Would You Call THIS Treason?

[kpete]

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

:large
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/632765960069337

[CanSocDem]

1. Uh...Yeh!! (eom)

[lsewpershad]

32. Maybe

it should be tested in court.....any takers?

[world wide wally]

50. This ^

[daleanime]

2. Yes.

[leveymg]

3. The Powell Memo, 1971

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

[haikugal]

4. Thanks for this...I've never read it. Important information.

[cantbeserious]

6. Yes - The Powell Memo Is A Seminal Turning Point In American Politics

eom

[leveymg]

51. In the '70s there was a lot of 1% anxiety. Check out "The Crisis of Governability of Democracies"

https://archive.org/details/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralCommission-1975

[CrispyQ]

14. Thank you for the reminder about Reclaim Democracy!

I haven't visited that site in a very long time. So much great info there!

[leveymg]

22. My pleasure!

The fix is old. The dam is leaking. Get ready for a deluge.

[2naSalit]

24. Thanks for the link

I have never read this before but it sure sounds like the boiler plate for the shock doctrine we've all come to know and love.

[mountain grammy]

29. The heads of the corporate state declared war on the American working class because

How dare they demand health care for seniors, civil rights for minorities, and an end to the war for American interests?

[arendt]

36. This vile person (ex-Tobacco lawyer) needs to remain infamous

Here is my 2013 diary on Powell:

Lewis-Powell-Cell-Zero-in-the-Cancer-that-is-devouring-America

[MisterP]

39. by 1971 people were learning for themselves and challenging the establishment:

that could NOT be permitted, and the Memo unleashed the plague of corpo think tanks on us--even the fundie wave traces back to this (and was partly a reaction to this ironbound technocracy)

[truedelphi]

114. Never known of this memo -

Or ever visited the website.

Great find, thanks for sharing this important info.

[SusanaMontana41]

115. I hadn't, either.

Thanks for the link.

[fredamae]

5. Does it really matter How

they "take over" a government? Where are the investigations? The consequences are glaring! The powers at be cannot possibly Not understand What the Hell is happening!

[2naSalit]

25. Maybe

because there is already enough infiltration to thwart any of that pesky investigation stuff.

[GGJohn]

7. As a private citizen, you can call it what you want,

but it doesn't mean it is treason.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[demwing]

26. you're right more like nsurrection /nt

[lastlib]

40. Sedition, yes, emphatically!

Treason, no, since that is defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article III.

EVIL as hell, though. Must be fought furiously! OVERTURN Citizens United!!

[GGJohn]

90. ^^^This^^^,

Over turning CU would go a long ways towards taking back our govt.

[Octafish]

48. Nice diversion.

Undermining the Constitution is treason.

[hack89]

54. Not according to the Constitution

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The reason treason was so tightly defined and put in the Constitution is because English kings so widely defined treason that it basically meant anything the king wanted it to be.

[malthaussen]

65. Eh, your history is a bit off.

Parliament is the force that continually defined treason to mean what they wanted, to the point of convicting a reigning king of treason. And parliament is the reason that such a vague definition as "high crimes and misdemeanours" is considered a basis for impeachment. Since in the bad old days impeachment could cause one to lose his head, that is no small thing. And it was the king's ministers who were apt to be impeached. Sedition against the Crown usually resulted in corporal punishment, not capital punishment.

-- Mal

[hack89]

66. Point being treason is very tightly defined in America. Nt

[GGJohn]

89. Which isn't what's happening.

So no diversion.

But if you truly believe it is, then take your concerns to the US Attorney's office and see what they have to say.

[Octafish]

91. Do you think working to pass laws that only serve the wealthy is treason?

I do, thanks to Adlai Stevenson, Jr.

"Corruption in public office is treason."

Here's an example: Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton and George W Bush have specialized together in Wealth Management at Swiss bank UBS.

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

[GGJohn]

93. What you or I might think is irrelevent,

it's what the Constitution says, and the Constitution is pretty clear on what is treason, and this ain't it.

[Octafish]

94. I'll go with Adlai Stevenson, Jr. He was a great Democrat.

Feel free to think what you want about treason.

