Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Is voting against an amendment considers a treasonous act?

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Is voting against an amendment considers a treasonous act?

    Not an easy answer, but one that needs to be asked. If a State Senator or Assembly Representative voted against all or a part of the constitution they have sworn to support would that be an act of treason? By allowing our representation to erode our second amendment rights (to infringe) by voting various laws, bans and other restrictions did they in fact violate their sworn duty? The immediate response I have is yes they did, that by voting in these restrictions they impacted the second amendment and have infringed on our right to keep and bear arms. However to find some cite, documentation or even a straight definition of treason has proven to be more difficult than one would have thought.

    So I put it to the many learned people on this site, could it be shown that Senators and Representatives did in fact commit treason by voting in (regardless of the bill's author) restrictions or bans on our second amendment rights?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Not an easy answer, but one that needs to be asked. If a State Senator or Assembly Representative voted against all or a part of the constitution they have sworn to support would that be an act of treason? By allowing our representation to erode our second amendment rights (to infringe) by voting various laws, bans and other restrictions did they in fact violate their sworn duty? The immediate response I have is yes they did, that by voting in these restrictions they impacted the second amendment and have infringed on our right to keep and bear arms. However to find some cite, documentation or even a straight definition of treason has proven to be more difficult than one would have thought.

    So I put it to the many learned people on this site, could it be shown that Senators and Representatives did in fact commit treason by voting in (regardless of the bill's author) restrictions or bans on our second amendment rights?
    Since every Constitution incorporates a mechanism to change it, utilizing that mechanism can not be considered treasonous.

    Voting too frequently for Unconstitutional laws (not Amendments) may be different, but you'd have to have some pretty damning record to even think about pressing the issue. So I rather doubt it.

    Disclaimer: IINAL

  3. #3
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by PavePusher View Post
    Since every Constitution incorporates a mechanism to change it, utilizing that mechanism can not be considered treasonous.

    Voting too frequently for Unconstitutional laws (not Amendments) may be different, but you'd have to have some pretty damning record to even think about pressing the issue. So I rather doubt it.

    Disclaimer: IINAL
    The constitution has built in a way to AMEND (meaning to add) it, not negate it. The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If an elected official (who takes a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution) knowingly creates or condone a law that restricts that right why isn't that considered a treasonous act? The fact is that person took an oath to uphold, protect and support the constitution. By creating or voting for any law that bypasses, restricts or changes that constitutional amendment they have broken their oath. 10 years ago it would be unthought of to sue someone for many of the things we see as common now. We as a people assume that those in power know what they are able to legally do, but as we have found that is not always the case. Unless they are challenged, who will stop them?
    Last edited by bigdaddy1; 05-11-2011 at 05:02 PM.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    I have always said (more so now) that if it were back in the day, 90% of all elected officials,both state and fed would be charged with treason. Look at Chicago polititions, California , Mass. You get the picture. These people dont like the constitution, to them it is an obsticle. But they MUST lie to get into office, then they can stiff arm their unconstitutional laws on us "little people" because they know better. And wouldnt you know it,the sheep and uninformed voters just bleat on thinking that these asshats are really smarter than the rest of us. These people are one of the reasons we have the 2 A.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Swearing in:



    “ I,___ ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”




    Treason:


    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."


    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3

    You must establish what 'enemy' is being aided and comforted. I wonder, who determines who is the enemy, and who is not the enemy?

    Voting on Bills has no thing remotely to do with a treasonous act as is defined within the Constitution. Well, unless they are voting on a Bill that throws the Constitution out, and say, Sharia Law is voted in as the Supreme Law of the Land. That is treasonous. But voting on Constitutional issues in order to broaden 'rights', or restrict 'rights' is not treasonous.

    Actually, now that I think about it, if SCOTUS found that Sharia Law being imposed across the Nation is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional.


    The issue with the notion of "infringement of rights" is that; first, one must establish what is, and is not a 'right'; second, what constitutes an infringement.

    Second Amendment:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    So, we have a 'right' here that has been affirmed in the Constitution which is the 'right' to "keep and bear Arms". And that the 'right' shall not be infringed. Now, to 'not infringe' did they mean to not restrict in any way, or to not completely deny? There are different types of infringement, and degrees, of infringement.

    Requiring you to have a background check, is that an infringement?

    Having zero requirements, and restrictions, is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

    Pick a side.

