against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.
    were those conditions met? NO because there wasn't a UNSC resolution authorizing an attack so attacking isnt enforcing

  27. "Do you think Bush could have attacked Japan using that resolution as an excuse? "

    LOLOL. Why, is Japan part of Iraq? Because it says pretty clearly "Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

    That's a pretty silly question, unless you think Japan was part of Iraq. For the rest of us, the resolution applies to Iraq.

    Correct that the res "supports the efforts.."

    it in NO WAY does "Support" mean "required as a prerequisite to." Its not a sine qua non

  28. If there was a United Nations Security Council which gave member states "authorization for all necessary means" THEN Bush could have argued that he was enforcing a "relevant United Nations Security Council resolution"
    When you make a contract or resolution, the understanding is the parties adhere to the law. Many voting clearly understood it not as authorizing immediate attack but part of a process. IF the UN had voted to allow force Bush then could have said he was enforcing that.
    Do you see?

  29. The authority passed by congress does NOT REQUIRE the UN to do ANYTHING.

    The use of force is 100% as the president "determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against
    the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.

    There are ONLY TWO conditions. NIETHER of them require the UN. Diplomatic initiatives are supported, but never required.

    Do YOU see?

  30. "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
    I see a 1441 requesting all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC. Making a threat to attack Iraq and forcing inspector to leave is a violation of that, not an "enforcement" It sasy the SECURITY COUNCIL "remains seized on the matter" it DOESN'T say, any member state can attack at will. There is no resolution to "enforce" as far as starting a war. Bush VIOLATED the resolution, he didn't "enforce" it.

  31. " enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq."

    Correct. It had 2 CONDITIONS. And the point you want to skip is that there were no relevant Nations Security Council resolution talking about starting a war or using force. There were relevant UNSC resolutions talking about the inspection process and supporting that process and clearly saying that the Security Council would decide what to do next (meaning if they would authorize force or not)

  32. "no relevant Nations Security Council resolution talking about starting a war or using force"

    They don't have to. US congress already GAVE that authroization.

    The pres was NOT required to determine "previous resolutions authorized force." He only had to determine the previous resolutions were being violated.

    And it was his SOLE determination to make. He didn't have to go get anything more from the UN.

  33. "it DOESN'T say, any member state can attack at will."

    Irrelevant. The legality is what CONGRESS authorizes. Nothing in the US const requires the US to get permission from anyone OTHER than the Congress (for the use of force).

    Permission that they gave.

  34. I think you are being disingenuous. Congress gave authorization ON TWO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, it wasn't 'do anything you want including illegal actions. First of all if you look, Bush clearly commited a crime and uses a clear cut lie as an excuse. Fact is Saddam did allow inspectors in, Bush claims he didn't, so you are making excuses for a liar and war criminal. (and look how dishonest he is about the inspectors reports /watch?v=MhdMA_KhcwA 2nd, enforce relevant resolutions does not mean violate


    Correct. NEITHER condition was "UN has to approve the use of force.

    It might help you to read #2 long-form. Here you go:

    #2) The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq."

    He needs only determine the using force would enforce a resolution. The UN doesn't have to also agree.

  36. Actually the US has signed treaties which outlaw wars of aggression, and as our Constitution says, treaties signed are law of the land. You might not like that but it is the law. The action Bush took violated the law. He is a war criminal who plotted his war of aggression even before he was president. His fraud is clear. So you think Bush determined that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and so it was "necessary and appropriate" to attack Iraq? And that is OK with you?

  37. Well the UN has to agree for it to be legal. Do you agree with that? Or do you want to act like treaties don't exist, aren't specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and that there is no such thing as international law?

    And since when can you commit fraud against Congress?

  38. "and as our Constitution says, treaties signed are law of the land"

    But like any other "law of the land" it cant amend the constitution. Just as the UN cant commit US troops without congress approval, they cant block it either.

    The "law of the land" language was to make the treaties binding on the states. IE, if the US signs a treaty, states can not individually refuse to comply.

    But law NEVER amends the const, The original language for "declaring war" has not been amended.

  39. So Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and that is why hundreds of thousands had to be killed and even more injured, displaced and traumatized? the boys and girls who had their fathers and mothers die in that BS war don't get them back. It doesn't bother you that Bush's excuse is clearly false?

  40. Hey, ya don't like the war? I don't blame you. Lots of very valid criticisms about the whole thing.

    But there is nothing in the Const that says "Anything that Representative Press guy on Youtube doesn't like is automatically illegal."

