Opus 2021-061: Cornerstone Considerations: CUSA, III, Can We Talk?, Part 2 of 2

Again we consider the definition of treason from 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.”

The definition does not stop at talk about actual war.  It goes on to include “adhering” and helping America’s enemies.

Who are America’s enemies?  Is it anyone I disagree with?  Obviously not, or at least it is obvious to me.  I am not sure it is obvious to the Progressive voices of censorship and reeducation camps.  Years ago when I was drafted to serve in Vietnam I was required to take an oath.  In that oath were the words, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...”  I didn’t think much about it at the time but now I am more concerned about our domestic enemies than the foreign.

What is a domestic enemy?  Domestic is obviously juxtapositioned to foreign.  It refers to the home grown type of person who wants to destroy the country.  Obama would not qualify as a traitor for wanting to fundamentally transform the United States.  After all, he was elected and was clear about what he wanted to do.  The part where he might be considered a domestic enemy was his rule by fiat, commonly called executive order.  He openly admitted he was going around the power invested in the legislature.  That was crossing a line.  I don’t think that was the method of transforming the country people were open to.  It is the same type of thing we see going on in Washington today.  

At one point in time the Communist Party was outlawed in the Untied States.  I don’t know its current status.  The reason it was outlawed was not because it was Communist but because it was advocating the violent overthrow of the legal government of the United States.  

I am sure that the Progressives in control of the media, education and intelligence agencies will be labeling everyone who believes in the Constitution as treasonous.  They want to make the violent preservation of the legal government treason.  I think they already are labeling anyone they disagree with this way.

History is written by the victors.  We are in a battle for the soul of our nation.  Who will write the history books of our grandchildren?

homo unius libri

Opus 2021-060: Cornerstone Considerations: CUSA, III, Can We Talk?, Part 1 of 2

The question in the title is double sided.  One side is are we willing to sit down and speak about this issue.  The other part, which is part of the question, involves whether we will be allowed to have the discussion much longer.  Both the censors of the media and the coming police state will tell us, “No.”

We as a nation really need to have a serious discussion about treason.  We need to define it and apply the charge where necessary.  I wonder if we are capable to have such a discussion.  I wonder if we will be allowed to have such a discussion.

First, we need to look at what the Constitution says about treason.  We find that it is defined by the Founders.

Article III, Sect. 3.

    1.  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.

You would think that would be clear but it isn’t to some people.  We need to spend a few moments looking at the words and their meanings.

Notice the phrase “levying war against them”.  Who is the “them” being talked about?  Back up a little and you find that it is referring to the states that make up our union.  Can you make war against a few states at a time?  

What does it mean to “levy war”?  We talk about the Cold War that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States.  It was not a shooting war but shooting went on.  It was primarily waged by clandestine actions.  Some were physical.  Most were in the form of propaganda, spying, sabotage, under cover political action and anything else that could weaken the country.  Do any of these types of actions fit any groups or individuals in our country?  And as far as physical violence, what do you call the riots of the past year, the coercion used by the DOJ against anyone who speaks their mind and recently mobilization of the National Guard in response to what was little more than trespass.  In the face of no real physical insurrection the reports are that the Guard has been authorized to use deadly force.  Against Americans?  That seems strangely close to levying war.

To be continued...

homo unius libri