Of treaties and treason

Flopping Aces ^ | 03-22-15 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

democrats have been fast and loose with accusations of treason of late. On the one hand, they threw the accusation at Tom Cotton for reminding everyone that the Senate gets offer advice and consent to any binding treaties the President engages in. Soon after they agreed to support in principle what Cotton stipulated.

Hey, says James Lewis over at American Thinker, as long as treason is in the air...

What’s more, by bringing that ticklish word “treason” into the public debate, the left is opening up a can of worms. We can now ask some crucial questions that have been taboo until now. •Does Hillary Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin, a lifelong Muslim Brotherhood acolyte, represent a clear and present danger in time of war? •Did Hillary Clinton knowingly allow Abedin access to top secret State Department documents via Hillary’s private email accounts?”

And, to echo Prince Turki al-Faisal this week, •Is Obama now opening the door to nuclear proliferation to rogues and terrorists, by letting Iran have nuclear weapons, thereby betraying this country, our allies and the entire world?

Those questions must now be asked. They should be asked as a matter of national survival.

Sultan Knish reminds us of other "traitors" from the not too distant past:

Biden, along with Kerry and Hagel, became notorious as the Tehran Trio during the Bush years for their advocacy for Iran and Assad, and their appearances at pro-Iranian lobbying groups and fundraisers despite criticism from Iranian democracy advocates. Biden, Kerry and Hagel, Obama’s VP, the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of Defense, all appeared at American-Iranian Council events, a group whose founder stated that he is “the Iranian lobby in the United States.”

Treason doesn’t get more treasonous than that.

And we've documented the treasonous actions of other democrats here at FA.

John Kerry, the Winter Soldier who testified falsely against he fellow servicemen, seems utterly confused by the thing called the "Constitution." Kerry repeatedly has asserted that Congress cannot change any "agreements" entered into by Obama:

[Constitutional Patriot]

It’s right in front of our faces, America. Wake up before it is too late.

[stars & stripes forever]

WE WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUIT.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.

But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to the baseness that lies deep in the heart of all men.

He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

[TNoldman]

USA today = Germany in late 1930’s

[exnavy]

There is a high price to be payed. Boehner and the Rinos of DC had better be watching closely and listening carefully.

[Louis Foxwell]

We retain this man as our president at our peril.

[Jacquerie]

Treason in western nations historically involves an assault on the person of the sovereign.

In England that meant an assault on the person or authority of the king.

In America, it also means an assault on the sovereign, We The People.

Obamanation has reverted our concept of treason to a pre-constitutional form.

By charging senators with treason for interfering with the imaginary authority of Obama, the Left has implicitly raised Obama to the level of sovereign.

[OneWingedShark]

We retain this man as our president at our peril.

And therein lies the problem:
Any legal challenge on eligibility is slapped down because of standing. The Congress will not act on impeachment for several reasons, not the least of which is that any real investigation into the President will likely implicate themselves [and/or their predecessors] — in the case of eligibility, certifying the President when he really wasn't eligible would raise tons of problems implicating [prior] Congresses and all the courts that denied standing.
In something like the open-border problem, to come down on the president over it would be against their own plans [they want open borders] and would reveal their own treachery.
Things like the NSA overreach, besides being their will if they were to abolish or defund the agency the people would know that their incessant hand-wringing was just a lie, and therefore be held to account for not taking action on any number of issues.

And let us not forget the people who are all too willing to look the other way when their guy benefits.

[GoldenPup]

...democrats have been fast and loose with accusations of treason of late

Must be looking in a mirror.