Today on Blogcritics
Home » ‘Oops, I violated the Constitution again’ — George Bush

‘Oops, I violated the Constitution again’ — George Bush

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

“Mr. Bush also alluded today to the “so-called security trust,” calling it “a bunch of filing cabinets with I.O.U.’s in them” and adding that “it’s frankly not a very encouraging sight.” In fact, those interest-bearing Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which has never defaulted on Treasury securities.” from: Bush Says He Wants Ideas From Both Parties on Social Security.

“Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” U.S. Constitution.

George Bush swore to uphold the Constitution in his Presidential Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Well, seems like violating your oath of office as President should be an impeachable offense. But hey, that’s just me and a few other people talking.

So far…

Big Time Patriot

Powered by

About Big Time Patriot

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    BTP, you seem to have left a paragraph out of your article – the one connecting Bush’s desire to rid the SS system of debts and put actual money in the trust fund and his supposed violation of the Constitution. Is something missing there?

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    Yeah, the foundation for his whole argument is missing.

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    Childish cover it.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    Let me try thus again piece by piece.

    The backing of the social security system, the IOU’s, IS a “public debt of the United States, authorized by law”. Are you with me so far? Congress passed the laws, made agreements to pay the money out of public funds, etc. Okay?

    The consitution says the validity of public debt authorized by law SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED. Fairly clear if you read the quote?

    George Bush swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Not too ambigous?

    So we have a public debt (Social Security), we have a constitution that says it shall not be questioned, we have a president who DOES question it, in direct contravention of the constitution, even though he swore to UPHOLD the constitution.

    It appears to me that George Bush has violated his oath of office. Is there another interpretation? Didn’t he mean exactly what he said?

    Sorry that I wasn’t clear in stringing the part of each quote together that I meant to emphasize.

  • http://leoniceno.journalspace.com Leoniceno

    I think that in a democracy anything can be questioned. I’m surprised that they even put that in there. ‘Shall not be DENIED’ I would understand. But Bush is free to question all he wants. And you can always argue that he’s not questioning the validity of the public debt, but one of a multitude of other questions: is this really public debt at all? etc. (just hypothetically)

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    You and I are free to question it. George Bush swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution clearly says it can not be questioned. It seems to me that he cannot question it without violating his oath. Wasn’t Clinton’s whole impeachment thing about violating an oath? Isn’t the oath of office MORE important even than an oath in a courtroom (although those ARE important oaths also, don’t get me wrong)?

    How can social security NOT be public debt? Is it private debt? And “so-called security trust” seems pretty much a questioning statement to me.

    George Bush is saying the US Government may not keep its financial promises. That is a violation of his oath of office.

  • http://www.psychopundit.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, BTP, so it was just a logical error on your part. Bush was questioning the legitimacy of putting debt instruments in the trust fund instead of actual money, not the validity of the bonds. This would be obvious to anyone with half a lick of sense who wasn’t just out to bash Bush.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    The White House did issue a clarification of Bush’s statement. So there was obviously something gamey about them.

  • http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/jeffmichael/ Jeff Michael

    All he said it isn’t an encouraging sight…besides questioning the debt doesn’t mean you are questioning that the debt exists…sheesh.

  • Shark

    “Mr. Bush also alluded today to the “so-called security trust,” calling it “a bunch of filing cabinets with I.O.U.’s in them…”

    What a moron.

    That could describe the entire US deficit. (Largest in history, btw — and thanks, George!)

  • Shark

    “…a bunch of filing cabinets with I.O.U.’s in them…”

    Or this could be used to describe all future legistation Tom Delay plans to write.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    It seems like Bush and the SS privatization folks in general are arguing that the US treasury debt repayment is in doubt. I’ve heard that argument over and over on this site alone.

