Tag: Constitution

America Needs a NO SOLICITATION Law

Yesterday I received yet another telemarketing call.  My main phone line is unlisted, on the Do Not Call Registry, and I NEVER give it out for any reason whatsoever.  Unlike postal service, where someone else buys the stamp, I pay for my own phone line.  It’s my line, no one else’s.  Period.

Yet the spammers and scammers continue to violate my privacy, even with both community and personal black lists.  Heck, I turn off the ringers before I go to bed just so I can sleep!

We the People of the United States of America need an iron-clad NO SOLICITATION law.  Before the days of the telephone, if a salesman ignored the No Solicitation sign and walked on to your property and began walking towards you, simply cocking your shotgun sent them on their merry way. No one has any inherent right to solicit anything from anyone at any time.  Furthermore, We the People have a Constitutional right to be free from any such solicitation.  Four States have banned billboards.  Many states regulate billboards, and I’m glad.  I don’t want to be looking at junk alongside the highway.  I don’t need solicitation to “educate” me.  I read the papers and various magazines, not to mention online news.  My Google-foo is strong.  If I need something, I go right to the source, often buying it online.
 
These days, we are absolutely bombarded by more scams than legitimate phone calls.
 
According to the Federal Trade Commission, “The Do Not Call Registry prohibits sales calls. You still may receive political calls, charitable calls, debt collection calls, informational calls, and telephone survey calls.”
 
The problem is many scammers call people under these guises only to pitch their sales, or worse, their scams, at a later time. Political and charitable calls are often solicitations for money. Scams, however, initially appear under all these guises. The po
 
Unlike the U.S. Mail, which remains a legitimate means of contacting people and is paid for by the sender, a phone line, whether landline, VoIP, or cellular, is paid for by the recipient for the recipient’s purposes. If someone absolutely must contact me for some reason, they can pay their own postage and drop a letter in the mailbox.
 
