Treason comes to us mainly from the movies and TV … “You speak Treason … off with your head!!”\u00a0 And so on.<\/p>\n
Webster’s dictionary says that the word comes from the Latin meaning … to “hand over.”\u00a0 It is 1: a betrayal of trust: Treachery.\u00a0 2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.<\/p>\n
The Constitution of the United States of America is very specific about treason to our Federal government. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.\u00a0 No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”<\/p>\n
When we Americans think of treason or traitors we generally first think of Benedict Arnold, the Revolutionary War General, who defected to the British.\u00a0 Or maybe if we muse upon it, we think of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who gave the Soviet Union, our then mortal enemy, the secrets to the atomic bomb.\u00a0 Or maybe Alger Hiss, the Communist fellow traveler Soviet spy and aid to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gave the Soviets secrets straight out of the White House. \u00a0 Of course, in modern times, we have the spies that have given military secrets to foreign governments generally for a big pay off which, depending on who they gave the secrets to, friend or foe, would determine their crime under the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Were the draft card burning draft dodgers and flag burners, the people that spit on our returning war veterans committing treason?\u00a0 Probably a pretty close call … many of us thought so.<\/p>\n
Are the governmental employees or officials who, in consideration of their jobs, swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States and then go about doing everything they can think of to subvert the Constitution and laws for a “new idea” or “new order,” traitors?\u00a0 Does the finding of “new, hidden intent” in our in our sacred writings constitute treason?\u00a0 … some of us think so.<\/p>\n
Of course, maybe accusations of treason are too harsh,\u00a0 maybe it is just sedition.\u00a0 Sedition is probably most accurately defined as agitating or advocating for the overthrow of the government, whereas treason is the knowing overt act to that end.\u00a0 Treason comes to us in many kinds of clothes and because of this diversity, is often not only hard, but sometimes nearly impossible to discern who is in the costume.<\/p>\n
What inspired this blog was my reading of the definition of treason given by a man from long ago who was trying to save his Republic from a tyrant … read what Marcus Tillius Cicero, a contemporary of Julius Caesar thought about it:<\/p>\n
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
\nFor the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
\nHe rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.\u201d<\/p>\n
This begs the question, “Do we have these kinds of traitors in our midst?”<\/p>\n
What did President Obama mean by “hope and change?”\u00a0 What is there to change in a government that for the first time in history venerates the individual and was instituted safeguard that individual’s unalienable Rights.\u00a0 Well, the Constitution is not perfect you might say nor is the American system\u00a0 and you would be right.\u00a0 The men that wrote the Constitution were perfectly aware that they didn’t have all the answers.\u00a0 What they did understand was that the people in the various States in the Union, when presented with prickly dilemmas would work it out to their local satisfaction.\u00a0 Conditions in New Hampshire would dictate a different solution for a problem there than would the same problem in South Carolina … viva la difference.\u00a0 If the solution in New Hampshire was untenable to an individual, under the new Union, that person could move to South Carolina or Tennessee if he wanted.\u00a0 What the Constitution was about was protecting the States from foreigners, insuring tranquility amongst the States and maximizing the ability of the individual to move and do freely what he wanted.\u00a0 When he was growing up, the only system that President Obama was attuned\u00a0 to was collectivism; the socialistic teachings of his father, step father, mother, grandfather, his grandfatherly friend, Frank Marshall Davis, his communist indoctrinated political mentors like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett\u00a0 and revolutionary friends like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn were his education.\u00a0 For Obama, because of his upbringing and associations, political change could only mean socialism … some kind of command statism directed by an individual or by a committee.\u00a0 The irony is that under statism, the freedom so cherished by he and his acolytes, that were hoping for hope and change, who voted for him and so ardently supported him, would, of necessity, see it disappear.<\/p>\n