    Every time a representative of our government questions our government’s resolve to repay its debt to our own SS program, it weakens the position of debt that we owe around the globe. If WE can’t be sure that we’re going to get that debt paid back, how could any other debtor trust us? If we’re in jeopardy of reneging on SS debt, what other debt might we renege on? That seems like a good reason to to put in the constitution that it shouldn’t be questioned, doesn’t it?

    Of course, the reality is that US treasury securities are, in fact, quite secure.

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    “Largest [deficit] in history, btw — and thanks, George!)

    As you should will know statistics can be twisted to fit the situation. It’s also well known that the left/Dems covet this meme like it were a gold plated BMW.

    It’s also true the current deficit is only the largest in pure monetary terms, as a percentage of the GDP it doesn’t rank in the top ten.

    And BTW this is a Congressional issue they hole the purse strings.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “Imagine,” Bush said in his speech. “The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.” http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/05/bush.social.security.ap/?section=cnn_allpolitics .

    There is something really odd about this, no one is FORCING George Bush to take away the trust fund and blow it on tax cuts for himself and his kids. If George thinks its bad for government to take it away, he should just STOP TAKING IT AWAY. But then as usual, it’s just never, ever, ever George’s responsibility. He somehow can’t come out and say, “I’m choosing to divert our social security money to increase the security of our wealthiest Americans, and I need your help to divert even more of that money”.

  • Maurice

    I hesitate to even enter this ‘discussion’ because it appears to be based on hatred rather than calm reasoned logic.

    I could ask a couple of questions and then probably know if I am wasting my time:

    a) BTP, the impeachable offense that you claim GB commited, is that a crime of commision?

    b) if the public debt is not being handled correctly is the Pres not allowed to be the whistle blower?

    c) how do you justify the current SS system that confiscates a dollar and returns 75 cents?

    d) if it could be shown that you would get at least a 10% return on your SS dollars would you be inclined to think that was a good thing?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    current SS system that confiscates a dollar and returns 75 cents…

    Does that include the depreciation of confiscated funds between collection and disbursement?

  • Richard

    Impeachable offense? Pretending there was a reason to start a war? Pretending to care about the Iraqi people, but use cluster bombs on their cities (usually only used in the field), then only send 2 teams to defuse the cluster bombs, then have the teams run out of material to do their job after only 2 weeks? Say you are worried about WMD and then let all the most highly explosive material (which we know how much there is and where it is)be passed out to anyone because we couldn’t care less where the hell it goes? Say you care about the American people and change every environmental law to benefit big business and screw the people and their health? How many must die for his lies?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Some folks just don’t seem to grasp what an impeachable offense is and have mistaken a great deal of what is basically the president’s job description for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

    Dave

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Dave, an impeachable offense is “anything done by George W. Bush.”

    Just watch the chiming-in of agreement!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Damn, DocP, I forgot that little parenthetical addition to the Constitution.

    Dave

  • Marc

    BTP: May I suggest you are wasting your time?

    Solution?

    Write out the articles of impeachment based on your claim and send them to each Senator, Congressman and the White House.

    Then wait.

    And wait……….

    Sooner or later – based on the enviroweenies – hell will freeze over and you will get a response.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yes, I imagine the various legislators would be slow to respond to a missive saying “Impeach Bush because he’s the Devil” – BTP.

    Dave

  • http://www.taospost.com MDE

    bhw’s comment in #12 above is on target and unanswered. Were the comments a violation of an oath? Who can say; who takes the Constitution seriuously? Were they potentially damaging? For sure.

    Mark

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    I will reply to a couple of these things that struck my eye:

    “BTP, the impeachable offense that you claim GB commited, is that a crime of commision?”

    I have to admit I don’t know what a “crime of commission” means. In the consitution it says this:

    “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    –U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4

    It appears that it has been shown not so long ago that violating a sworn oath fits into this category when it happens in a court of law (i.e. Clinton). Does making an oath before the justice of the supreme court and the nation carry as much weight as a court oath? Is violating a Presidential Oath of office an act of treason against the nation? Hmmm, possibly. I don’t know for certain, but I think there is a case there.