[GGJohn]

97. And I'll go with the Constitution,

which trumps what Adlai Stevenson Jr. may think.

It's not what I think what treason, it's what the Constitution says.

[Octafish]

103. You are absolutely right.

You are going by the letter of the law.
Stevenson was going by the spirit of the law -- justice.

Today, I believe, most of the US political and legal leadership feel like you do. As long as it's legal, they can do whatever they want to do.

Seeing how they make the laws, that's pretty much everything from looting the banks and defrauding investors to secret police spying on America and making wars without end for profits without cease.

[Nitram]

127. I believe the question was whether WE think it's treason.

Not whether the Constitution thinks so.

[GGJohn]

128. Again,

it doesn't matter what WE think is treason, it's what the Constitution says it is, and this ain't it.

[Nitram]

130. The constitution did not invent the word "treason".

The meaning of the word does not begin and end with its use in that document except as it pertains to the government's justice system. If we think it is treason we can vote for representatives and a president who agree with us and will work to pass legislation to defend the US from the rapacity of corporations and the wealthy.

[GGJohn]

131. But the Constitution narrowly defines treason,

and until it's changed, then it's what the Constitution says it is and under the definition of treason, this ain't it.

[Nitram]

133. Apparently you didn't actually read my post before you repeated yourself.

You sound like a broken record. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

[GGJohn]

135. I did read it,

and if or when the definition is changed, then this isn't treason in any way, shape or form.

[Rex]

140. Of course it matters what we think, this is not Congress so you are wasting our time

about the Constitution. WE were asked what we think. It doesn't matter if you do not like the question from the OP. If not, start a new thread on the Constitution. These are subjective answers in a discussion forum, you don't have to like it. It just is.

IOW - you say no it is not. Fine your opinion is just a valid as mine.

[GGJohn]

153. If I'm wasting your time, then here's a clue,

don't read my posts.

And it doesn't matter what WE think is treason, the Constitution narrowly defines what treason is and it is the final word.

[Rex]

161. It does on this forum as an opinion are you that myopic?

If so then that is how it is.

[avaistheone1]

107. Ugh!

No wonder they are such good chums.

[avaistheone1]

109. I don't think anyone has said it better

than you just have.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

119. I was going to say essentially the same thing.

I would have quoted Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution

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

Incidentally, a major reason that the framers of the Constitution were explicit in their definition of treason stemmed from an incident during the reign of Henry VIII of England. One of Henry's political enemies, Lord Montague, was arrested and told the charge was treason. He said, "I have committed no treason." The arresting officer replied, "Treason is what the king says it is." The framers knew their history, and did not want treason to be whatever some governmental official said it was.

[GGJohn]

124. Very interesting.

Thanks.
The repukes having that kind of power would be a national nightmare.

[Rex]

141. Irrevelant point, the question was do WE think...not what is in the Constitution.

You can get off msg as much as you want, but the question was for a subjective opinion from posters.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

146. What the Koch Brothers are doing is damaging to the American Republic and to all of us

However, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, they are not committing treason.

If you are going to call it "treason", then it had better meet the legal definition of treason. It's as if someone set your car on fire: You can't say that they committed murder, since what they did was not murder.

[tritsofme]

8. No, political agendas I dislike are not treason.

Words have real meanings.

[7962]

84. Straight to the point!! "Treason" is tossed around way too much these days

by both right and left

[Nye Bevan]

9. No.

And in 2015 it would take a lot more than "buying up the media" if you wanted to ensure that the public "cannot know the truth".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. No, not even close n/t

[Hydra]

11. Yes, but our Gov't has been taken over and non-functional for at least 35 years now

And nobody is interested in bringing the Bush Family up on charges, so really, there's nothing left to save. We're just pretending we have some sort of Representative gov't.