For the entire 20th Century, the USA fought collectivism and statism.\u00a0 The Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Che Min, among others.\u00a0 As these totalitarian\u00a0 socialistic beasts murdered millions, hundreds of thousands of Americans died to stop them.\u00a0 They stopped those implacable foes of individual and human freedom from gaining the ascendant power that they so desired.\u00a0 Now we have a Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, who unabashedly wants to turn America into a socialistic state.\u00a0 Hillary Clinton panders to him.\u00a0 Barack Obama supports Hillary.\u00a0 These people are internationalists, they are kindred souls with the above named beasts in that they seek world domination … one world\u00a0 government … so that they can dictate their view of Utopia to us, the ignorant masses.\u00a0 They all claim to be “Progressives,” wanting us to “progress into socialism.”\u00a0 Progress is a good word meaning to go forward into something better.\u00a0 There can be no progress in going backward into failed ideology or polity.\u00a0 Ironic isn’t it when one recognizes that every socialistic experiment from the mid 19th Century through the 20th Century right up to today has failed.\u00a0 But, as we have formerly pointed out in previous blogs, these people have one of the most successful secret political weapons ever devised … Fabianism, the incremental, step by step, “death by a thousand cuts” destruction, in this case, of individual freedom.<\/p>\n
Socialism became ascendant in the mid nineteenth century when people who were inspired by the writings of Marx\u00a0 attempted the revolutions of 1848 … which all failed.\u00a0 In the US, of course, there was the early test of socialism in the Plymouth colony, which you can read about.\u00a0 In Plymouth, during this communist tryout, all things produced belonged to the community.\u00a0 It was the first American test of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.”\u00a0 After a year of experimentation it was found that everyone had great needs, but that ability degenerated to the lowest common denominator.\u00a0 In other words, “why should I bust my backside when the guy who does nothing dips into the pot as deeply as I do?” There was a town meeting and it was decided that each person would be responsible for himself and could keep or sell whatever he produced at his own discretion.\u00a0 The system worked and the rest is history.\u00a0 After the American and especially the French revolutions, numerous thinkers like St. Simon, Fourier and Owen began to theorize about socialism, this long before Marx and Engels.\u00a0 Robert Owen tried a commune in New Harmony, Indiana in the 1820’s which\u00a0 failed in 3 years.\u00a0 I could go into many case histories, but they all failed and the same was the fate of the socialistic political movement in 19th Century America.\u00a0 By the end of the century, socialism was so discredited that its disenchanted followers began to call themselves “Progressives” in order to avoid the stigma.\u00a0 Make no mistake, a modern Progressive is an ardent socialist.\u00a0 If you are following someone who brags about being a Progressive, and you are not one now, you are being co-opted into being a socialist.<\/p>\n
So how does this affect treason?\u00a0 The Progressive (the word Progressive sounds good, doesn’t it?) movement seeing that they couldn’t overthrow the US by force majeure began to use Fabianism to achieve their goals.\u00a0 After Theodore Roosevelt with his “Progressive” party elected Woodrow Wilson, the nails began to be quickly driven into America’s coffin.\u00a0 The adoption of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments all were stakes driven into the heart of the Constitution.\u00a0 The Founders were terrified by the thought of giving the Federal government the ability to tax the populous.\u00a0 They were adamantly opposed to a distant and powerful entity taxing the individual, and rightly so; we were in an European war within 4 years. \u00a0 The 17th Amendment took away the right of the States to be represented in the Senate to by the State’s exemplars and gave that privilege to the carpetbaggers with the biggest sack of money.\u00a0 The 18th Amendment was the first\u00a0 Constitutional power given the Federal government to suppress States Rights.\u00a0 And worst of all, they gave us the criminal, money counterfeiting\u00a0 Federal Reserve System.\u00a0 Then came FDR.\u00a0 His administration debunked the money to the point that he made it a crime to own gold.\u00a0 He tried a myriad of socialistic schemes to bring the people out of the depression, all of which failed, until at last he finally put the American people to work fighting WWII.\u00a0 But his real success in promoting socialism came in the incremental changes in the Supreme Court.\u00a0 At first he was defeated in his aims when he impatiently tryed to “pack” the Court.\u00a0 But as he demagogued the electorate into four presidential terms, he outlived his nemeses and was able to put his men on the court.\u00a0 He did his best to overthrow the Constitution that he had sworn to “preserve, protect and defend.”<\/p>\n