Speaking of which, political and charitable calls are usually solicitations for money. The only informational calls I’m interested in receiving via my telephone are those related to my municipality’s Disaster Alert System, from which I can remove my number at any time, and appointment reminders.  Heck, I don’t even mind a robo-caller for that purpose, as it’s just 15 seconds and only one time a couple of days before an appointment. As for telephone survey calls, again, the answer is no. You’re soliciting information and wasting my time, so no.
Here’s an idea:  Let’s get Congress Involved!
When writing them, address your correspondence “To the Honorable [First] [Last]:”  Be clear, and concise.  Explain why you’re writing (the problem).  Give them a solution.  Briefly explain why your solution is either the best or the only reasonable option.  Request their assistance.  Close by thanking them for their time.  Sign your name and include any credentials (Dr., PhD, masters, etc.).
Sample Letter
September 20, 2018
101 Main Street, Apt D
Anytown, ST  12345
To the Honorable John Doe:
I am writing you concerning the incessant volume of unsolicited spam and scam calls I receive throughout each and every day.  It is a serious invasion of my privacy.  Despite having an unlisted number and having been on the Do Not Call Registry for nine years, making certain I’m still on it year after year, calls continue to pour in from all sources, most of which are completely illegitimate.  Even ‘legitimate” calls, however, are unwelcome, as they are still unsolicited.
The Federal Trade Commission manages the Do Not Call Registry.  They specifically state on their website:
“Most legitimate companies don’t call if your number is on the Registry. If a company is ignoring the Registry, there’s a good chance that it’s a scam. If you get these calls, hang up and file a complaint with the FTC.”
I have filed such complaints with the FTC on numerous occasions.  They have had no measurable effect on reducing the number of spam/scam calls I receive.  If anything, I am beginning to suspect spammers and scammers use the Do Not Call Registry as a phone book, feeding its electronic information into their robo-callers.
Put simply, it flat-out, no holds barred, absolutely does not work.
Furthermore, the entire premise is built upon some sort of imagined, fictional right that some entities to invade the privacy of others:
“You still may receive political calls, charitable calls, debt collection calls, informational calls, and telephone survey calls.”
To be blunt, it’s not their phone line.  They don’t pay for it.  I do.  They have absolutely no Constitutional right whatsoever, implied or otherwise, to invade my privacy without my express permission.
Let’s put this into its proper perspective by taking a page out of history.
We have three farms or ranches.  The first has the following sign at the entrance to his property:  “All Visitors Welcome.”  The second has a sign that says, “If you know and I know you, come on in.  All others, KEEP OUT.”  The third sign says, simply, “No Trespassing.”
Given these signs, “political, charitable, debt collection, informational, and survey” visits are legal only in the first case, where the sign says, “All Visitors Welcome.”  If they breached the property boundaries in the other two situations, they’d be trespassing, subject to arrest, and in some jurisdictions, subject to receiving a load of buckshot in their britches.
We the People value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  These, among others, are our inalienable rights.  Trespassing of any kind, including unsolicited phone calls, violates our right to enjoy life.  It violates our liberty, our freedom to be free from uninvited intrusion.  And it violates our pursuit of happiness, sapping our time, attention, and resources.  Case in point, the half day it’s taken me to write this letter than never should have been necessary in the first place had Congress done their job.  Allowing “political, charitable, debt collection, informational, and survey” intrusions into our private lives  violates Congress’ primary responsibility to protect the people.  If you believe otherwise, then by all means, publish your own private numbers to your own homes and see how much you enjoy life while constantly being bombarded by spammers, scammers, and robocallers.
Now that I have your attention, hopefully with the same perspective carried by We the People, let’s talk about solutions.
We’ve already established that in all likelihood, the Do Not Call Registry has backfired, almost certainly providing a vast list of numbers for spammers, scammers, and robocallers.
Therefore, instead of publishing numbers of people who do not want to be called, lets’ that list and only publish numbers of those who do want to be called.  Name it a “Call me now! Registry.”
Naturally, very few people will sign up for it.  After all, no one wants to be spammed, scammed, and robocalled through their own telephone line for which they pay and for their own purposes.
However, this approach is subject to massive abuse.  Anyone would be able to put someone else’s name on the list and ruin their lives.  No doubt a legion of hackers from China would soon populate such a list with every telephone number in the U.S.  No, any sort of “Call me now! Registry” will cause far more problems than it will solve.
I believe the best solution is to simply outlaw unsolicited phone calls and e-mails of any kind.  No other solution protects the rights of the people to keep unwanted and unwelcome spammers, scammers and robocallers away.
What would really be nice is both a software solution that eliminates caller ID spoofing as well as a button on our phones that, when pressed, would instantly add the caller to a Do Not Receive list i.e. a blacklist.
In the meantime, I’m thinking about adding the following to my voicemail message:
“If you know me personally or have legitimate, lawful business with me, then please leave a detailed message and I’ll return your call as soon as possible.  However, if you are calling with respect to political, charitable, debt collection, informational, and survey purposes, regardless of whether you think you may have lawful business with me, you do not and you must hang up immediately.  This means now.  Right now.  If you’re in the second category and you’re still on the line, you are violating the National Do Not Call Registry or have placed an illegal robocall can be fined up to $41,484 per call in accordance with Federal Law.  I absolutely WILL report your call to the Federal Trade Commission for violating U.S. Federal Law.”
A shorter version might be:
“If you know me personally, leave a message.  If you don’t, then either hang up or be subjected to a $41,484 per call fine for violating U.S. Federal Law.”
The only other option is to use a whitelist, where I manually enter the phone numbers of friends, family, and employment.
As you can see, Congressman, the current solution does not work.  At all.  In fact, it may very well be a significant contributor to the problem.
Solving the problem of these incessant trespasses into my private life is of utmost importance to me.
Sincerely,
Aya M. Independent

RED FLAG on Red Flag Laws

The rising tide of red flag laws does not bode well for the United States of America.  Not only are they fraught with many potential avenues of failure and abuse, they’re also highly ineffectual, stopping less than 1/10th of 1% of their intended targets  — a statistically and absurdly tiny fraction of the problem.

For the first time in many years, I’m at a loss for world.  These proposals and the laws that have made the books are so ridiculously, unbelievably mind-bogglingly STUPID that I don’t know where to begin.

So, let’s begin at the beginning, with our United States Constitution.  Here’s a couple of key points:

THE BEGINNING

– The States were already in power at the time they agreed to join the Union.  They already had powers.  They still do.

– The Constitution specifically delineated a few key powers to the federal government and normalized relations between the States, primarily in the areas of commerce and common defense.

– Just in case anyone forgot that the people and the States retain the lion’s share of authority, our Founding Fathers included Amendments IX and X in our Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– Amendments to the Constitution become integral parts of the Constitution itself.  As the Constitution itself declares in Article. V., “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”

– Between December 7, 1787, and May 29, 1790, all thirteen states ratified the Constitution.