[erronis]

41. True, that: We're just pretending we have some sort of Representative go'vt.

[Plucketeer]

62. Pretending is as futile as reality

Our federal "rep" was elected with hefty corporate money a decade ago. And hefty corporate monies keep him insulated to where there's not even anyone willing to challenge him. The only time he shows his face around here is to court prospective backers (read that: not common folks).
I used to take the time to write him as if he cared. The "canned" answers I got only served to confirm that some staff member had actually noted my message. But nothing's gonna change. As long as his backers hold to the fantasy that Reid and Pelosi are responsible for the drought here, my time will be better spent talking to a brick.

[ryan_cats]

12. That

That isn't a very nice thing to say about George Soros.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Nnnnnnope.

Because I understand the definition of the word.

[Liberalagogo]

15. Fascism or sedition, maybe

But not treason.

[MineralMan]

16. From our Constitution:

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.

Please do not try to redefine the term.

[LiberalArkie]

17. Not treason as much as a coup

[starroute]

18. It's technically subversion, not treason

Subversion is easy to describe but it's almost impossible to define legally because it's difficult to separate it from free speech and legitimate political activity. In the few places where there are laws against subversion, like China, they've often been turned against dissidents. So the activities listed in the OP are definitely a problem, but calling them treason when they aren't only confuses the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor". . . .

The problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.[9] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term, "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults". . . .

Subversive actions can generally be grouped into three interrelated categories:

* Establishing front groups and penetrating and manipulating existing political parties
* Infiltrating the armed forces, the police, and other institutions of the state, as well as important non-government organizations
* Generating civil unrest through demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts

[eppur_se_muova]

20. ...

[PosterChild]

73. +100 !! (NT)

[Dustlawyer]

19. They OWN THE MEDIA, CONGRESS, POTUS, REGULATORY AGENCIES, WALL STREET,

THE MIC, OIL COMPANIES, BIG PHARMA, AND MOST OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! They are our government now! They just keep us fighting each other over the problems that they create in taking most of our money and tax dollars. We have allowed them to do this, but now they have pushed so far and been more blatant about what they have been doing that, along with the Internet, we are waking up to reality. Our challenge is to wake up as many people as we can to the truth about where things really stand and then doing something about it!

[Fuddnik]

21. Yep.

We fought a world War back in the 1940's to prevent corporations and the wealthy from taking over the world.

They're just using different tactics this time.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Really?

I don't remember many of Churchill's and FDR's speeches focusing on the threat posed by corporations and rich people.

[Doubledee]

30. More beneath heaven and earth, Horatio

" The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of privat epower to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism, ownership of government by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I know, you said MANY speeches...but the eloquence and the points made were, in my opinion, worthy of insertion.

[Half-Century Man]

31. The fusion of corporatism and government is fascism.

The corporate people tried at the Nuremberg tribunals were called war profiteers.
Ya know, like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.

[JDPriestly]

79. That is what we have now.

The only hope to stop the fascist wave is to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Vote for Bernie in 2016 and then for Bernie supporters for Congress in 2018.

[zentrum]

27. Wish Reich

…..could be in Bernie's cabinet.

[The CCC]

28. Would You Call THIS Treason?

No. It's something far worse. It's Republicanism.

[Recursion]

33. No, I'd call it a political agenda I strongly disagree with (nt)

[MohRokTah]

34. No, I wouldn't call it treason

Treason has a very well laid out and narrow definition in the constitution.

What is described is not only not treason, but is also completely legal. I don't like it and would like to see it changed, but it comes nowhere near what is defined as treason.

[ladjf]

35. Maybe illegal but no treason. nt

[jwirr]

37. Absolutely.

[Gothmog]

38. Yes, this is treason

[wyldwolf]

42. When we throw around the word 'treason,' we water down it's real meaning.

[sabrina 1]

43. Yes!

[Duval]

44. YES! eom

[former9thward]

45. No, I go by the definition in the Constitutiion.

I am surprised that Reich, who took an oath to defend the Constitution when he was a Cabinet official, has not read it.

[world wide wally]

52. Try combining a little common sense with the Constitution

It is definitely sabotage in time of war

[former9thward]

53. Oh I think the Constitution has a lot of common sense.

Sorry you think it needs to be supported by something else. The Constitution is the law of the land, not some person's definition of "common sense".

