Replies

OK, you're wrong. The globalist advocacy of what is effectively unlimited immigration isn't treason at all. Not at all.

Treason is the one crime defined in the Constitution. Article III, Section 3 as I recall. The actions of Bush, Kyl, Kennedy, Salazar, Martinez and so forth are indeed criminal...but they are not treasonous, by Constitutional definition.

They are, however, guilty of crimes in violation of Article IV, Section 4, and the numerous sections of the U.S.C. pertinent thereto.

Good luck on finding a prosecutor, though. (And, just btw, it's ''free rein'', not ''free reign''. Ssssshhh, don't tell anyone.)

;-(

As of now, the US Congress wants to give amnesty and financial booty to over 50,000 criminals (and their families), illegals who have committed felonies against American citizens and legal residents. More American citizens have died by the hands of illegal aliens than Americans have died in the war on terror. Several foreign governments, at national and regional levels, openly support and finance the unhindered flow of their criminal class into the United States (Mexico, Guatemala, Brasil to name a few).

Article III. Section 3. 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.

Once Northern Mexican politicians started openly declaring their support for the Atzlan concept, while at the same time actively supporting the flow of immigrants across the border, and giving political support to various immigrant groups here in the US, any US politician who openly comes out in support of the concept that at it's core has the dismantling of the United States as it's paramount goal, those politicians have crossed a line that has been well established by US law in previous eras of this country's judicial memory. BTW, I actually just wanted to say that "free reign" is a Eggcorn, and has become aceptable usage. Further info over here: lascribe.net Got a bit carried away.

Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

With one state making claim, the country is thrown into crisis. But the situation wouldn't improve.