Sunday, July 28, 2013


Note: All of us here at Joyce’s Take which to express our gratitude to Michael P for his technical support which seems to have solved our adware problem. Thank you Michael.

Treason: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. -

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution.

- Legal Dictionary

    While looking for pictures for this post I came across an abundance of our current President associated with the word “treason.” Don’t take my word for it, just look above for 3 examples.  
   The image at the very top can be found here, on a site hosted by one Pat Dollard, in which he identifies with the catch phrase “The War Starts Here!” which is rather alarming if you ask me. The picture is attributed to former republican representative from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, who wrote in something called WND (World Net Daily): “The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.
   As we all know, Obama may be removed by a vote of the people Nov. 6. But if not, if the lapdog media succeed in hiding his malfeasance and incompetence well enough for Obama to win a narrow victory at the polls, then Congress may summon the courage to exercise its constitutional duty to impeach and remove him.”
   I assume he wrote this before the election last November, when Obama narrowly defeated Romney by a mere 3 million votes. Tancredo (who lost his own presidential election bid in 2008) goes on about other nonsensical reasons Obama should be impeached, but let’s examine for a moment the above issue.
    Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Oh how the republicans love Benghazi, or to talk about it at least. And the four Americans who indeed did tragically lose their lives in Libya last September 11th, and the supposed “cover up,” of... I don’t know exactly... maybe the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were directly responsible for the incident and the deaths. Well I have this to say to Mr. Tancredo, Mr Dollard, the twin idiots Michelle Bachmann and Darrell Issa, and anyone else who would use this very sad incident for their own political purposes, the country, our country, the United States of America, isn’t as universally loved outside it’s borders as it is within. We have enemies in other countries that would do us harm if given half a chance, especially in the Middle East (which includes Libya, and where several other demonstrations transpired in other countries that very day. According to CNN  between 1998 and 2011, U.S. diplomatic sites were subjected to 13 deadly attacks in Nairobi, Kenya; Calcutta, India; Lima, Peru; Karachi, Pakistan; Bali, Indonesia;  Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Damascus, Syria; Athens, Greece; Istanbul, Turkey; Yemen; and Peshawar, Pakistan. One of these incidents occurred during the presidency of Bill Clinton, and 11 occurred during George W. Bush's presidency), and on that day, in Benghazi, our enemies got their chance and took it. And foreign service work, State Department work, including that of an Ambassador, can be very dangerous (I know this from personal experience as I am a former Ambassador... of SRHT), and they know that when they take the job, and willingly accept the risk.
   Some say that there was a cover up to protect Hillary because she sent Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to Benghazi, and to a poorly protected compound. Well that was her job! The Secretary of State is supposed to send people to different places around the world.
   But why was there such so poor security... FOUR AMERICAN LIVES WERE LOST!
   Maybe republican defunding of diplomatic security...
   “[A]s part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion.”
   You don’t hear a lot about that from republicans because they choose to forget about that, ignore it, as it does not forward their political agenda. And, oh yes, they’re sociopathic assholes... and I say that with love.
   Four American lives were lost. Indeed that is regrettably true. The republicans are so sad and upset about it they can’t stop talking about it. Funny, I never hear them talk about the thousands of American lives lost by starting an unnecessary war in Iraq by a republican President. Aren’t those lives worth as much as those lost in Benghazi?
   I think so.
   Unless President Obama was directly involved in planning and executing the attack I don’t see what impeachable offense he can be held responsible for. “Incompetence!,” the republicans cry. Well the only incompetence I can see the president involved with in this instance was allowing Ambassador Susan Rice to withdrawal from the nomination process for Secretary of State.
   If incompetence was an impeachable offense, what can be said of a President that ignored repeated warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on American soil using aircraft? 
   Huuummmm? I’m waiting.
   Let’s move on to the second picture of Obama surrounded by a quote from the Roman statesman, lawyer, political theorist, philosopher and orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, concerning the subject of treason (a label of which he would eventually be branded himself, and which would cost him his life).
   Here’s the quote: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within... For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their argument. He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly to undermine the pillars of a city, infecting the body politic so that it can no longer resist...”
   Not that I’m a stickler for accuracy (I am) but here’s the actual quote.       
   The site I found this picture on is labeled “Political Pistachio,” “Blog Home of the Writer and AM and FM Radio Host, Douglas V. Gibbs.” He captions the image with this, “Cicero on Treason; Obama Fits the Bill.”
   He neglects, however, to state why Obama fits the bill. What has the President done to warrant impeachment? Or do we need a reason? Why don’t we impeach him for the pure, sweet hell of it. We didn’t vote for him. We don’t like him. He’s not really one of us. We don’t like the democratic process when it doesn’t go our way, when a black man wins over a white man, even though that white man would initiate policies that are against our own best interests.
   I get a similar response when I ask conservatives why Obamacare should be repealed. Or actually, lack of response. They can’t name a particular policy that they’re against, yet they know it should be repealed because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glen Beck tell them it should be repealed and that Obamacare is the worse thing the country has faced since 9/11. If those I ask are cognizant to some degree, they’ll tend to repeat the talking points the right wing media has drilled into them, like Obamacare is a job killer (Mitt Romney said this, although the health care program he initiated in Massachusetts while governor is still flourishing in that state, and is the model for Obamacare), or that Obamacare will actually kill us all (Michelle Bachmann said this, as well as the “death panel” crap). All this can be debunked as easily as turning on the Google Machine.