[world wide wally]

56. Interpretation is always the problem

Just look at the 2A as an example.
The only way to settle it would be in court, but we already know. How this SC would rule (which is part of the problem)

[onenote]

104. This supreme court and every other supreme court in US history

would come out exactly the same way.

Not treason under the very limited (and intentionally so) definition in the Constitution.

[chapdrum]

46. Not if there are no laws against it

And if there are, just what or whom is going to do the prosecuting?

[Stuart G]

47. Thanks for posting kepte......Great Find!!!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. Close

close to treason.

[postatomic]

55. Suppose - Assume - Believe - Infer - Consider - Pretend

This is from July 2013. No biggee. This sounds like the Republican Agenda. Treason? No.

[NonMetro]

57. I guess not. I guess there is no law against Americans destroying their own country.

[NuclearDem]

58. No. But then again, I've actually read the constitutional definition of treason.

So I'm a little biased on the matter.

[grahamhgreen]

69. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,

or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Hmmmmm.

Would you agree with a charge of Domestic terrorism?

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

- 18 U.S. Code § 2331

[NuclearDem]

71. Apologies, comrade, I'm not interested in expanding the definitions

of terrorism, treason, and sedition to go after the kulaks.

Send the commissar my sincerest apologies.

[PosterChild]

75. +10 !! (NT)

[ieoeja]

136. Straight out of the "liberals are commies" playbook. n/t

[NuclearDem]

138. No, just out of a history book.

[grahamhgreen]

145. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that appear to be intended

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.


Tell it to the judge.

[NuclearDem]

147. Then watch the judge laugh you out of his courtroom

at the idea that you thought he would entertain bringing domestic terrorism charges against lobbyists for lobbying.

[Dont call me Shirley]

72. Yes, then by that definition, the oligarchy are domestic terrorists. Thanks for your post, graham.

[JDPriestly]

81. It's vague. Is dumping dangerous chemical waste in fiolation of criminal laws terrorism?

How can we determine whether dumping chemical waste is intended to intimidate or coerce people or to influence hte policy of a government by intimidation or coercion???? etc.?

"acgts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," and then is a jury supposed to figure out and vote on what the intent of the acts were?

But the guy who went into a mall to a meet and greet with a member of Congress was deemed "insane" if I remember correctly. That makes no sense.

That law lends itself to a lot of interpretations and seems to be written to be used selectively based on the political views of the person violating the law. Is it even needed in our law since you have to have violated the law to fit the definition of a terrorist in the first place. And what does "involve acts" mean?

I think that is a weak definition. Congress should rethink it and make it enforceable if possible. I think maybe terrorism is not a separate crime but rather should be reason to impose a stiffer sentence.

[7962]

85. Haaaaaaaaa!!

[malaise]

59. Here's the real problem

If your government has spent the last century overthrowing governments in other countries 'in the national interest' (i.e. in the interest of the transnational corporations), why would said corporations not eventually overthrow its own government.

Either we believe in democracy for all or there will be democracy for none. It is the inherent contradictions that destroy systems.

[kelly1mm]

61. No, it is not treason to have different political views, even if those views are demonstrably bad.nt

[smirkymonkey]

63. Yes. Definitely.

[malthaussen]

64. Treason never prospers, what's the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

-- Mal

[Throd]

67. Only if we are redefining the word to fit our biases.

The right wing has their own definition of treason and it is inaccurate as well.

[onenote]

105. +1

[vkkv]

68. Hell YAH !!! n/t

[MoreGOPoop]

70. K & R

We've got to stop it, whatever we call the tearing down of our
democracy. Fuck a bunch of Fascists & their Bourgeoisie enablers.

[kpete]

74. spot on

thanks for the comment.


and peace,
kp

[cascadiance]

76. And bribing officials to stop efforts to stop climate change is also the crime of MASS MURDER!!!

Of the life on this planet, and could be the greatest crime committed on this planet since creation in my book!

That is why they belong in prison for life if not getting more punishment, and all of their assets should be seized to reverse the effects of their CRIMINAL ACTIONS against of us and against their own children who they are killing as well.