-Subsequently, whenever a territory has applied to become a State, they do so with the full knowledge of and consent to the U.S. Constitution.

– One of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and duly ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  Our Founding Fathers were so adamant about protecting this right they added an absolute:  “shall not be infringed.”  Moreover, this isn’t merely about restricting Congress from passing laws, as stated in the First Amendment.  Rather, it applies to the states, as well, and on December 15, 1791, all United States at the time become party to it, whereas all subsequent States became party to it when they applied for statehood.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

Sadly, instead of focusing on legitimate, science-based policing, these red flag laws throw that science out the window, criminalizing gun ownership itself, in a flagrant and very dangerous violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

 

Nikolas Cruz – Another Mass Shooting

Despite the fact that an article entitled, “Antidepressants Are A Prescription for Mass Shootings” first appeared in November of 2012, five years ago, as part of CCHR* Florida’s efforts, now we have a shooter, Nikolas Cruz, with a 7-year history of calls to 911, FBI involvement, and repeated evaluations by licensed therapists, all of whom deemed him not to be a threat.  Here’s another salient article.

The fact they were all wrong is undeniable.

I’m a data/systems analyst. In 2012, shortly after the Newton shooting, I located, downloaded, and began analyzing a very detailed set of data on mass shootings between 1981 and 2011. That’s 30 years of mass shootings.

There are only two substantial conclusions one can draw from the data:

1. Even the best psychological practitioners cannot successfully identify everyone who might prove harmful to themselves and others. Many mass shooters had been evaluated by psychologists or trained/licensed therapists who failed to identify them as a threat. Deeming everyone who passes through their doors as a threat, however, is not the answer. Less than 1 out of 10,000 subjects evaluated for potential harm, yet dismissed as non-harmful, ever go on to engage in a mass shooting. You cannot deprive the other 9,999 (actually, a lot more) of their own rights.

2. So-called “gun-free” zones occupy less than 10% of the physical space frequented by the general public, yet are where more than 80% of all mass shootings occur. In fact, more than one mass shooter has confessed they targeted a gun-free zone precisely because it was a gun-free zone so as to minimize the likelihood anyone would be armed and could shoot back.

Based upon the indisputable facts communicated by the objective data itself, along with 27 years of military and civilian education and experience in the use of firearms, here are my recommendations:

1. Stop designating areas as “gun-free” zones. Not only is that a wide open invitation to mass shooters, but it also denies the lawful general public their Constitutional right to defend themselves. Given the undeniably clear data and findings, the so-called “gun-free” zones are pathetically stupid. Stop designating zones as “gun-free.”

2. For areas where you really do not want firearms, such as K-12 schools, courtrooms and prisons, authorities bear the responsibility of protecting those who must be there. Secure the physical facility from unauthorized entry. Employ well-trained armed guards to stop unlawful armed intruders. Single point of access. Controlled entry. We do a very good job of this with courtrooms and prisons. Some municipalities do a very good job of this with schools. Take heed. Learn. Do. Protect our kids.

3. For more adult areas like malls and movie theaters, stop preventing law-abiding adults from defending themselves. Law-abiding citizens use firearms somewhere between 650,000 to 800,000 times each and every year to defend themselves against violent crime, usually without having to fire a shot. I’ve been involved in three such incidents. No shots fired, but the attack was stopped. In fact, because armed, law-abiding citizens are not cops, they invariably hold their fire until it becomes absolutely necessary to stop the attack. Error rates are only 2% for armed citizens, but 11% for law enforcement officers. Thus, disarming law abiding citizens is pathetically stupid.

4. Don’t touch the current psychological evaluation programs in place. Although it’s not an exact science, they do a very good job, with a very low error rate, in terms of identifying those who are a threat to themselves and others.  Trying to monkey with that from a legislative perspective would be a pathetically foolish thing to do.

5. Stop politicizing the issue. It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not Hillary’s or Obama’s fault. It’s not the fault of Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most of the “solutions” proposed by politicians would greatly exacerbate the issue. Stop it. Knock it off. Do the research and find out what really works. Limits on magazines? Caliber? Number of guns one can buy during any given time period? Absolutely none of these foolhardy measures has ever stopped a single mass shooting. What HAS stopped mass shootings is when either a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer at the scene SHOT the mass shooter before they could continue. Securing places where people who must attend are disarmed, like students in schools, is the best way to deter such shootings in the first place.