    I think that part of the case could work, the part that is probably the most problematic is whether the words “so-called security trust” (to pick an example) can be construed as “questioning” a public debt authorized by law. I say it IS questioning that debt, you may say it is NOT questioning that debt, I guess it would just come down to the question of what the meaning of “is” is. Sound familiar? Is a “blow job” having sex? Is calling something “so called” questioning that thing?

    Looking at things historically (like within the last 10 years) there is precedent for bringing impeachment on just these types of arguments).

    “if it could be shown that you would get at least a 10% return on your SS dollars would you be inclined to think that was a good thing?”

    Lets check some facts shall we? One of the most conservative types of stock market funds are index funds based on major indexes. Lets check one of those indexes.

    Dow Jones Industrial Average on 1/15/2000: 11,792.98
    Today: 10127.41

    Let’s rephrase your question, “if it could be shown that over 5 years you could lose 16% of your SS dollars, would you think that was a good idea?”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Looking at things historically (like within the last 10 years) there is precedent for bringing impeachment on just these types of arguments).< <

    So, you think it was right to attempt to impeach Clinton on those charges? You suppored Ken Starr and his witchhunts? If the answer to this is anything but yes, then you're basically just being spiteful.

    >>Lets check some facts shall we? One of the most conservative types of stock market funds are index funds based on major indexes. Lets check one of those indexes.

    Dow Jones Industrial Average on 1/15/2000: 11,792.98
    Today: 10127.41

    Let’s rephrase your question, “if it could be shown that over 5 years you could lose 16% of your SS dollars, would you think that was a good idea?”<<

    So, you expect the time from when people start working to when they retire to be 5 years?

    In addition, are you aware of how many stocks the Dow is based on? It’s based on 30 stocks. The typical broad indexed fund includes between 500 and 5000 stocks. So a Dow based fund would be a highly speculative fund heavily slanted towards traditional industries. It’s not even vaguely like the kinds of funds they’re talking about for alternative SS plans. A straight Dow fund would be a terrible thing to invest in.

    For comparison, look at the performance of some more broad based mutual funds. For example, the Royce Total Return Fund (IMO the best overall mutual fund currently on the market) has averaged 15.08% a year for the last 5 years. It’s composed of 2000 different stocks. Most funds are not as good as it is, but to give you an idea of how stable they are, one of my Strong Index Funds with a similar composition has performed almost as well over the last 5 years – a period in which the fund manager was indicted for misappropriation of funds. Think about it – the guy who runs the fund and picks the stocks went to jail and the profits were unaffected. That’s how stable a large index fund is.

    Dave

  • Richard

    Bush did try to promote his little privatization scheme back in his first attempt at presidency, before the tech stocks dropped. He conviently shut his mouth until the stocks recovered. Really though, Clintons offense was lying, Bush’s offense was lying. Clinton’s lie got a dress stained. Bush’s lie, has killed thousands of people, including some great americans. What ever happened to “The buck stops here” Shouldn’t Bush appologize for the mess has has made to America? or is he just too stupid to realize it?

  • Maurice

    Richard –

    what do you think of James Buchanan? He is credited for the war that killed more Americans than any other.

    How about Truman? He can be described as a mass murderer or saviour. Which do you choose?

    History will judge GB.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Actually, if you look back 10 years (2000 was only 5 years ago), the Dow was at 3908 on 1/15/95. Any financial advisor worth their salt will tell you to move out of stocks and into less volatile investment vehicles with such a short term planning horizon.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    BTP, you’ve outdone yourself. This is doubtless the most ASSinine thing you’ve written here. Basically, you’re arguing that simply telling the truth (There’s no money in the supposed SS trust fund) should be considered an impeachable offense. How dumb is that?

    As to BHW in comment #12, you’re saying that it’s a good idea for the president to lie about our ability to pay our bills to protect our credit rating with foreigners? I suppose that means you’d support the US government using Enron accounting methods for the same reason.

