The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Rastus on March 03, 2017, 05:22:26 AM
-
As I understand the definition of TREASON, it is the use of treachery (lying, misrepresenting, obfuscating truth) used as an act of betrayal to overthrow one's government in violation of allegiance to the state. I would add further these conditions of proof; 1) differing peoples or parties acting in concert with one another using treachery to accomplish treason and 2) serial (ongoing & repeated in concert) acts that continue despite the statements of those individuals, politicians, bureaucrats or parties having been shown to be misleading are a confirmation of treason especially when shown they are acting together defining the conditions of conspiracy.
Is the apparently repeated deception (used by politicians like Schumer and Pelosi in concert with the Democratic party, news media and "deep state" to delegitimize the Trump administration with the ultimate aim to render the Office of the President ineffective or to have the US President removed from office) enough to satisfy conditions necessary to constitute the high crime of TREASON?
There is and has been evidence presented which shows there are leaks from within the US Government by bureaucrats designed to delegitmize the Office of the President given to the news media and the Democratic party politicians which take out of context statements and actions of the US President or his administration. Is this with the express purpose to deceive and mislead the US citizens (public) to lose confidence in the Office of the President? Is this done with a shared aim to mislead by use of deception (lying)?
Former high party officials of the Democratic party have been conclusively shown to be working with bureacrats and the news media (print, internet and television) to provide misleading information solely to distort truth in order to advance their shared agenda to delegitimize those they disagree with. This includes past leaders of the Democratic party as demonstrated by acquiring debate questions, finding ways to undermine their own presidential candidates, etc.
The current and ultimate aim of the ongoing delegitimization of the legally elected US President orchestrated by citizens, news media, politicians and bureaucrats is to render ineffective the Office of the President or to remove Trump as the US President by the use of deception, i.e., to lie about the President's actions or beliefs in conflict with allegiance to the US Constitution that requires truthful and faithful service to uphold the US Constitution.
Is delegitimiztion also the the funding of deceptive demonstrations using paid individuals to stage violent demonstrations and riots? Is it free speech when one is paid to demonstrate or riot (especially repeatedly) and to use obfuscation of facts or misleading statements to make a point contrary to plain truth?
Are there observations which lead to the conclusion that there are actions of persons actively ongoing to destroy one of the branches of US Government satisfy the legal definition of the high crime of treason?
-
The Constitution specifies treason as" Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war".
Obama is guilty of treason for aiding Muslim terrorists, Jane Fonda is guilty for givinga USO style show for NVA troops.
The media, and even the deep state operatives themselves can not be guilty until conservatives issue an actual declaration of war against them or their leadership.
-
Technically we are still at war with North Korea despite the armistice to cease what were hostilities between armed forces.
I don't think it is going too far on a limb to say this gives aid and comfort to North Korea's leader. This has a better foundation than anything the left obfuscates.
-
We were never at war with North Korea.
That was the UN.
Any aid that UN member states have given to NK would qualify, but only under US law.
Saying that the Obama/Soros/ liberal conspiracy gives aid and comfort to NK is a bit of a stretch.
Even the Confederates were never successfully tried for treason .
-
Korea and Vietnam were both, if memory serves, considered police actions. No declaration of war was authorized by congress. Still, Hanoi Jane DID give aid and comfort to the enemy and should hang.
Crusader Rabbit
-
Here's what Rastus wants, it's not treason, it's sedition.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
-
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
That's why the American Communist Party was never prosecuted--they didn't advocate violent overthrow, just steady usurpation of democratic freedom. The National Socialists, on the other hand, got their weenies wound by the feds for advocating violent overthrow.
Crusader Rabbit
-
I've always found it ironic that our Constitution forbids the same seditious activities that created the ouster of a tyrannical government in the creation of the Republic in the first place!
-
The Constitution doesn't forbid it, kind of skips over the subject beyond the 2nd A.
But several State constitutions (NH is one) specifically reserve the right to revolution.
The sedition acts were put in place originally because of opposition to the war of 1812.