    SCOTUS has found that outright bans are unConstitutional. Did they find that any restriction is unConstitutional...not that I am aware.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-12-2011 at 02:18 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Well since a lot of these votes are being done on the local level I would say for them yes it would be. They don't have the power to change it so they must abide by the constitution. Places like Chicago ,DC and California do not have the right to try to work around it like they have been. Even at the federal level trying to bypass it without proposing an amendment should be considered the same. The is a means to update the constitution and that is the only way rights should be addressed. Signing statements, acts etc are means to bypass and restrict rights. If they don't have the authority to enforce it then they are passing illegal legislation that is against the common citizen.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    Well since a lot of these votes are being done on the local level I would say for them yes it would be. They don't have the power to change it so they must abide by the constitution. Places like Chicago ,DC and California do not have the right to try to work around it like they have been. Even at the federal level trying to bypass it without proposing an amendment should be considered the same. The is a means to update the constitution and that is the only way rights should be addressed. Signing statements, acts etc are means to bypass and restrict rights. If they don't have the authority to enforce it then they are passing illegal legislation that is against the common citizen.
    Here is the thing, if the law is unConstitutional, it is not unConstitutional until found unConstitutional by SCOTUS. I am stating that prior to a SCOTUS finding it is neither, until there is a SCOTUS finding - anything argued prior to a finding as to the 'Constitutionality' of some '(l)(L)aw' is speculation, period. With regard to whatever law being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional at the state level, well, it might be ruled constitutional as outlined under the state constitution, but the law could actually be Federally unConstitutional.

    Very rarely arguments before SCOTUS are broad, the arguments tend to be narrow in scope, as is the finding. The findings in Chicago, and D.C. were not broad in scope, but merely, from what I recall, only affirmed that individuals can purchase, and hold firearms; that firearm ownership in-part is a "[long held tradition]" (Cite ?, I believe it was in the Chicago finding). Whether or not the requirements implemented post-finding are 'infringing' is for another run through SCOTUS. The process is extremely incremental, and time-consuming; as it should be.

    Some of the 'restrictions' imposed, say, in Chicago, appear to be overtly against the 'spirit' of the ruling, but none of us know for sure until SCOTUS is presented with the 'restrictions', and the degree of the 'restrictions' are argued, and found to either be unConstitutional, or Constitutional. In the mean-time, that means that the 'restrictions' imposed are neither Constitutional, nor unConstitutional.

    This is one of the difficult things about laws, and Laws that are passed is that once they are passed, it can take a very long time to undue them, even if they are ruled unConstitutional. It's sort of like a snake that wraps itself around you, you might be able to get one coil off you, then another, but the snake continuously eases itself back around you. Once a law, or Law is found unConstitutional, what the group in power does is alters the law, or Law, based on the scope of the finding, and implements the law, or Law again. I question this line of attack by individuals arguing before SCOTUS, but SCOTUS seems to want to hear specifically what the argument is for an against, then rules along those lines.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-12-2011 at 04:25 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Swearing in:



    “ I,___ ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”


    The issue with the notion of "infringement of rights" is that; first, one must establish what is, and is not a 'right'; second, what constitutes an infringement.

    Second Amendment:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    So, we have a 'right' here that has been affirmed in the Constitution which is the 'right' to "keep and bear Arms". And that the 'right' shall not be infringed. Now, to 'not infringe' did they mean to not restrict in any way, or to not completely deny? There are different types of infringement, and degrees, of infringement.
    An infringement is an infringement.

    in·fringe

      <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I01/I0167100" target="_blank">/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.


    –verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.





    for example, If you are standing on my property at the edge of the property line, and I don't want you there, then you have infringed. It doesnt matter if I have 500 square feet, or 500 square miles of property, if you are on it and I dont want you there, you are infringing on it. An infringement doesnt happen only around the edges, or only in the driveway, at the threshold of the door, in the rooms, or inly in the bed. It is anywhere. All the SCOTUS does, is depending on wether the majority of that .gov agencies members are right or left, is to move the line in or out that can be used to prosecute the infringor, for lack of a better term. If SCOTUS is all right, then the person stepping across the property line is infringing. If SCOTUS is all left, then it isnt an infringement until there is a rape. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and the only way to get our rights back is to cut the head off of that snake.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    in·fringe (n-frnj)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
    v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
    2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe

    As is defined above, to infringe is to "exceed the limits of," "invalidate."