6. Stop the blitheringly idiotic headlines. Mainstream media bears a huge responsibility to print the truth, instead of sensationalism like, “No other country has these types of…” Phooey. I can name thirty countries off the top of my head where such shootings are far worse than they are here in the United States of America.  Fact-checking is a basic yet critical responsibility of all journalists.  Those who fail to check their facts make the problem much worse.

7. Investigate the relation between mass shootings and psychoactive drugs. When a mother of four on psychoactive drugs drowns all four kids in a bathtub as her very first indication she has any violent tendencies, it’s a statistical anomaly. When similar events, including mass shootings, are repeated thousands of times over thirty years, you’ve got a real problem, and the drugs are highly suspect.

Yes, mass shootings are a tragedy. Let’s not create further tragedy by resorting to knee-jerk gun control that has not nor will ever stop mass shootings and is likely to make them much worse by progressively disarming law-abiding citizens who can and do protect themselves and others.  Instead, let’s secure certain facilities and respect the rights of all citizens to defend themselves in accordance with our Constitution.

*Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Madam Secretary, the 25th Amendment and the Removal of Donald Trump

Washington Post headlines read, “We really do need to deploy the 25th Amendment.”  “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury.”
 President Trump and Vice President Pence
They’re absolutely certain to get it wrong, as all the talk I’ve seen to day fails to mention the fact that only Vice President Pence can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
I’ve provided a short outline, below, taken directly from the 25th Amendment. I highly encourage you all to print it out, watch the episode, and see how close to (or far away from) reality the writers, directors, actors, and producers actually come.
 
My contention is that the 25th Amendment is NOT “the mechanism for removing the President from office” as stated by the producers of Madam Secretary.  More specifically, the 25th Amendment is not the mechanism by which anyone who dislikes the President could remove him from office.  That venue lies with impeachment, not the 25th.
Before we continue, let’s examine the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution in its entirety, as preserved and reported by our nation’s Library of Congress:
Amendment XXV - LOC
 Sections 1, 2, and 3 simply confirm that it is the Vice President, and no one else, who assumes the duties and responsibilities of the President if the President should the latter no longer be able to do so due to death, illness, injury, or mental incapacitation. Obviously, the line of secession is much longer, but that’s Congressional legislation, not the 25th Amendment.
 
Section 4 is where the VP and a majority of either:
– a majority of the principal officers of executive departments (cabinet)
– majority of the principle officers of Congress
may declare in writing that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and present that declaration to both the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 
Upon such declaration, the Vice President shall immediately assume assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  The key, however, is that those other entities cannot accomplish this on their own.  It absolutely requires the Vice President’s complete and unreserved involvement.
 
Here’s where it gets a little sticky.
 
The elected aka original President can then write a counter-declaration to the same two heads of Congress saying that no such inability exists, at which point he shall immediately resume the powers and duties of his office.
 
So, here’s what we have so far:
 
VP and either cabinet or Congressional officers declare the President is unfit to the two head of Congress. VP assumes the office.
 
But if the President counter-declares, then he resumes his office.
 
Are you with me so far? Ok. Now it gets even stickier:
 
If the VP still thinks the President isn’t fit, then he, along with a majority of the cabinet or officers of Congress can, within 4 days, present their case again, at which point all of Congress assembled within 48 hours and makes a decision within 21 days to decided who either remains or becomes president: The original President or the Vice President. If they fail to make a decision, the powers and duties remain with the original President.
 
Did you notice what’s required throughout this scenario? That’s right: The VICE PRESIDENT, the President’s right-hand man. Without the VP, NONE of this happens. Congress cannot initiate this action. The cabinet cannot initiate this action. The Supreme Court cannot initiate this action. CNN cannot initiate this action, and neither can the Demoncraps or a TV show named “Madam Secretary.”
In fact, Rolling Stone magazine reaffirmed this finding in their excellent article covering this very issue.  They even provided a handy graphic Rolling Stone Graphicshowing how many entities must concur before it’ll happen.
 
I find the claim that “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury” “to be dubious, if not spurious, and highly misleading of the public.
In fact, it borders on,  if not crosses, the line of “inciting a riot.”
 