So what did the Court do?\u00a0 The best example of\u00a0 the Court’s perversion of the Constitution is the Wickard vs. Filburn case where\u00a0wheat that a farmer grew on his farm and fed to his pigs, which he then butchered and ate was found to be in interstate commerce.\u00a0 The implication being that everything is in interstate commerce, so the Federal government can regulate everything.\u00a0 A blatant perversion of the intent of the Constitution.\u00a0 Was it treason?\u00a0 The Justices who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution had knowingly broken their oath.\u00a0 Since that 1941 decision, subsequent Courts have heaped mountains of similar decisions upon the citizenry.<\/p>\n
Every attorney in law school is taught, on pain of scholastic failure, that when the Supreme Court rules, there is no appeal.\u00a0 Patrick Henry perceived this problem when he first inspected the Constitution that James Madison brought him from Philadelphia.\u00a0 Henry insisted that there be a bill of rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from those who would run the Federal government.\u00a0 His answer to the above dilemma was the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.\u00a0 The law schools denigrate the 10th Amendment.\u00a0 Is this treason?<\/p>\n
In the Federal government, the bureaucracy is controlled by the executive … the President.\u00a0 The Congress makes the laws and the President upholds and administrates, according to the Constitution.\u00a0 But there is a fly in the ointment.\u00a0 The Congress makes a broad law and inserts a clause stating, “and the ‘insert name of bureau’ shall make the rules and regulations necessary to implement this law.”\u00a0 Of course this means that the President has control of the “rules and regulations” which now amount to well over 80,000 pages … all of which carry the full force of law, which can be tried in the Federal courts.\u00a0 Is this treason?<\/p>\n
And of course, we have the “executive order” (now about 14,000 of them) power that the Congress has given the President, which also carry the full force of law.\u00a0 In order for an “executive order” to be overridden a law must go through both the House and Senate and be presented to the President, which he will undoubtedly veto.\u00a0 This then requires that in order for the law to be effective it must now be resubmitted to the Congress for a 2\/3 override vote.\u00a0 Was this the intention of the Founders or is it treason?<\/p>\n
Then we have the President’s military and treaty making powers and his control of foreign policy.\u00a0 President Obama and his minions, basically Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have basically given away America’s reputation in foreign policy by their actions in supporting jihadist regimes in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.\u00a0 Their unratified treaty with Iran guarantees that that country will soon have atomic bombs.\u00a0 Is that treason?\u00a0 Many of us think so and Israel certainly does.<\/p>\n
I could go on and on by elaborating on the gutting of the military command structure, his Supreme Court appointments, the profligate spending spree, the crimes against citizens fomented by the EPA, the IRS, the Border Patrol, the Justice Department, the Energy Department, the Forest Service and BLM.\u00a0 What about transgender bathrooms, anti-police rhetoric and as I said, on and on.\u00a0 Are these actions treason or just “hope and change?”<\/p>\n
Is it possible that what President Obama meant by “hope and change” was the destruction of our democratic Republic and “changing” it into a socialist utopia.\u00a0 If you read the tenants of communist revolution or Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” you will see that they are the template for the actions of the Obama administration.\u00a0 This is the kind of treason that that brilliant, lonely republican Roman, Marcus Tillius Cicero was talking about.\u00a0 Worse and more dangerous than barbarians at the gate.\u00a0 Are the President and his “Progressive” sycophants committing treason?\u00a0 Many of us think so.<\/p>\n
But if you ask your state Legislators or US Senators or Congressmen, as I stated in a previous blog you will find,<\/p>\n
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!!!\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Treason comes to us mainly from the movies and TV … “You speak Treason … off with your head!!”\u00a0 And so on. Webster’s dictionary says that the word comes from the Latin meaning … to “hand over.”\u00a0 It is 1: … Continue reading