Obama’s TRUE legacy

Opposition Member of Irish Parliament tells the truth about Barack Obama and his actions.


So, I’m absolutely fed up with all the public adulation of the Democrat psychophants praising Obama to the roof and beyond as if he’s some sort of Ghandi.

Sigh… Guess I’d better back up and preface here.

In 2008 I worked to get Obama elected because he had a history of acting as a reformer, was a Constitutional Law scholar, and because I loved the idea of what a black POTUS represented for our nation. I mean, seriously folks, it really is about damned time for us to have a black leader in the White house.

Further, from a strictly pragmatic point of view as a Veteran who still sees his Oath to protect Our Constitution from ALL enemies… who, in theory, who would be better suited and armed to protect Our Constitution from domestic corporate fascists than a Constitutional Law scholar?

This last matters to me because I took an oath to protect our Constitution in ’79 and still take that oath seriously. I also read Law the way most folks read Ludlum novels.

Here’s the genesis for this article


Onward to the harsh reality of his actions…

When Obama took office (with a nice majority of Democrats in Congress) he promptly cosigned both the blatantly unConstitutional EVIL of the so called Patriot Act (more on this later) and Bush’s corporate fascist, #2Big2Fail bank bailout. He even went so far as to order his bankster lap dog Eric Holder to whomp up some excuses and lawyer lies to use against nay sayers, while we Citizens were almost universally demanding that he RICO the bastards as Iceland and Norway were doing at the time.

This would have been the ideal time for him to ACT in support of his Oath to support and defend our Constitution with a simple Executive Order to his new Heads of the DOJ and the FBI ordering them to pursue these thieving banksters using RICO, as was done in the S&L scandal in the ’80s and in the first bank crash during the ’90s.

Here’s how Obama could have acted, and “most carefully” didn’t act.

Antitrust & Obama’s refusal to use it

Instead he chose to do the exact opposite of what his Oath and our ammended Constitution demanded of him and acted to service those bankster/bribers at our expense, while also cosigning the Patriot Act renewals buried in NDAA. I regard these actions as the single largest treason against Our Constitution since the Confederate States passed the laws which caused Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to be added to Our Constitution as an Amendment.

Here’s Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

The language is a bit archaic but is perfectly clear in both intent and legal effect when we diagram out the subject of the sentence:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress [lists other applicable offices] or hold any office [lists all applicable State & Federal offices, including Judicial and Military Commissions] who, having previously taken an Oath as a Member of Congress, [re-lists all the additional covered offices] to support the Constitution* of the United States, shall have engaged in Insurrection or Rebellion against the same*, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof*

(Here “the Constitution of the United States” is the Subject of the sentence and *refers back to “the Constitution of the United States”)

So, what this legally passed and Ratified Amendment says, quite directly and unequivocally, is that a person who has acted (yes, votes ARE Actions in every legal sense… just ask any 1st yr Law student or any Corporate Board Member) in Insurrection or Rebellion against Our Constitution MAY NOT HOLD ANY ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICE, WHETHER STATE, FEDERAL, OR MILITARY COMMISSION.

Now let’s look at the definitions of Insurrection and Rebellion

Here’s the full legal definition from Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute


Back to the Preamble and we find that the Constitution IS in fact both “the Authority of the United States” (our Nation was CREATED by the Ratification of our Constitution) and it is the Supreme Law of the land in ALL things per Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Body of the Constitution.

For the Record: This section of the 14th Amendment, and the Oath of Office, are specifically designed to unequivocally establish The Constitution as Our Civil Authority so that actions taken against the Constitution ARE treasonous in nature & in Law. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is an Amendment (Aka: a change or correction) so it supersedes any and all prior language in the Constitution on the subject it speaks to.

Here’s why the Patriot Act is an action against Our Constitution and a vote to pass it is, in fact, and in Law, an act of treason.

1) The Constitution REQUIRES that Congress only pass laws which COMPLY with the Constitution

2) The Patriot Act VIOLATES the entire Bill of Rights contained in our, as ammended, Constitution which IS “The supreme Law of the land.”

3) In order to cure that violation either an Amendment MUST be passed and ratified by the States, or the fiat, treasonous “law” which violates the Constitution must be nullified… these are the ONLY LEGITIMATE ways to resolve this conflict because the laws passed by legislation MUST COMPLY with the Constitution to be valid.

4) NO such Amendment was proposed, much less passed or Ratified by 3/4 of the several States

Thus this fiat was done by Congress completely outside of their legal boundaries and they knew it at the time.

5) On that Article 6 above… here’s the last bit of it which REQUIRES State and Federal Judges to nullify laws which violate the Constitution

Again with the diagramming:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [Aka Subject to the limitations of the Constitution and in compliance with it] and all treaties which are made, or shall be made,

under the Authority the United States [Aka those treaties which are in compliance with the Constitution] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws if any State notwithstanding.”

So… to put the cap on these logs and chains of Laws which bind our government, what does “in pursuance thereof” mean?

It means simply, to pursue the stated goals of our Constitution within the limits placed upon Congress & the federal government by the Constitution

Since the Patriot Act DOES violate, quite directly, the prior limits upon the Federal Government contained in the 10 Amendments known as The Bill of Rights, it is patently illegal

Here’s where it violates Our Constitution


In short, Congress knowingly passed a law which they KNEW was not “in pursuance of the Constitution” and which their support of violated their oath to protect our Constitution because that law violates our as ammended Constitution on every meaningful level.

So, yes the ACTION of voting to pass this law is a direct violation of their Oath to protect Our Constitution and thus is a violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bars them each, jointly and severally, from serving in ANY government capacity whether elected or appointed.

Lastly, I’ve been getting lots of comments on twitter claiming that this “Patriot Act treason was none of Barak Obama’s doing!!”

The simple FACT is he not only cosigning it willingly in ’11, his signing statement ACTIVELY DEFENDED THIS INSURRECTION AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION.

This treason, from a Constitutional Law Scholar & supposed reformer, is far more alarming than the original signing by Shrub (aka: Bush Jr.) because Obama knew precisely what he was doing to Our Constitution.

Update 9/21/17

For all those useful idiots who attacked me for writing this, let’s review his ACTIONS since he walked out this door. With a private “Fuck y’all, I Got Mine!”

Obama The Carpet Bagger

Lastly, if you claim these actions by Obama “aren’t actually treason because Muh Constitution,” please go look up the alternate definitions (civil & legal) of the word “Insurrection” as used in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which I’ve cited above.

I’ll wait.

20 thoughts on “Obama’s TRUE legacy

  1. Robert

    Good presentation and correct, with this caveat: The implementation was to address an ostensible real enemy attacking Americans within our national boundaries. That “enemy”, it’s now clear, has not been a formidable one, and the constitutionality expansive “law” should have been repealed long ago.


    1. fixerguy Post author

      Ostensible is the key word here.
      See, Physics 101 says that it’s impossible for such buildings to “fall” into their own footprint without major “assistance” and that FACT is supported by the history of similar building fires before and since.
      The recent fire in Dubai fir example
      Totaled the building AND IT DIDN’T pancake collapse into its own footprint

      Why? Because skyscrapers are specifically designed to NOT do that.


  2. Robert

    As to the “physics”- The Towers’ floor plan was unique in that it was “opened”, but that does not apply to the other building that fell the same way- ‘into its own footprint’. Interestingly, for the “False Flag” theory, that building housed the bulk of C.I.A information collection/s and operational activities.

    The ‘Patriot-Act’ relies on the doctrine of ‘the necessary expansion of executive powers’ during war, or a grave, immediate, or imminent threat to the nation. That necessity, based on the nature of the threat, passed away very quickly, but… ‘Power goes toward power, like school boys from their book, and power from power, to school with heavy looks.

    The act never needed “renewal”.


  3. fixerguy Post author

    That doctrine of “necessary expansion” is utter crap in this application because the actual words of the Constitution they swore to defend say an Amendment MUST be used to change the Constitution. Since they refused to use an Amendment (because they knew it would fail) they, Bush & Obama & the Congress, committed Insurrection and Rebellion against the Constitution.
    The only people asserting such a “right” for Congress are those pushing corporate fascist oligarchy. If you listened to Bush’s jingoist, Nationalist, fascist words on CNN to people objecting to the “Patriot” Act, this was obvious in real time.