    What are you folks thinking?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Basically, you’re arguing that simply telling the truth should be considered an impeachable offense. How dumb is that?

    I guess it’s a tactic he picked up from conservatives like Phyllis Schafly. There are hundreds of thousands of conservatives who support impeaching judges who make rulings that conservatives, who are not learned in law, don’t agree with.

    And how about impeaching for what that stain REALLY is? I mean after all, we can’t have a thriving economy and a great President if he can’t say the word ‘jism’. Shit, no, let’s just bring all the good stuff to a halt.

    The desire to impeach for anything is apparently very conservative.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Actually, Steve, the times impeachment has been tried on a systematic basis have all been under activist, liberal presidents (Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt) who have found the courts blocking their desire to move policy forward. Historically the courts have tended to be more conservative than the other branches of government so this situation has come up more than a few times. These attempts to use impeachment as a weapon against the courts have failed dismally, of course.

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Steve S, I must say that your comment #30 was one of the more incoherent statements I’ve seen recently. I can’t make out what you were even intending to say, other than BUSH BAD.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    As to BHW in comment #12, you’re saying that it’s a good idea for the president to lie about our ability to pay our bills to protect our credit rating with foreigners?

    Al, please cite an example of when the US has not paid its debt on treasury securities.

    Or please explain how you know the US treasury will default in the future.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    BHW, oh beloved one, I don’t claim certain knowledge of the future. However, current structuring of the Social Security system seems totally untenable on the face of it. I don’t see how they can possibly pay out the amount of money we’re getting committed to.

    There’s NO SS trust fund. Dubya is exactly right in saying that there’s nothing there but a pile of IOUs. How’s that going to pay for anyone’s retirement? They’re going to have to take it out of young people’s hides, and there’s only so much hide you can skin. The math looks really, really unfavorable.

    The US government may not have welched on a lot of direct IOUs so far, but how exactly could they pay these monsters off? Throw in Medicare on top of that.

  • Dan

    The way government pays it’s debt when it’s broke is by printing more money. Inflation is another hidden tax on people who buy things or save, but not on people who own things like homes and real estate, although they are taxed on those as well.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Exactly, Al. When they take those treasury bonds and say “ok, we need money for these” that money comes from the government and the government gets them from taxes and those taxes come from the people. So every bond assigned to the SS fund is nothing but a note saying we’re going to raise taxes in the future to cover the SS obligations.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Exactly, Dave and Al and Dan.

    The president’s job is not to doubt our resolve to repay those bonds but to assert our intention to fulfill our obligation, even if it costs us more than we want it to.

    So rather than continue cutting taxes, he should be thinking about ways to increase tax revenue with the direct goal of putting money in that SS trustfund.

    Al, Medicare is another ball of wax, and is obviously the bigger issue. So why is the president going after SS instead of Medicare? Well, neither you nor I voted for him, so nobody can blame us for the answer to that question.

    And Senator, I think the reason you can’t call up any examples of the US defaulting is because there are none. Our debt is the most secure in the world. Why does our president doubt that?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>The president’s job is not to doubt our resolve to repay those bonds but to assert our intention to fulfill our obligation, even if it costs us more than we want it to.

    So rather than continue cutting taxes, he should be thinking about ways to increase tax revenue with the direct goal of putting money in that SS trustfund.< <

    Wrongo, BHW. His job is to deal with the problem of SS funding in the way which is best for the American people, and that might not be raising their taxes ever higher. In fact, most of them would say raising our already too high taxes would be a mistake. If he chooses to look for alternative solutions, like - gosh - finding ways to keep SS from going further into debt, that's even better than just raising more money to throw into the bottomless pit.