    So, you think it was a fuxed up idea, and executed horribly poorly? Get in line with everyone else who feels the same.

    But that doesn't make it an illegal war. its just one you don't like.

  41. No, they were killed because they were firing on Americans (an act of war) everyday for almost 10 years. Clinton should have done something about it and nipped it in the bud, but he is a Liberal and didn't. Bush carried it too far and wanted to be a nation builder and interfere with another countries politics.

  42. actually the media has deceived you. Iraq was within its rights to protect its airspace, the non fly zones were NOT legal. (in spite of media acting like they were) " the no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution" "Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go"

  43. it may not be just obama but why not start at the top and work our way down the ladder – in response to this cat says-

  44. No, they have you where they want you. The Americans were completely in the wrong, and were attacking Iraq on a weekly basis for years. The slaughter of the Iraqi people cannot be covered up. It is too big a crime.

  45. Presidents are puppets! Until this nation can understand that the power is with the people, then we will continue to rant, rave, and complain and nothing will be done. Much like this page!

  46. I've pestered you in the past over "operation mocking bird" that was exposed in the 1975 Church hearings. As a reminder those hearings exposed how the CIA controls the news media by actually scripting their reports. So far you've never responded. But now there is apparent language granting the government that same control over the news media in the 2013 NDAA. It's time to stop the denial because the fact that we have a government controlled media is now a verifiable fact.

  47. 200 to 1, looks like Obama is in serious trouble! Even Michelle and the kids liked it! He's the only one that didn't!

  48. At least he's not changing/ Amending his own job entitlements in the constitution. And perhaps you forget that President Bush junior convinced congress to declare war by using information that had not been verified and was proven wrong.
    And congress refuses to remember the9 th and 10 th amendment's. The state and people have All powers not covered by the constitution. It is not necessary or proper what they've cracked

  49. Obama is talking about the Declaration of Independence. I then point out ow he betrays the Constitution by violating the most important clause!

  50. Lets not forget about George the senior or George the junior.
    I really don't think it is the president who calls the shots, nor do I think the politicians, much less represent us.
    This country has already been through a second civil war, it was fought slowly but surely and won due to the empathy of the American public.
    The US is now a Plutocracy.
    I would not be surprised if a private corporate army (ie blackwater and the like) did the chem attack on Syria.
    Obama was anti war before presidency

  51. And the scum bag is not even a legal American citizen!!! But our stupid, ignorant American populace has made him out Commander in Chief out of guilt. These idiots wanted to make themselves feel good by putting a Black man into our Presidency. Give me Dr. Carson and I will vote for a black man….but not this effing Kenyan, socialist Marxist swine.

  52. Time for the American people to grow some balls. Seriously, when's the last time our government changed for the better, by sitting back and "hoping for the best"?
    Hopefully, in the future, more of our troops realize that "patriotism" isn't about killing innocent, starving children in some place most Americans couldn't point out on a world map?

  53. lets see here now……..nixon wiretaps a few rooms….he gets impeached….oba mao wiretaps the whole world!!…………….WE HEAR NOTHING BUT FUCKIN CRICKETS !!……..WHAT THE FUCK !!!……DO YOUR FUCKIN JOB CONGRESS !!!!….

  54. It’s duplicity. Obama is the “master of deceit.” He lacks an honest bone in his body.

    He condemns torture while practicing it. He denounces Wall Street excess while supporting it. He wages one war after another while promising peace.

    He backs Palestinian rights while trashing them. He supports the worst of Zionist militancy. He ignores institutionalized Israeli racism.

    His word isn’t his bond. He broke every major promise made. He’s “hands down” the “greatest con-man president in American history

  55. Frees his picture , and look at his eye this black man is high , on what kind drugs he is up to ?

  56. The Obama Doctrine is 1+1=3….Right is wrong……good is bad……The government made you who you are……..Illegals are not illegal, they are Undocumented!….The more people we allow to enter this country the more jobs and wealth for everyone.!!! This is what this administration and it's pawns want the American public to believe, and it is working. We have become a passive and ignorant generation, that gets brain freeze if we thing logically……The Obama Doctrine is working like a charm!

  57.  “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.”
    — James Madison

    "As to war, I am and always was a great enemy, at the same time a warrior the greater part of my life and were I young again, should still be a warrior while ever this country should be invaded and I lived.   An offensive war, I believe to be wrong and would therefore have nothing to do with it, having no right to meddle with another man's property, his ox or his ass, his man servant or his maid servant or anything this is his". Col. Daniel Morgan

    the true wisdom of the founders, enough said.