[Thespian2]

77. Well...................

.............YES..............

[JDPriestly]

78. Do you have a link? The picture or whatever it is does not show up on my computer.

[kpete]

80. Original text

before the meme:

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change isn't occurring, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth. Would you call this treason

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/632765960069337

[sorechasm]

82. Who can tell, since the funding source for these extremely wealthy might well be foreign gov'ts.

Intending to destroy ours with the intention of a take over, but we will never know thanks to the Citizens United ruling.

Thank you Justice Scalia.

[JDPriestly]

83. If some of the money came from foreign interests intent on destroying our democracy and our

country, I would. We need a law that at least allows us to know just where donations to such groups come from. We have no idea how much of the money including campaign funding comes from foreign interests that are actually hostile to the US. We have no way of knowing that.

Think of the drug money that was being laundered through one of our big banks. What other money is laundered through say casinos, banks or sham businesses or not even laundered but used to fund political campaigns in our country? I don't know. I am asking.

[sorechasm]

88. I'm with you JDPriestly. It seems that CU creates an obvious weakness counter to

All those who stated 'No'.

I wish a Constitutional Scholar could prove us wrong.

[Person 2713]

170. Good point to bring in to the discussion . Who is behind they?

[hifiguy]

86. Hell yes.

It amounts to a declaration of war on our once constitutionally guaranteed form of government.

[PADemD]

87. YES!

[H2O Man]

92. Yep. I surely would.

[B Calm]

95. Yes I would!

[czarjak]

96. Working against the will of the majority in a democracy?

You'd think.

[GGJohn]

98. Not even.

Working against the will of the majority isn't treason in any way, shape or form, it's called opposing views, which is perfectly legal in the US.

[hopemountain]

99. yes i would. there is even worse than this being

threatened on facebook by militia groups that have infiltrated rural community groups where law enforcement is not available - especially within community neighborhood watch groups. many of these militia group members pretend to reside in the communities and are either recruiting or spreading military anarchy bs. it is disgusting and alarming. i can't figure out whether they are there to draw out armed militia anarchists with their inflammatory statements or what?

[totodeinhere]

100. That would not be treason. There is a very specific legal definition of the term "treason"

in the Constitution and that is not it.

[struggle4progress]

110. +

[onenote]

101. The only thing that matters is whether the Constitution would call it treason. And it wouldn't.

So I guess the answer from everyone should be no.

[PatrickforO]

102. I sure would. And they're making their move right now through the TPP and

TISA. We let these so-called 'free trade' agreements pass and we're truly fucked because the USA will be no more in 10 years - we'll all be one happy corporate utopia.

I shit you not.

[YOHABLO]

113. You got that right .. just read article by Chris Hedges .. wow we're screwed if this goes through

http://www.alternet.org/economy/chris-hedges-tpp-most-brazen-corporate-power-grab-american-history

[avaistheone1]

106. Against all enemies foreign and domestic....

Yes, I think it is treason.

[Rex]

108. 317 and counting!

Good to know DU still has IT!

[TBF]

134. There are a few definite "no's" in the crowd -

I'd be looking over all of their posts very carefully.

Anyone who cannot see the oligarchy and their soft fascist takeover at work in this country are likely complicit.

[Rex]

139. By now, unless they were born under a rock and have no idea of current events

everyone should know how badly the corporate world has taken over and controls our government officials.

[GGJohn]

150. True,

but that's still not treason according to the Constitutional definition.

[Rex]

160. Which was not the point.

[GGJohn]

149. So you're the zampolit of DU?

[totodeinhere]

155. Look over my posts all you want. I don't care. But what the oligarchy is doing does not meet

the constitutional definition of treason. In fact some scholars maintain that treason can only be committed during times of war and this country at present is not fighting a declared war. That by no means makes it right but we need to make an attempt to use correct terminology and avoid hyperbole.

[TBF]

156. Section 3 -

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

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.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

In terms of "legal" definition I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are folks commenting on this thread.

