posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by Signals
While the actions of the federal government have proven to be decidedly and purposefully anti-Constitution, and in many cases anti-American, at a
level drastically higher since 2001 than before, the words spoken here clearly convey quite the opposite from what most posters here are implying.
Whether folks are up in arms because they know the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have been actively working together to undermine,
more than anything else, the Constitution and the economic middle-class (the "middle 90%") or simply having trouble understanding English, I'm not
I would urge anyone who translates: if people can't trust us (the government) to uphold the Constitution, then we (the government) are going to have
problems as meaning: if people don't trust the government to uphold the Constitution, then the people are going to have problems to keep re-reading
(or listening) over and over again until it either clicks, or you decide to pick up Rosetta Stone - English 1-3.
If this was meant as a threat, it was meant as a threat to the government that they'd best work to regain trust. Especially considering the average
Joe has just recently learned that every electronic message (phone, email, etc.) for decades has been recorded and is stored permanently
electronically, to be accessed and interpreted as those who spy and analyze US Citizens see fit, well, the. Ontext shoukd help even those with extreme
reading comprehe sion diffi ulties make sense of the blatantly obvious statement.
The President, whether Obama or Bush II, has very little power to change anything, and so trying to nudge or encourage the other players is likely
about the best he can do. W really had no choice, as his father essentially ran the nation from 2001-2008, much as he did from 1981-1988.