-
When it comes to Liberals and what they are doing to us I go back to my mother's cousin. He was only 11 years older than me, and he served in Vietnam. I was 16, things were still going strong, and I wondered what I had ahead of me. I asked him one day what it was like to be fighting with and against people who looked alike, and spoke the same language. He told me (my first exposure to this well worn phrase) "Shoot 'em all, and let God sort them out!"
I don't care what term you put on their actions. Fight them all, and let good find its way through the mess.
-
This is what I have found out. Please mail me if you know more)
“Kill’em all, and let God sort’em out” is adopted by the Marines and the Green Berets. I think it derives from “Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset”, or “Kill them all. God will know His own.”. This was a misunderstood reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, “The Lord knoweth them that are his”. I think this comes from around 1210AD, when Pope Innocent III unleashed “orders of fire and sword” against heretics throughout Europe. In this process there was a terrible massacre at the city Beziers, where it was thought that over 100,000 people were killed. After that city where taken, they had captured over 450 “heretics”, but many of them claimed to be good Catholics. The quote is believed to be first used here, when they killed all the “heretics”. It did not matter if they killed good people, because if one led a godly life, God would know of it, and the reward would be eternal paradise anyway.
Extra info:
This was actually said by Arnaud-Armaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, the Papal
Legate. Though his exact words are not known, the latin equivalent, “Neca ecos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.” (“Kill them all, God will know His own.”) was recorded by a monk who was present at the time. The Abbot had been asked by the military commander of the crusade, one Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, how best to deal with the heretics. He complied readily, and so the crusade was carried out for twenty years.
http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_cath_alb.html
-
Dadgummit Bogan...you sure know how to throw ice water on a guy.
Well, I had to add to the dang poll now just because of that.
At any rate, they are lying weasels at best.
-
Makes it easier to understand how Hitler came up with the idea of "camps".
-
The liberals & queers need to educate themselves on the Night of the Long Knives.
As we hear humming in the progressive background.....
-
Replace "queers" with Muslims. The queers that need to go would go anyway as libs while the rest pretty much mind their own business.
Every society in history has had them, what makes them an issue today is the way the libs glorify them instead of making them stay with the women and make baskets.
Rather than them studying the night of the long knives, we should be teaching them about "the night and fog" .
-
The Constitution specifies treason as" Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war".
Obama is guilty of treason for aiding Muslim terrorists, Jane Fonda is guilty for givinga USO style show for NVA troops.
The media, and even the deep state operatives themselves can not be guilty until conservatives issue an actual declaration of war against them or their leadership.
But what about sedition?
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.[1] They made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous (Alien Friends Act of 1798)[2] or who were from a hostile nation (Alien Enemy Act of 1798),[3] and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government (Sedition Act of 1798).[4]
The Federalists argued that the bills strengthened national security during an undeclared naval war with France. Critics argued that they were primarily an attempt to suppress voters who disagreed with the Federalist party, and violated the right of freedom of speech in the First Amendment.[5] Three of the acts were repealed after the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson came to power. But the Alien Enemies Act remained in effect, was revised and codified in 1918 for use in World War I, and was used by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to imprison Japanese, German, and Italian aliens during World War II. Following cessation of hostilities, the act was used by President Harry S. Truman to continue to imprison, then deport, aliens of the formerly hostile nations. In 1948 the Supreme Court determined that presidential powers under the acts continued after cessation of hostilities until there was a peace treaty with the hostile nation. The revised Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today.
The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years. At the time, the majority of immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.[1] The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation above the age of fourteen during times of war. Lastly, the controversial Sedition Act restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. Under the Sedition Act, the Federalists allowed people who were accused of violating the sedition laws to use truth as a defense.[6] The Sedition Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the government.[6]
The acts were denounced by Democratic-Republicans and ultimately helped them to victory in the 1800 election, when Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent, President Adams. The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively. The Alien Enemies Act, however, remains in effect as Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code.[7]
-
TT it's no use talking to Tom. He may as well be an old time Supreme Court justice. ;)
-
Shit, if it was up to me there would be camps for the liberals.