The bald Truth about claims of “protected debate” by Congresscritters.

My @Quora answer to Why aren’t Democrats and Liberals upset about Barack Obama setting the precedent for being able …

We absolutely are upset and angered by Obama (and Bush Jr. before him) declaring himself to be above Our Law and Constitution.

That’s called out as the High Crime of “Insurrection or rebellion against the United States Constitution” in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Our Constitution Read and diagram it out before you attempt to dispute me on this. 
IF (and here’s the real problem) we were honest with ourselves about the implications of his (and Congresscritters’) actions* in treason against Our Constitution Washington DC would be absolutely buried in a perfect storm of tar and feathers.

I, for one, call him treasonous because of his actions including this one… however … I also make the same accusation, of Treason against the Constitution, against EVERY SINGLE Congress critter who voted to pass the fiat law that Obummer based his claim upon! Fire and imprison them ALL!
If you want to dispute me, fine, but go to and do a little research first. He’s basing his BS (convenient) opinion upon FISA and the NDAA (“Patriot” act on steroids) the passage of NDDA WAS NEARLY UNIVERSAL…. 12 senators (the only ones who should not be tarred and feathered IMO) Just 12 voted against it…!
Bottom line: They. Are. Not. Working. For. You. Or. Me!!!!

* Note carefully that the votes to pass these laws by fiat are NOT, in any way, protected debate.
Here’s why; Any first year corporate law student can’t verify from simply observing a working Board Meeting that:

Debate = Discussion and Advice
Voting = Action

Yes folks, it really is just THAT F’ing simple.
Votes are Actions which do not ever equal “protected debate.” At least not in any sane or legal world.