  58. in 1776 a small band of people hell bent on seizing Indian lands decided that the British would have to be gotten rid of first as great Britain had signed a treaty with the Indians (1763) and were enforcing it to the point of arresting settlers in Indian lands and escorting them back to the colonies. its been one big lie since.

  59. What about George Bush? He didn't get congressional approval for the war in Iraq. How can so many of you "like" this video and not know this???? I'm not saying I like Obama. I'm saying "WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!".  It doesn't matter if its republican or democrat. They are the same.

  60. page 1004 of obamacare says just like the Bible = and he causes all, Great and small to receive a mark a [RFID chip] in their right hand or forehead. Just telling you people who are sleeping what time it is. Its time for the second coming of Jesus upon the clouds of heaven. you all must wake up to see one greater in evil than hitler is upon our doorstep, no he is in the house, no he is ruler of the White House= Hes the ANTICHRIST

  61. hes allready stolen nuclear bombs and placed them in positions of horribledevastation to kill and destroy, and cause confusion to take more control and power. SaTan has a mind and is way ahead of you well intentionedgood people, hes the Antichrist, the bible says he comes as a man of peace

  62. and hes already declared that he would sit at the head of gods church his throne in Rome or Jerusalem is his ultimate goal. it says of him the devil in the bible.

  63. he wont leave office hes planning to be there forever!!! obama666 wake up seek Jesus hes the one Salvation we were his creation and without him there is no life!!!

  64. You ass munches are the ones telling everyone to ignore the Constitution with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage.  you rightwing freaks can't have it both ways.

  65. Admit the truth on what you really think about how the USA was founded. Admit that you hate the USA!!! You have lied more than enough times! It's time for you to admit the real Truth on how you really despise the USA and that you want to destroy the USA and what the USA actually stands for! Admit that you are against Individual Liberty and Individual Freedom Rights!!!Admit that you're father was a communist! Admit that you are attacking US American patriots but siding with all foreign enemies of the USA!!!! Admit that you Don't like Freedom!!! Admit that you think the USA deserved what she got on 9-11-01!!!! Admit that you violate every part of the US constitution!!!!

  66. BHO is a Muslim, hate his voice. Liar. BTW They are not a religion but a devil cult. Very Evil – against God.

  67. committed treason against the people and his oath…must be hung in public on tv in the name of jesus is god!!

  68. Obama’s Borderline Treason Killed SEALS In Extortion 17 Attack – http://defiantamerica.com/air-force-officer-breaks-silence-tells-obamas-borderline-treason-killed-seals-extortion-17-attack-obama-hell-pay/
    It Was Obama’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
    Crack Dealer Pardoned By Obama Goes On To Murder 3 Victims – https://newspunch.com/obama-pardon-murder/
    Obama's Huge Corruption Lawsuit – $17 Billion Of Taxpayer Money Is Gone – https://redwhiteandright.com/obama-corruption-lawsuit-taxpayer/
    Obama's Dead Pool – http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm
    10 Reasons Barack Obama Was America's Worst President – http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/heres-the-deal/66271-10-reasons-barack-obama-was-america-s-worst-president
    9 Biggest Lies Obama Told In His DNC Speech – http://www.dailywire.com/news/7894/9-biggest-lies-obama-told-his-dnc-speech-aaron-bandler
    Top 10 Obama Lies – http://humanevents.com/2011/07/23/top-10-obama-lies/
    252 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption & Cronyism – http://www.infowars.com/252-documented-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-cronyism-etc/
    1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy & Waste – http://freedomoutpost.com/1063-documented-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-cronyism-hypocrisy-waste-etc/
    1,342 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc. – https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/
    Obama’s lies kill public’s trust – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/obamas-lies-kill-publics-trust/
    Obama, Biden are war criminals under UN Charter – http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-biden-are-war-criminals-under-un-charter-analyst/5316112
    Obama Charged With Criminal Terrorism & Crimes Against Humanity – http://godfatherpolitics.com/obama-charged-criminal-terrorism-crimes-humanity/
    Obama; $17 Billion Of Taxpayer Money Gone – http://conservativefighters.com/news/obama-nailed-corruption-lawsuit-17-billion-taxpayer-money-gone/
    $17 Billion Taxpayer Money Is Gone, Obama Nailed With Mammoth Corruption Lawsuit – https://www.nationalnewstoday365.com/2017/07/16/17-billion-taxpayer-money-is-gone-obama-nailed-with-mammoth-corruption-lawsuit-america-demands-answers-2/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *