Obama Voters – Treason or Stupidity?

After reviewing the Constitution’s definition of treason (Article III, Section 3), as well as Obama’s record of treasonous acts against the United States of America alongside the tenets of Complicity Law, I realized there is only one legal, sane, rational conclusion to be reached, here:
Those who voted for Obama are either complicit in his treason or they’re sublimely stupid, in which case they shouldn’t be voting at all.

There’s no middle ground, here, people!  No wiggle room.  All possible categories can be boiled down to the following five:

  1. You were fully cognizant of Obama’s treason and voted for him anyway, in which case you were fully complicit in his treason.
  2. You were somewhat aware of Obama’s treason but voted for him anyway, in which case you were at least partially complicit in his treason, but you were also either lazy, stupid, treasonous yourself (or some combination thereof) because you were somewhat aware that something nefarious was afoot yet you failed to exercise your due diligence as a voter to determine whether Obama had committed treason or not.
  3. You weren’t aware of Obama’s treason, in which case you were undoubtedly either voting for him for no other reason than he was a Democrat, black, or both (willfully ignorant), and/or you were drinking the liberal Kool-Aid* of the mainstream media (unknowingly being kept ignorant).  Regardless, either way you were completely and utterly stupid.
*”Drinking the Kool-Aid” refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre, where the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
At this point, one might ask, “Is it really treason to knowingly vote for someone who committed treason?

ABSOLUTELY.
Here’s why:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” – Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution
Thus, if someone joins ISIS or al Qaeda, fighting alongside them against U.S. troops, that’s treason.
When someone holds fast to, gives support, or maintains loyalty to an enemy of America, that’s “adhering.”  That’s treason.
When someone provides “beans and bullets,” logistical support (transportation), intelligence (spying), or refuge, that’s “aid and comfort.”  That’s treason.
But what about when a person doesn’t directly engage in these activities themselves, but merely votes for a treasonous person or supports them monetarily or in some other way?
Great question!  Let’s look at what the law has to say about this:
 
Complicity in criminal law refers to when someone is legally accountable, or liable for a criminal offense, based upon the behavior of another. Criminal complicity may arise in the following situations.  With the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense:
 
1. a person procures, induces or causes such other person to commit the offense; or
 
2. a person aids or abets such other person in committing the offense; or
 
3. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.
As you review both the U.S. Constitution’s definition of treason and Complicity law side by side, you will see that the Constitution included complicity in it’s definition.  In fact, the Constitution contains three phrases of treason in its definition, yet only the first one addresses open acts of war or aggression against the United States.  The second and third phrases directly address complicity, those things people do to help America’s enemies.  Thus, “the supreme Law of the Land” considers complicity in a citizen to be just as much treason as when a citizen levies war against the United States itself.
Let’s review these three elements of complicity one by one to see what such acts of complicity might entail:
1. a person procures, induces or causes such other person to commit the offense; or
The Democrat Party procured Obama as a candidate.  Either they, George Soros, corrupt politicians, or some combination thereof induced or otherwise caused Obama to commit his many acts of treason, either monetarily, by means of party pressure, offering political “guidance,” feeding him incorrect information, exchanging political favors, or providing promises of some future reward.  Regardless of the means, Obama remains fully guilty of all offenses of treason.
2. a person aids or abets such other person in committing the offense; or
 
This category includes all Obama voters, along with those who made contributions to the Democrat party or Obama’s election in the form of money or value, and even the hourly efforts of those who worked in various party offices, organized meetings, created Obama buttons, or campaigned door to door.  But it also includes those who carried out Obama’s orders, knowing they violated the U.S. Constitution.
3. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.
Most of Congress falls into this gaping hole.   I say “most,” because nearly all Democrats fell lock-step behind Obama in his many illegal and sometimes treasonous actions.  Furthermore, a number of Republicans did, as well.  As such, they are equally guilty of treason.   On top of that, every aid, administrative assistant, attorney, cabinet head, and White House staffer who blinked and did nothing to stop Obama’s treasonous actions is complicit.  This is really where the oath of office comes into play.  When a military, law enforcement, or civilian officer (executive, legislative, judicial) agrees to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” they are committing themselves, their persons, to one of the highest and most noble causes in our nation, to serve our country.  The oath of office isn’t a formality.  It forms the cornerstone of our duty, our loyalty to our nation above and beyond any loyalty to anyone or anything else.
Since complicity requires “intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense,” the ONLY defense under complicity law against treason for those who voted for Obama involves being too STUPID to know what he was up to.
However, there’s no such defense under the United States Constitution, as it doesn’t differentiate between “knowingly” and “unknowingly.”  It assumes, and rightly so, that this is serious enough stuff that people aren’t going to take it lightly, that they’re going to exercise caution and due diligence to make dang sure they don’t cross the line.  Only someone who is either knowingly complicit or really stupid would ever cross that line, hence the reason why I use the term “Demoncraps.”  If they were knowingly complicit in Obama’s treason, then they’re demonically opposed to the United States.  If the were just too stupid to know the difference…
Demonically opposed + stupid as shit = Demoncraps

Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.