[totodeinhere]

157. If there are that many opinions on the topic then at the very least that should mean that

the subject is not nearly as cut and dried as the OP seems to believe.

[TBF]

158. Many of us are not looking for the intricacies of legal opinion -

we are responding to the spirit of the discussion which is "do we still have a democracy?". For many of us that answer is "in name only".

I understand you are thinking of treason in a very strict sense - perhaps how it has been defined through the years in a legal sense. That's fine, but that's not what most folks are responding to here.

[Nye Bevan]

167. Definite "no" here, and any would-be Dolores Umbridge, High Inqusitor of DU,

is more than welcome to "look over my posts very carefully".

[TBF]

168. Not my job -

but I'm more than familiar with your posts.

[Nye Bevan]

169. So whose job do you think it is to scrutinize the posts

of those DUers who actually know the meaning of the word "treason"?

[McCamy Taylor]

111. Yes, I would.

[SunSeeker]

112. I would, but that list does not come within the legal definition of treason.

It is nonetheless evil, and has done more damage to our country than acts that have been actually adjudged treason.

[daybranch]

116. Actually I would call them Hillary's and the republican's large donors'

Down with oligarchy, up with Democracy. Vote Bernie!

[Kalidurga]

117. I would call it an oligarchy

It's been around for at least 400 years, perhaps 1,000 years. It came in with the early settlers and it was not destroyed by the founding fathers, in some ways it was codified into law and what wasn't codified was put in place by tradition and culture.

But, since the purpose of the Revolutionary war was stated to be to let people have freedom they didn't have under British rule I would say that the rules in place that helped the oligarchy were indeed treason and it's long tradition in this country needs to come to an end.

[Enthusiast]

118. K&R! This post has hundreds of recommendations!

[Sunlei]

120. just like what MLKing said about hitler, "everything they(he did was) do is legal"

I don't know how us 'little people' can ever 'win' or recover in our lifetime.

[The Wizard]

121. Koch addiction (NT)

[MrMickeysMom]

122. Sorry... It took me this long to weigh in... ABSOLUTELY YES...

Purposely working against in a calculated manner what is constitutionally defined to uphold the laws on behalf OF the American people, which RESULTS in a the treasonous acts RR describes herein IS TREASON.

No amount of apology, or tap-dancing can get around it.

Many still alive have lived through examples of similarly described fascist based systems of marginalizing citizens who become casualties of these policies.

ENOUGH, thank you.

[raouldukelives]

123. Well, I would, I have and I do.

One of the main reasons I refuse to assist them. I care too much about democracy for my fellow human beings than to diminish it by becoming a partial owner of the very institutions attacking it daily.

Some people honestly give a shit about the problems we face and the future we are creating. For others, they do all they can to assist the Dimon's and Blankfien's of the world and then have the chutzpah to wonder why things keep getting worse.

Like an abolitionist slave owner who continues profiting from the enslavement and misery of others and then openly wonders why we ALL can't do something about it.

[lark]

125. Treason started when the R's stole the presidency for shrub

and has grown and grown ever since then. Now they know they can subvert the constitution, don't know if they can be stopped? Especially when Dems engage in purity wars.

[Nitram]

126. Short answer...

YES!

[monicaangela]

129. YES!

[kentuck]

132. I would.

But, that's just me.

[Javaman]

137. no...

this is deconstructed America.

this is the direct result of 35 years of republican rule.

people are used to it now and think it the status quo.

if there is anything that should be put on trial here, it the American public for falling asleep on the job and allowing the machine to go out of control.

[TBF]

142. 35 years -

That takes us back to 1980, but also includes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

And you blame the American public for this?

[Javaman]

143. yup. we fell for their bullshit hook line and sinker.

roll your eyes all you wish if that helps you.

we turned our back on the last real democratic president, Jimmmy Carter and fell in line with the republican dream of stupidity.

it was set up long before he came to power, but Reagan put into effect.

and we all were lulled to sleep with morning in America.

we haven't had any form of democracy since.

each and every following president build their legacy upon that fractured rock.

and here we are now, being told that Bernie is an impossible outsider, a SOCIALIST!!!, and we should continue to vote for the status quo with Hillary; who seems to change and conform to what Bernie says the day before.

she sees the writing and is once again selling us the bill of goods that many democrats are swallowing up whole.

we are a foolish nation, easily lead to via the easiest course of action.