Rather, they will probably paint a very false picture about how, if enough Demoncraps raise hell, and infuriate Congress enough, then Congress can *SOMEHOW* make the decision, even without the VP’s input, a point which I hope the 25th Amendment itself has made abundantly clear simply cannot happen.
In other words, “wrong,” so sayeth our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land.” – Article VI.  Clause 2.
 
That’s just not reality, there, Hollywood.  The reality is that it’s an AMENDMENT, not merely federal law, and the 25th Amendment DEMANDS the Vice President’s concurrence. Furthermore, as an Amendment, no emergency session of Congress, even with the three-quarters vote required for repealing an Amendment can overturn it, not without first being properly ratified by three-quarters of the States, which will take several years.
So, Demoncraps and libtards, if it makes you happy to keep barking up that dead tree, be my guest.  Go ahead and waste your time.  I think the rest of America, however, might not consider you to be so blitheringly idiotic if you simply read the Constitution, including, in this case, the 25th Amendment itself.

Is a Constitutional Convention Feasible?

A friend mentioned using a “Constitutional Convention” to overturn Obamacare. Is this feasible?
 
My answer: I don’t think a “Constitutional Convention” is anywhere near as easy as people think. But let’s take a closer look at it, to see what it says, as well as how best to make one happen should we need it. First, let’s take a look at the Source Document i.e. Article V of the U.S. Constitution:
 
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”
This is beautifully written.  The only problem is that it’s horribly misunderstood.
For example, here’s a graphic that flat out gets a key element wrong, by giving power to Congress that the U.S. Constitution actually denies, and for very good reason:
Amending the Constitution - Wrong
Here’s another one that just flat out gets it wrong.  When you re-read Article V again, can you spot the error?
amending the constitution - also wrong
Here’s a far more accurate graphic.  In fact, it matches the text in Article V exactly, except for one minor point:
Amending the Constitution - Nearly Correct
In summary, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution can be initiated and ratified by one of two means:
 
– When initiated by Congress
– – Initiation requires 2/3 vote from BOTH Houses
– – Ratification – See Note 1
 
– When initiated by the States
– – Initiation requires 2/3 of the legislatures of the states via Conventions
– – Ratification – See Note 1
 
Note 1: Ratification requires 3/4 of legislatures of the states or by Conventions in 3/4 of the states, as proposed (but not mandated) by Congress.
 
In other words, while the initiation may originate from two different sources (Congress and the State legislature Conventions), the ratification is always performed by the States.
 
Thus, there is a means by which the States can not only resist, but actually steamroll over a wayward, do nothing or even a bad Congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures are willing, they can pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if not outlawing federal involvement in health care altogether, and they can do it even if 100% of all members of both the House and the Senate oppose it.

Oath of Office in the United States of America

One’s oath of office is not to be taken lightly. It forms the cornerstone upon which our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land,” sustains our nation.
The United States of America has seven federal uniformed services that commission officers as defined by Title 10, and subsequently structured and organized by Title 10, Title 14, Title 32 and Title 42 of the United States Code.
 
The seven uniformed services are defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(5):
 
The term “uniformed services” means—
(A) the armed forces;
(B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
 
The five uniformed services that make up the United States Armed Forces are defined in the previous clause 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4). The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
 
As a member and commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces, specifically the U.S. Air Force, I took the following oath of office in 1989:
 
I, [name], do 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
One’s oath of office contains no expiration date.  Like my commission, conferred on me by President George H. W. Bush in 1989, my oath of office never expires.
 
Four other groups of people take precisely the same oath: Law enforcement officers, civil officers, judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President of the United States of America.
 
The oath of office for law enforcement officers and civil officers, including every executive, legislative, and judicial officer, regardless of whether they serve at the local, county, state, or federal level, is the same as that for the federal uniformed services.

Furthermore, each justice or judge of the United States takes an additional oath commensurate with their special authority, specifically, the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” – 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges

Finally, the President of the United States of America:

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Article II, Section 1, Constitution for the United States of America

As to what all this means, how and why one’s adherence to one’s oath of office is the glue of loyalty which holds our nation together, merely type “oath of office” into the Search window on this website.  🙂

The short version, however, is that when everyone in a position of authority who takes an oath of office actually follows their oath of office, including taking the steps to ensure they know the U.S. Constitution through and through, as well as all application local, county, state, federal, and military law germain to their duty and position of responsibility, then you have a country that is united behind a single, common, purpose, standing firm on a 200+ year old foundation of law respected around the world.

There is no firmer nor finer place to be.

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