    >>And Senator, I think the reason you can’t call up any examples of the US defaulting is because there are none. Our debt is the most secure in the world. Why does our president doubt that?<<

    He doesn’t, and interpreting his statement that way is disingenuous. To read that into what he said is to deliberately misunderstand both the words themselves and the context. To do that you’d either have to be deliberately trying to misrepresent him or just plain dumb.

    Dave

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Dave, why can’t you ever debate a topic without calling into question someone’s intelligence?

    Is that really the best you can do?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I can’t make out what you were even intending to say, other than BUSH BAD.

    I don’t know how you came to that conclusion as I was talking about the impeachment of the President and a stain. I figured most people would make the connection to Clinton, I don’t know how one would make a connection to Bush.

    My point was that the conservative (extremist) cry for impeaching judges which is currently making the rounds (google impeach Kennedy), as well as the impeachment of Clinton shows that in recent history at least, in our lifetime, what is relevant to us now, is the fact that it’s conservatives who are abusing (or trying to/wanting to) the impeachment process.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Dave, why can’t you ever debate a topic without calling into question someone’s intelligence?

    Is that really the best you can do?<<

    Look, if you say something profoundly stupid it’s perfectly reasonable to point it out. I did give you the choice of saying you were lying instead.

    Dave

  • Shark

    Dave “Mr. Nice Guy” Nalle: “…if you say something profoundly stupid it’s perfectly reasonable to point it out. I did give you the choice of saying you were lying instead.”

    Then I guess you don’t mind if I call you an ARROGANT DICK?

  • Shark

    ooooh, it’s what we’ve all been waiting for: a tag team match featuring Barger & Nalle!

    PS: Count the seconds before one of ‘em mentions Ayn Rand…

  • Eric Olsen

    BTP, I am coming around to the conclusion that you have antipathy toward the sitting president

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Then I guess you don’t mind if I call you an ARROGANT DICK?<<

    Not at all Shark. It’s one of the few sentences you’ve managed to get out with all the necessary grammatical elements in it, so I applaud you.

    Dave

  • Eric Olsen

    let’s not get in to this again

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Dave, your “debate” tactic is transparent. Whenever someone makes a point that challenges something you’ve said or believe, you go on the personal attack. It’s very predictable now — it happens on just about every thread — and it’s … well … weak.

    For the record, many people are interpreting Bush’s words that SS is “just bunch of IOUs,” that “the security of SS is sitting in a filing cabinet,” and that “the government is making promises to younger Americans that it cannot keep,” as doubting whether or not those “IOUS” will be repaid.

  • Maurice

    At the risk of inciting actual debate would someone answer this question from comment #15 =>

    b) if the public debt is not being handled correctly is the Pres not allowed to be the whistle blower?

  • gonzo marx

    i’ll answer ya Maurice..of course the Pres can blow the whistle…he is even encourage to try and fix it..

    but fix it must be done..not say “this is too much and it will never get paid, so we have to scrap it all and replace it with my nebulous platitude!”

    i’m paraphrasing there, of course..

    but that seems to be the nut of the matter brought up in the original Article…now i don’t think his comments reach Impeachable offense…but the premise that lurks behind the words shoudl be looked at carefully by those concerned..

    it does seem to indicate a desire to just erase those IUO’s as if they were worthless rather than deal with paying them back as is required by the Agreement that wrote them in the first place..

    we get back to the “starve the beast” argument and doctrine here…but hell, we have an Administration heaed up by the first Pres with an MBA…that not only can’t submit a budget that is even close to balancing..but doesn’t even think to place ALL the expenses into the Budget…you know…like wars and stuff…

    must be all the time spent with Ken Lay and friends showed them that fancy Enron accounting style…i dunno…

    so..in conclusion..nothing Impeachable here…but definately the statements should cause deep concern about any fiscal “conservative” or deficit “hawk”

    so where are they and why can’t we hear them wailing and gnashing their teeth?

    could they all be stashed in the back of DeLay’s “closet”?

    film at 11

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>For the record, many people are interpreting Bush’s words that SS is “just bunch of IOUs,” that “the security of SS is sitting in a filing cabinet,” and that “the government is making promises to younger Americans that it cannot keep,” as doubting whether or not those “IOUS” will be repaid.<<

    Weak BHW, very weak. Your link is to a google search specifically for what you claim. Sure there are some crazies and bush haters out there who are saying it. How about linking us to a major political commentator who’s saying it – even a left-leaning one?