   The third picture can be found on this site, which is entitled “Just Piper,” which also displays a video entitled, “Benghazi revelations could sink Obama [one can only hope],” which flat out lies about the President labeling the attack a terrorist incident the day after in the Rose Garden (as if his labeling of anything actually mattered in some real, substantial way, other than to appease right wing sensibilities). I saw the speech as it happened. I saw him say it was a terrorist act. But in right wing looney toon world he didn’t, and he was secretly (i.e., Ronald Reagan Iran/Contra) shipping SAM missiles from Libya through Turkey, to the Syrian rebels, which as far as I know, even if it were true, isn’t illegal (although not authorized by Congress), and is actually in line with the stated policies of specific republicans like John (Never Met A TV Camera I Didn’t Like) McCain (regardless of the videos unproven and self serving claim the rebels are members of Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood).
   But the picture itself actually lists several reasons President Obama should be impeached. Let’s take a moment and examine them.
   It starts out by proclaiming: “This man is wanted for treasonous activities against the United States:”
   By whom? Who wants this man? The same people who wrote this I guess, since the proclamation itself offers no clue. The statement assumes there is a large proportion of the population that will agree with it’s sentiments. In that, those who created this are correct, although the actual size of the population that agrees with this statement may be smaller than the authors would like.
   The statement then goes on to make specific charges:
   “1. Betraying the Constitution (which he is sworn to uphold):”
   And they cite two examples as proof of this betrayal:
   “He is turning the sovereignty of the U.S. over to the communist controlled United Nations.”
   “He is betraying our friends (Georgia, Poland, NATO) and befriending our enemies (Iran, Taliban, Al-Queda).”
   The first proof of Obama’s betrayal of the Constitution is a bold, sweeping statement concerning the take over of the United States by the United Nations... and if that’s not scary enough, it’s the communist controlled United Nations.
   I have not heard of this take over, or the transfer of sovereignty. You’d think something like this would be in the news!
   And I watch the news all of the time! And what I see on the news is the President in the White House, or out promoting his policies, like he’s always done, and Congress in the Capital doing nothing, like it always does (by the way... I believe Congressional pay should be tied to the amount of work accomplished. If no bills are passed, no laws made, no policies put forth to push the country forward, no pay should be issued to Senators and Representatives. It won’t matter because they’re all rich anyway, but at least Congress will be in line with it’s own ideals about contributing to society, especially Republican ideals... i.e, if you don’t work you don’t eat, right Ms Bachmann?). I don’t see any evidence of this takeover by the U.N.
   Now I don’t watch Fox News because it makes my eyes and ears bleed. But perhaps all of the evidence for the U.N. take over resides there. I wish they’d share that evidence with the other networks and the rest of the world, just so we’re all on the same page.
   Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the U.N., comes from South Korea, which is, last I heard, a democracy, not a communist country. Jan Kenneth Eliasson, the Deputy Secretary General comes from Sweden, which  is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Vuk Jeremić, the General Assembly President, is Serbian. Serbia is a unitary state, which is kind of communisty, but is ruled under a parliamentary republic, with its members subject to elections. It’s Prime Minister is a member of the Socialist Party, which is a whole different thing than the Communist Party. As a matter of fact I don’t think there really are any communists countries any more except possibly Cuba. China calls itself a communist country, but actually wants to enjoy all the advantages of a capitalist, free market society, which its level of polluting the environment proves.
   So someone should tell the U.N. the communists have taken it over. Maybe they’re not aware.
   Okay, the second statement insists Obama has abandoned our friends, and points out the examples of Poland, Georgia, and NATO. 
   Since when is Poland, Georgia, and NATO our great friends, and how has the United States abandoned them? We’re a member of NATO for Gosh’s sake! So are we abandoning ourselves? How does one do that?
   Georgia. I assume that the authors are talking about the country rather than the state, has good relations with the United States. So much so that it’s pissing off Russia! We want them to join the European Union (maybe not a smart move on Georgia’s part) and NATO. We’re giving them military assistance, and building a pipeline of course. This is betraying?
   The same with Poland, which is already a member of the EU, NATO, the UN, the World Trade Organization, Kiwanis... on and on.
   And the last part of the statement, “and befriending our enemies (Iran, Taliban, Al-Queda).”
   Uuuummm, I can’t find any examples of how the United States under President Obama has befriended Iran (although that may not be a bad idea, to befriend the people of Iran, not the current government). In fact the U.S. has economic sanctions against Iran. There’s a whole article on Wikipedia concerning those sanctions here, which starts out like this:
   “This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations [communist] Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.”
   And as far as the Taliban and Al Queda are concerned, as memory serves, I believe we’re still at war with both of them (if Al Queda still exists operationally after President Obama ordered and successfully executed the death of it’s leader, the President's best buddy apparently, Osama bin Laden) in a country called Afghanistan.
   So I’m not really convinced so far that President Obama is a traitor from the evidence presented. Perhaps I will be when we examine the rest of the message in the next post.
   We shall see.

To be continued.

1 comment:

  1. Got that right, Chief! That's what I'm talkin' about!