  4. Robert

    I think I’m confused. My understanding is that ‘acts’ of congress are federal law but are not “Constitutional Amendments”, which, as explicated above, must be approved by the majority of “states”, not mearly by an act of their representatives in Washington.

    “The Patriot Act” is a law, but Not part of our constitution. If the act violates the constituion, and It does glaringly, then it’s unconstitutional and need not be obeyed, but it’s passage is not equivalent to, nor should it be conflated with the threat of states seccesion; ( I.e.; 14th. Amendment ).

    To level such charges against Obama and congress at.al. is extreme. Nevertheless, mindful American need to keep pressing for The Act’s repeal.

    As to ‘The Doctrine of necessary expansion’; it applys only to an actual, grave and imminent threat to our nation. The president can, in such instances, suspend The Constitution; I.e.; the rights and privileges, thereof, until the nation is again secure. Lincoln did as much.

    I dont know who said it but I understand and agree that “The Constitution is not a suicide-pact”. It’s not intended to make the government so weak it can’t act to protect the nation in emergencies. -R.Warlov


    1. fixerguy Post author

      As I stated, the Patriot Act directly and intentionally violates the Constitution which both BO & Shrub swore a Legally Binding Oath to protect. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was explicitly designed to make those Oaths legally binding. If you diagram out the subject of the sentence, you’ll find that it’s The US Constitution and that’s what their Oaths are to protect.


      1. Robert

        I agree in principle, but applying the same precision to the words; I.e.; “insurrection” & “rebellion”, “… against The Constitution they swore to uphold suggests the function was to disqualify or punish those members who had sided with “The Rebellion”, and not to be used later as a political cudgle against ones enemies.

        Therefore, I agree with you. Technically, you’re correct, but to suggest we treat them as equal; that the possible immediate destruction of the U.S. thru “Rebellion” is equal to The Patriot Act’s Constitutional violations of expanded police powers for the ostensible protection of the citizenry, is to discount the motives underlieing the Patriot Act’s initiation and true objective.

        If we’re going to “hang this around the necks” of Bush and Obama, logically we have to include all the other “conspirators” responsible for the acts existence today.

        But if we begin down that road now, what will America look like in a few years?
        Robert W.


      2. fixerguy Post author

        I’m curious how you consider Insurrection against our Constitution (the document which protects our Rights) to be “different” from Insurrection against the Nation (aka:We The People) when we live in a defacto Corporate Fascist Oligarchy/Kleptocracy


      3. Robert

        The difference I’m talking about is the tortured construction/s and unreasonable application of 14th. Amendment provisions ( which was written specifically to disqualify those members who had sided with ‘The Rebellion’ ), to those who supported The Patriot Act.

        The rationale would leave our representatives fearful any “Wrong” vote ( “Act” ) could make of them instant felons.

        The difference between a rebellion or an insurrection that gets people killed and the figurative application of such to a document ( The Constitution of the United States ) is obvious.

        It should be just as obvious that the law is made for man, and not man for the law. Rather, human life takes presidence; the law serves man or else it fails.

        The question of the ‘constitutional validity’ of The Patriot Act is in the courts perview, but it is a question for every American too. No representative should continue to serve who does not call for the immediate repeal of the act.

        – Robert W.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Kris Rosvold shared a question on Quora with you | fixerguy's Blog

  6. Pingback: fixerguy's Blog

  7. Pingback: Yes, I’m an asshole. I also have those Damned Facts | fixerguy's Blog

  8. Pingback: QUIT Distracting Us From The REAL issue. | fixerguy's Blog

  9. Pingback: More #RooshansDidIt “Revised” “History” | fixerguy's Blog

  10. Pingback: The Bold Lie of Democrat Party Brass “Progressivism” | fixerguy's Blog

  11. Robert Daniel

    Even though I disagree with him on a couple things, I think Ron Paul was the overall better candidate for 2008. He raised 6 million dollars in one day in the fall of 2007. I think he ran a very strong campaign but I believe he had a somewhat similar thing happen to him that Bernie did 2 years ago.

    Love your blog and quora answers! You’ve got the spirit of truth, you’re a true Patriot, and you’re an inspiration. I wish more people were like you in this country!


  12. Pingback: The WHOLE truth about shootings | fixerguy's Blog

  13. Pingback: A brief history of recent US financial frauds. | fixerguy's Blog

Comments are closed.