Obama, the Global War on Terror, Violent Extremism, and the U.S. Constitution

Recent headlines proclaim:

Obama Facing Jail Time After It’s Proven He Paid Ransom Funding Terrorists

Is this true?  Has Obama finally run smack into the concrete wall known as the U.S. Constitution?
Let’s find out…
The United States Constitution states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
If Obama gave terrorists money, it would certainly appear that he committed treason.  The problem with this approach, however, rests in what is meant by the Constitution’s use of “Enemies” and how our government views it in their eyes.
For example, on May 23, 2013, Obama declared the global war on terror is over. Specifically, he said, “We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘Global War on Terror,’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”
In so doing, Obama no longer believes (if he ever believed) that terrorists are our enemies. Specifically, he no longer believes that Islamic terrorists are our enemies. Instead, Obama believes that “violent extremists” are our enemies.  Sadly, half of Congress shares his opinion.  But what are “violent extremists?  A quick look at the Department of Homeland Security’s website reveals the following statement:

Violent Extremism

Violent extremists are defined as “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals.” Violent Extremist threats within the United States can come from a range of violent extremist groups and individuals, including Domestic Terrorists and Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs). DHviolent extremismS defines Domestic Terrorism as:  Any act of violence that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources committed by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group.
The statement in red is particularly troubling as it directly contradicts both state and federal law, not to mention the U.S. Constitution, that allows citizens to use deadly force to protect life, limb, and property.  It’s a typical progressive attempt at stopping violence by putting a daisy into the end of the enemy’s gun.  Sorry to disappoint the idealistic idiots out there, but that has never worked throughout the entirety of human history, nor will it.  Ever.  At best, it is mind-blowingly stupid.  At worst, it’s a death sentence to any population that starts ascribing to it in appreciable numbers.
Moreover, the White House’s own website contains an ominous 2011 report entitled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent violent extremism Violent Extremism in the United States.”  Although he mentioned al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in the preface (written before ISIL/ISIS/IS reared its ugly head), Obama also states:
Actions and statements that cast suspicion toward entire communities, promote hatred and division, and send messages to certain Americans that they are somehow less American because of their faith or how they look, reinforce violent extremist propaganda and feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.
The problem with this statement is that as nice as it sounds, it’s no longer directed towards al-Qa’ida.  It’s aimed squarely at any patriotic American who agrees with our Founding Father’s reason for creating the Second Amendment, as clearly stated in the text itself:  “…necessary to the security of a free state…”  Put simply, Obama classifies anyone who dares to use deadly force to protect their rights and freedoms as “violent extremists.”  He even said so in the next section:
Protecting our fundamental rights and liberties is an important end in itself, and also helps counter violent extremism by ensuring nonviolent means for addressing policy concerns…
What Obama fails to realize is that “nonviolent means” do not work with people who are hell-bent on trying to kill you.  He also fails to realize that criminalizing the Constitutional use of deadly force by honest, law-abiding citizens is not only NOT the answer, it may very well be the ONLY solution.
In conclusion, it does indeed appear that by declaring the global war on terror to be “dead,” he was hoping to change the technical categorization of the Muslim Brotherhood and other known terrorist organizations from “enemy” to “whatever.”
In so doing, Obama was trying to skirt a charge of treason.
Fortunately, our country has a long history of “piercing the corporate veil.”  The courts don’t take kindly to those who attempt to escape the law on mere technicalities, and We the People take an even dimmer view of it, particularly when such individuals were elected to the public trust.  I, for one, will push for my Congressman to consider the acts of each and every group to which Obama funneled public dollars, deciding on their own merit whether or not these groups acted as enemies of the United States, particularly if they declared the U.S. as their enemy, and most certainly if they declared themselves at war with the U.S.  If this proves to be the case, as it most certainly appears, then Obama most certainly did, in fact, commit treason as described by the U.S. Constitution, and he should most certainly be brought to justice for his crimes.