I live in Texas, my Democratic party vote won't matter at all. So I can safely mark my ballot (more like write it in) for Bernie and sleep well at night knowing that I didn't, once again, compromise my integrity.

as my sig line states, "I would rather vote for something and not get it, then for vote for something I don't want and get it".

[TBF]

148. ^ Well most of this I actually agree with.

Except for blaming the American people. I don't think this is people being mean-spirited for the most part (although those folks certainly exist). Mostly people have been led astray by propaganda delivered by a paid-off media. I don't know that the rank and file in this country really understand that FOX news is entertainment (with the other networks not far behind if we're honest). And, finally, I'm not so sure of voting procedures/voting machines either and whether we're even having actual elections anymore (although even if we are we're getting the choices they want us to have - see my sig line).

[Javaman]

159. we are all to blame.

Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

to have an active an healthy democracy the voting population has to take an aggressive active part.

We as a nation do not.

we would rather complain and let someone else fix it.

as a result, people allowed the fairness act to be repealed and no one said a word, especially we democrats because we were all so in love with good old Bill. glass-stegal went the way of the dinosaurs and not a peep from anyone one of us. We all trusted Bill. Those are just two very glaring examples.

and regarding electronic voting, yes, many people made a huge stink about it, but were their protests and riots aside from florida to keep our voting properly accounted for? Nope. we all just sat by and watched, thinking that it will all work out. In a real democracy were people take an active roll, the voting would have been stopped, the election suspended until proper procedure followed in order to count all the votes and stood for the "hanging chad" bullshit. Instead, the people of this nation, sat back and watched as the supreme court decided who was president and not the people. not only were the people complacent, but the supreme court should have done it's job and said, "no fucking way, this is for the people to decide, not us", but alas, they broke constitutional law for stupid expedience.

while we had been living under the guise of a democracy up until that point, we ceased being one after that point.

if they supremes can step in once, I can guarantee you, they will again. and people then really won't give a shit, because they will think that's how it's done "according to the constitution", via brain washing from our enabling media. all other protesters, who know better, will be shouted down my the moron majority.

this is the nation we live in. perpetual war that is now decided via fiat without congressional approval or a charade by those in congress who love to go along to get along.

again, this is why I am voting for Bernie. He read the patriot act and voted against it. I paid attention and gave a critical eye at the "evidence" and voted against going to war in Iraq.

while hillary will continue to make her excuses to the masses that are willing to go along to get along, I will not stomach it. Neither will those who know better. but don't worry she has her excuse squad out there to make sure we are the crazy ones.

I'm probably one of a very small group of people who feels this passionate about this. I refuse to vote for her. I just can't. I have to stop giving the machine it's fuel.

[GGJohn]

162. Bravo!

Best post in this thread.

[TBF]

163. We are just blaming different sources

and I'm not sure why that is. I am with you overall on this and feel the same way that you do about Hillary's complicity. She is part of the elite set pulling the strings for the very wealthy (net worth M$45 - that doesn't even include Bill - together their net worth is well over M$100). Some striking similarities to Germany early 1900s in my view. And I come to the same conclusions you do re where we are as a country.

[Herebuddy]

164. Poor Germany...

destined forever to be the comparitive baseline.

[TBF]

165. You'll need to look elsewhere for sympathy for Germany -

I seem to be plum out.

[bobthedrummer]

144. Corporate fascism is treasonous. K&R. n/t

[GGJohn]

151. No, it's not,

according to the Constitution.

[Nye Bevan]

166. What does that even mean? Is "corporate fascism" like having a really mean boss?

And what's with devaluing "treason" to mean "something I really, really don't like"?

[Rocknrule]

152. I thought "treason" meant "disagreeing with a Republican president"

[Agnosticsherbet]

154. Under the Constitution this is not treason, so no.

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.