    Now, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

    Do you see that the definition that I provided for "infringe" has two types of infringement?

    The first type is what I would consider an encroachment in any way...ALL encroachment is an 'infringement'.

    The second type "invalidates" the 'thing', in this case, the 'right' outlined as the Second Amendment. There is no encroachment, there is a Second Amendment 'right', then there is no Second Amendment 'right'.

    1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

    This definition seems to have "infringe" function under definition as anything that exceeds the limits of a 'thing', in this case, our Second Amendment 'right' "to keep, and bear Arms." So, by this example, if there is a violation, you could argue 'restrictions' imposed, would be an infringement.

    2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

    Do 'restriction' that might slow the process of acquisition of, but do not prevent the ability to "keep and bear Arms" 'invalidate' the Second Amendment? I would say that it doesn't.

    We can sit here, and argue about the 'spirit' of the Constitution, but really, is it necessary. It's enough of an exercise to get to the heart of what the words in the Constitution mean by themselves. The 'spirit' of the Second Amendment is deeper than where we already stand. And if we do not agree that there are two types of "infringement" then there is no point to going deeper.

    Do I believe that there are unnecessary 'restrictions', hell yes I do. Do I think that the 'restrictions' are unConstitutional, even though I believe they are unnecessary, no. Unless it is an outright ban, or restricted in such a way that your average person is not able to "keep and bear Arms," meaning, it is made unfeasible economically, then there is nothing unConstitutional about it. Well, unless SCOTUS finds that some 'restriction', or degree of 'restriction' is unConstitutional, or Constitutional.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-12-2011 at 07:54 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

    So, by definition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have committed treason, because they had Anwar Al-Awlaki INSIDE the Pentagon for a meeting just a few weeks after 9/11. I'm assuming they gave him a place to stay, food, and protection.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6978200.shtml

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blott...ry?id=11935006


    Sure sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. But since we haven't actually declared "war" on anyone in the "war of terror", perhaps it doesn't technically meet the requirements...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-12-2011 at 08:35 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    So, by definition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have committed treason, because they had Anwar Al-Awlaki INSIDE the Pentagon for a meeting just a few weeks after 9/11. I'm assuming they gave him a place to stay, food, and protection.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6978200.shtml

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blott...ry?id=11935006


    Sure sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. But since we haven't actually declared "war" on anyone in the "war of terror", perhaps it doesn't technically meet the requirements...
    Ah, technicalities. I am sure by "aid and comfort" they meant that a person would, say, Send money to Bin Laden for an attack against the US (probably even more specific than that), or house Bin Laden in their home. Bin Laden would have had bells the size of bowling balls to be smuggled into the US, and housed in the US. One place we would have definitely not been looking for him.

    Treason is disclosing the name of a CIA agent...wait, that's just politics at its worse.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    The constitution has built in a way to AMEND (meaning to add) it, not negate it. The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If an elected official (who takes a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution) knowingly creates or condone a law that restricts that right why isn't that considered a treasonous act? The fact is that person took an oath to uphold, protect and support the constitution. By creating or voting for any law that bypasses, restricts or changes that constitutional amendment they have broken their oath. 10 years ago it would be unthought of to sue someone for many of the things we see as common now. We as a people assume that those in power know what they are able to legally do, but as we have found that is not always the case. Unless they are challenged, who will stop them?
    a·mend [uh-mend]
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
    2. to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.
    3. to remove or correct faults in; rectify.

    It appears that to "amend" has more meanings than merely to add.
    Were it not so, then the Constitution could not be amended by both the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 16, 1919 and later amended by the Twenty-First Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933. The Eighteenth Amendment is the only Amendment ever to be repealed (removed, deleted, subtracted from) the Constitution.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Im on track with Dreamer but from another point of view. American medics have, from time to time, given food, water, and medical treatment to enemies, and by the definition above, would be guilty of treason.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    When whoever decided to draw up the laws that prohibited me from carrying my weapon in my vehicle without a CPL, they and those who voted for that law, and the governor who signed it into law, did so, they became guilty of treason, and deserving of death for a punishment.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Jane Fonda ?

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    There are two definitions of treason which would point to "yes" for elected officials which violate their oath of office:

    "2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
    3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery."