    It’s perfectly obvious what Bush was getting at, and while I understand BTP trying to twist it into something silly, I expected better of you.

    Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Does your head contain all of the world’s knowledge Dave?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’m pretty good at Trivial Pursuit, but probably not. What was your point, Scott?

    Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    No point, it was just a question. Don’t get in a huff or anything

  • http://constitutionalist628 derek hulderman

    well i almost don’t even know where to start.
    to understand how george bush has committed treason you must first know the deinition of treason-
    1)the offense of acting to overthrow ones government or to kill it’s sovereign. george bush is technically the “sovereign” so it is fairly unlikely that he would want to kill or harm himself. “acting to overthrow ones government” could likely be deemed in the u.s as overthrowing or abusing or not following the constitution, since it is on this paper that our government lives. article VI of the u.s constitution states “this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states shall be the suprme law of the land” that would also apply the nurenberg chapter since the united states did sign that treaty or law. therefore not following it is a violation of the u.s. constitution. so how did he break the constitution-on march 19th 2003 he invaded the sovereign nation of iraq which violates article 2 chapter 1 of the united nations charter and a violation of principal VI of the nurenberg charter. which in turn is a violation of the constitution since we did sign these treatys therefore they are “supreme law of the land.” he also rejected possibilities for peaceful resolutions, which is another part of our “supreme law.” he also violated the geneva conventions by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries (gitmo where no u.s citizen is legally allowed to go ei cuba) where they can be tortured. he also violated amendment 4 by illigally wiretapping without a warrant. these are a few blatint examples of george bush attempting to “overthrow” the basis of our government or to overthrow our government as we know it. the second definition of treason
    2)a violation of allegiance to ones soveriegn or to ones state- i just gave you a few examples of how george bush violated his promise to uphold the laws of the nation or the constitution which could also be a violation of allegiance to his state but a prime example of his violations would be valerie plame. his allegiance is to help protect, us her job was counter prolifirations, which meant she tracked loose nukes. the president once said “the greatest threat” to america is that a terrorist would get ahold of a nuclear weapon. valerie plame’s job was to help assure that they did not get one. because his cabin will not cooperate we cannot find the name of the person that ousted her but here are the facts. her husband joe wilson went to niger to find out if africa was was selling saddam hussien uranium. he came to the conclusion after investigating that they were not. george bush was not happy with this conclusion because he wanted evidence to back his theory that saddam had wmds. a couple weeks later valerie plames name was posted all around the world and “nobody” new who did it. sounds a little fishy. when the one person that got caught up was sentanced george bush violated seperation of powers by going over the legislative branch and saying that scooter libby did not have to serve any time. another violation of his allegiance is katrina. he threatened the security of the american people by diverting national guards to foreign wars and appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions. also by directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies with ties to the whitehouse not only does it pose a serious conflict of interest but it also raises the question is his “allegiance” to the state or to big companies. the third and final definition of treason is the kicker
    3)the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith, treachory. it should add, see iraq. he provided misinformation to the u.n. security council and american people in regards to wmds in iraq. he linked al qaeda to iraq which has been proven false. he claimed there were satellite photo’s were wmds appeared contrasting the u.n. inspectors. he stated saddam hussien had gotten uranium from africa after joe wilsons report came out. all these examples are a betrayal of trust for the american people.
    thank you for your time i would love to go further, but some of his worst treasonous acts have not been fully uncovered. therefore i will not speak of them until the mainstream american has the knowledge to understand how very evil this man is.