    The thing about definitions and dictionaries is the fact that they are products of those who write them. Example, the word "gender". This word has nothing to do with sexuality for living beings. It is a masculine and feminine descriptor of nouns in language. However, we see what has become of that word. Getting back to oath violations and treason.

    It is patently clear that any official, be they voted or selected into a public office or position, who takes an oath swearing to support and defend the Constitution and then goes about violating it covertly or overtly, is obviously guilty of a violation of this oath and should be removed from that position as soon as possible. If the official holds high office, such as a representative, senator, or president and they take active measures to circumvent the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I would be very much in favor of arresting them and trying them for treason.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    treach·er·y/ˈtreCHərē/
    Noun: Betrayal of trust; deceptive action or nature

    trea·son/ˈtrēzən/Noun
    1. The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

    There are a number of ‘things’ that an individual must do in order to commit ‘treason’. They must ‘betray’ their ‘state’ or ‘State’, meaning, seek to undermine, directly. And the reason behind the undermining must be with the intent to give “aid and comfort” to the ‘enemy’.
    Not some conspiracy theory that some person is in cahoots with some commie. Let us get real here people! Treason is a specific set of ‘intents’, and ‘acts’ that are direct, and conscious to the individual engaging in its application. The individual must CONSPIRE with the 'enemy'.



    All of this 'treason' talk, implications, and accusations are nonsense. "Oath violation" is not 'treason'. Unless you have some Representative that is 'conspiring' with the 'enemy' to undermine the Nation.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    There are politicians conspiring to undermine the nation by making it easier to victimize it's citizens and giving the enemy comfort and aid.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The enemy is any one "foreign, or domestic," that does indeed conspire to undermine the RKBA, which, BTW, is a huge aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Hang 'em high.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 05-13-2011 at 10:09 PM.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Thats like saying that there is only something wrong with shooting someone if you hit them with your shots.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    The trouble with all of these dictionary quotes is they are meaningless. They are utterly useless in determining what the Constitution means. You need a dictionary from 1787. That is the only definition that matters. The definition of 'to regulate' has changed drastically as has the definition for 'infringe'.

    Taking modern dictionaries and applying their definitions to words from the time of the writing of the Constitution is an age old trick that politicians and usurpers have been doing now for decades.

    For example, the definition of 'to Regulate' in the 1797 English Dictionary means 'to adjust by rule or method'. The modern definition means 'to control or supervise'. Yet, our founders never meant for our government to 'control' commerce. Instead, they intended for our central government to 'adjust' commerce by rules and methods. A far softer touch and one that does not include prohibition in any way, shape or form, which happens to be the modern day interpretation of 'to regulate'. If you read further into the Federalist Papers (the documents that explained the intention of the Constitution and the powers of the government), you'll see that far from wanting the central government to control commerce, they wanted the central government to keep commerce between the several states regular and flowing. Their purpose was clearly stated that it was to prevent tariffs between the states and laws or rules blocking one states product from being sold in another state. What they did not intend was total control over everything we do. Modern day interpretations of our Constitution are a perversion of the original intent and must be stopped. I would say that it is treachery and criminality which drives today's political and judicial branches and we must stop them.

    This country is made up of 'We The People' and our laws are not to be arbitrarily adjusted or made by judges, nor are the laws supposed to contradict our Constitution as most US Code currently does. Because the Constitution has a method built in for modifying itself... any other method is unconstitutional. Making laws, ordinances or rules banning firearms ANYWHERE is unconstitutional. The only reason they get away with it is because they threaten anyone who disagrees with them with jail time or violence and possibly death if you resist their rules with equal force with which they enforce them.

    Today's modern politicians and particularly, today's modern liberal progressive politicians are authoritarians and wannabe despots. Their followers are control freaks and a bunch of looters and moochers. What they cannot make themselves, they are willing to give permission to government to steal from their neighbors. The perversion of our Constitution is practically treason... but the breaking of their oaths... it is purely a criminal act unless it can be shown to be a form of 'making war' on the USA. I think there is a strong case for that since not all forms of making war are physical combat only... but instead, psychological war or some other form of propaganda war. It would be one thing if they were telling the truth... but not one of them is telling the truth. At best, they are using sophistry to sway people to their way of thinking. Is it treason? It may very well be... but until we restore the Republic, we will never be able to punish them for it.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •