► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Treason’

Those Who’ve Violated The Logan Act Repeatedly Accuse The GOP Of Treason? Iron Pot Meet Stainless Steel Kettle

by Flyovercountry ( 89 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, John Kerry, Marxism, Progressives at March 13th, 2015 - 9:51 am

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

First, here’s the text of the act itself:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Before we tackle the above law in the context of today, (and please note the refreshing brevity of laws written in 1799, before we got really smart and decided to complicate things to the point where only 7 years of post secondary education could help us to decode our national registry,) let’s look at several recent violations of this law which went unprosecuted.

First a little note here. The Logan Act itself has never been the reason for anybody’s prosecution, in its entire 216 year history. So, there’s that. The reason of course is that it’s a political nightmare. Even when there is a clear violation, any prosecution will be immediately decried as partisan hackery, no matter how egregious the violation.

In 1977, Billy Carter, the brother of President Jimmy Carter danced with members of the Libyan Government for a nice publicity release on the evening news and stated that he was great friends with Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s terror sponsoring dictator. He announced that the Libyan Government had given him a large amount of cash so that he would be able to influence his brother’s foreign policy decisions and lobby on behalf of the Libyan interests.

In 1984, Senator Ted Kennedy, the drunken liberal lion of the Senate himself, went to the Soviet Union and met with Mikhail Gorbachev. In that meeting, he apologized for Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, promised a tangible change should Walter Mondale win election as our President, gave specifics of those changes, and requested campaign donations from the Soviets for Mondale’s efforts to defeat Reagan, complete with a promise to pay back those donations via future increases in foreign aid.

Also in 1984, Democrat Jesse Jackson traveled to both Cuba and Nicaragua in order to negotiate with the Communist Leaders of those respective nations, promising that he could affect foreign policy with his self styled and by the way not asked for peace mission to those nations.

In 1987 and 1988, Democrat House Speaker Jim Wright traveled to Nicaragua and also conducted negotiations with the Communist regime in power, based upon a Democrat winning the White House in 1988’s Presidential Election. His promise was that if they would simply talk nice for the remaining couple of years of a Reagan Presidency, then the Democrat successor would not pursue the same policy of aiding the Contras in their efforts to rid themselves of an oppressive Sandinista rule.

In 1985, John Kerry, the current Secretary of State, traveled to Nicaragua and conducted negotiations with the Sandinista Government, after expressly being warned off of doing so by the Reagan Administration.

In 2007, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria in order to conduct foreign policy negotiations with that great friend to the United State, Bashar Al Assad, again promising a change in foreign policy with a Democrat in the White House, and won’t he please write them an illegal campaign contribution check.

In 1974, Senator George McGovern was accused publicly by members of the Nixon Administration, but as Nixon’s own legal eagles pointed out, Nixon’s Administration approved the travel visas for McGovern and his entourage, making any claim that those talks were taking place without his O.K. a hard point to prove in court.

In 1941, Sumner Welles, then an Under Secretary of State for Franklin Roosevelt, publicly accused former President Herbert Hoover of violating the act for telling European Leaders that he would convey a request for food relief in war torn nations. America’s involvement in World War Two, plus Roosevelt’s own desires to get America involved in that war made his accusations moot rather quickly.

The only indictment under the act came in 1803, when an ambitious man named Francis Flournoy attempted to convince the Germans and French that a separate nation called Louisiana that would ally itself with France and Germany would be advantageous to both of those nations. He was never prosecuted, as France had made the decision to sell the Louisiana Territory in its entirety to the United States, and end her colonial ties to the Western Hemisphere.

There is something similar in each of the above examples of Logan Act violations. In each case, with the exception of Herbert Hoover’s, (and it should be noted that Roosevelt refused to back his Under Secretary in that accusation,) the offending party was a Democrat. That’s some track record.

Today I learned that there’s an actual petition up at the official White-House-file-a-silly-petition website which demands that the 47 Senators who sent an open letter, (meaning they published it in local news papers but addressed it to someone else,) to Iran’s ruling Mullahs. That letter basically served as an informational text, for those unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. I states quite correctly that while Presidents have the authority to negotiate treaties, said treaties are not official unless they are approved by the Senate. Now the petition in question conflates the Logan Act with Treason and Sedition, but we’ll put that aside for the moment, and circle back to the issue of Treason later.

Just for reference, here is the text from the U.S. Constitution, Article Two, Section Two, Paragraph Two:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges
of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United
States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Offi cers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In terms of violating the Logan Act, there’s no way that anyone with two functioning grey cells could ever in a Million Sundays come to the conclusion that the aforementioned 47 Senators came anywhere close to that threshold. They have the authority of the United States to affect foreign policy. They may not have the right to negotiate treaties, but they do have Constitutional Authority to veto any Treaty negotiated and then proposed by our President. Publicly stating that fact, either through an open letter published world wide, or through personal correspondence does nothing other than to point out a very real and important fact for all concerned parties to know. In this particular instance, seeing as how our President seems hell bent on national suicide, I consider it to be an important fact for the world, most especially Americans, the Iranians, and even our President, to know ahead of time that he’s not likely to garner the consent of the Senate for a treaty likely to further that suicidal end.

All the 47 Senators have done here, far from acting to undermine the Chief Executive, is to remind him and everyone else for that matter, that they intend to exercise their Constitutionally mandated authority, by rejecting a pact that is clearly bad for the nation and the world as a whole. Accusing them of Treason is at best silly. Barack Obama campaigned on, twice by the way, a promise to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Since his election in 2012, that promise made by Barack Obama, like every other promise made by Barack Obama, reached its expiration date. His new policy, never approved of by the American People, was that Iran should be allowed to obtain a Nuclear Weapon, but should be forced to wait until after Barack Obama leaves office, so that a Republican can be blamed for it. That’s closer to an act of Treason than anything that 47 Senators with Constitutional Authority to veto any proposed treaty have done.

Oh, there’s some treason being committed here, but it isn’t by anyone in the Senate. Our President, that guy who’s twice taken the oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, has sat down at a negotiating table with the single greatest purveyor of international terror, and coincidentally has openly declared war on our nation dating back to 1978, and basically agreed that we’ll let them have whatever they want, including the means to destroy a key ally and kill every Jew on the planet. Now that’s some treasonous activity right there, and something that must be dealt with. (Maybe a group of brave Senators who have finally had enough of watching a renegade President continue with his attempt to destroy our nation will act in an effort to stop the insanity, through an eloquent statement that they intend to perform their Constitutional duty and uphold the supreme law of the land.)

Of course, in a nation where suddenly facts themselves become malleable things, right is wrong and vice versa, those who would seek to protect our nation and allies are called out as treasonous, while those actively engaged in treasonous acts are busy claiming the mantle of patriotism. We have 19 more months of this, and in a morbidly sick sort of way, I can not wait to see what this group will come up with next.

Just to drive home the point of exactly how looney tunes the Left has turned over this, here’s a gem I read from one of those annoying Addicting Info links so thoughtfully supplied to my facebook timeline against my will:

The letter states that, “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification (my emphasis).” Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may, “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

So there you have it, don’t worry so much about what the Constitution actually says, but take this interpretation of it instead, and allow the gibberish to wash all over you. That’s the legal argument supplied to convince us that 47 Senators violated the Logan Act, where those previous cases of Democrats actually conducting face to face negotiations with bad actors against the express stated wishes of the Executive Branch, were not.

How our Muslim enemies view prisoner capture and exchange

by 1389AD ( 96 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Military, Taliban at June 16th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Bergdahl release: “How do they see it?”

Published on Jun 9, 2014 by securefreedom
The media is abuzz with analyses regarding the release of American serviceman Bowe Bergdahl. Is it a victory for America, a victory for the Taliban, or something in between?

CSP fellow Stephen Coughlin lays out the theological context and strategic basis for prisoner capture and exchange in Islamic history.

Bozell: The Media’s Favorite Fake Republicans

by Deplorable Martian Overlord ( 103 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Conservatism, Corruption, Free Speech, government, Guest Post, Media, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, The Political Right, Theocratic Progressives, Tranzis at January 22nd, 2013 - 6:00 pm

I was just going to post this link on another thread, but this is way too good and important for a quick hit and run.  This is how the press works.  They like to parade a line of “Republicans” to the public to attack and discredit the rest of the party.  This is why change is so hard to do from within.  We have these enemies within the party.  The elites.  The people who basically agree with everything the Democrats want, they just have a different timetable.  The clowns who are willing to destroy the party for their own gain, so they can keep attending all the press parties and socialite gatherings.  Then we get hit from the other side from Republicans who decide that for some reason, their personal opinion on moral and religious issues should be spoken as if they are going to come down on anyone who violates these issues.   If they aren’t false flag plants in the party, then they are sure as hell missing their calling.

 

This article deals with the first kind of Republican traitor.  The Republican concern troll.  You can always identify them by this phrase “I am a Republican but…”.

 

Bozell: The Media’s Favorite Fake Republicans

 

The Republican Party is desperately in need of some good advice. It needs to return to Ronald Reagan conservatism and give America a two-party system, not a tinny echo of Obama. But our liberal media keep desperately inviting fake Republicans to offer advice to the GOP.

They want to create a new Republican Party, one that rejects the principles of the man who championed freedom.

Exhibit A: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Jan. 14 Washington Post insisted on the front page: “Bloomberg wants change in the GOP.” Post reporter Jason Horowitz noted, “America’s most prominent and deep pocketed advocate for gun control would rather rehabilitate Republicans than oust them.”

What? Republicans are criminals in need of rehabilitation? The analogies get worse. Supporting the Bill of Rights is like supporting … segregation and slavery. Democrats don’t like Bloomberg trying to reform Republicans instead of defeat them, reported Horowitz. But “Bloomberg counters that just as Democrats were once the party of slavery and segregation, the pro-gun GOP is now ripe for moderation.”

The new Republican Party is always “ripe for moderation” — overripe to the point of turning moldy and smelly, like a forgotten fruit in the back of your refrigerator.

In the same story, Horowitz quotes Bloomberg as saying, “You have to change the people in the House,” and reports Bloomberg wants to use his new super PAC to run ads against Second Amendment defenders: “This guy or woman is in favor of leaving guns in the hands of crazy people who can kill your kids.”

Please remember this is the same “moderate” Bloomberg who journalists hailed for a “No Labels” campaign for civility in government.

Exhibit B: Colin Powell, who voted for Obama twice, but still insists he’s a Reagan Republican. Indeed, since becoming a Republican, all he’s done is criticize the GOP. NBC brought him on “Meet the Press” to declare, “If it’s just going to represent the far right-wing of the political spectrum, I think the Party is in difficulty. I’m a moderate but I’m still a Republican.”

Powell thinks he’s a Republican, and the GOP has an “identity problem.” But the “identity problem” is Powell’s — voting for Obama is neither Republican nor “moderate.” Today’s Republican establishment isn’t to the right of Reagan. It is to the left of the man who won one of the largest landslides in history with an unequivocal conservative agenda.

NBC host David Gregory at least suggested to Powell he wasn’t very Republican before cuing up his endless 600-plus-word answer. But he offered no challenge as Powell attacked the “dark vein of intolerance” coming from Sarah Palin and other conservatives. Powell lashed into Palin for saying Obama was “shucking and jiving” on Benghazi, but he said nothing about Biden insisting Republicans want blacks “back in chains.” Powell voted for Biden, twice, too.

In the next segment, Gregory turned Powell’s indictment on former RNC chairman Haley Barbour: “He talks about a deep vein of intolerance within the Party. How did that sit with you?” Barbour not only failed to defend today’s GOP on racism, he repeated that Powell the Obama Voter fits in the Republican “mainstream.” Worse yet, Gregory asked Republican consultant Mike Murphy: “You’ve had a lot of these similar critiques. Your thoughts about Colin Powell this morning?”

Murphy said he was happy to hear Powell’s “still a Republican,” and “I’d invite him to come back home and help us modernize and strengthen the party. We could use him.”

Mike Murphy and his friends in the media are on the very same page: To “modernize” the Republican Party is to put conservatism through a shredder. On NBC back in November, Murphy warned if “we don’t modernize conservatism, we can go extinct … We’ve got to get kind of a party view of America that’s not right out of Rush Limbaugh’s dream journal.”

By the by, how does one “modernize” principles?

Limbaugh’s dream is Reagan’s dream. You can’t be against Rush and for Reagan.

In 2004, these same TV “news” people denounced Sen. Zell Miller for ripping his former party at the GOP convention. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell denounced him for “a red meat speech, in fact a raw meat speech, which in fact misstates a lot of Kerry’s record.” On ABC, George Stephanopoulos whined, “Zell Miller was on a tirade. I mean, he was red faced, red meat for the red states.” On MSNBC, both Chris Matthews and David Gergen compared Miller to “axe wielding segregationist” Democrat Lester Maddox.

Our transparently partisan media elite believes only one party should be embarrassed for its alleged extremism. Only one party must moderate or die. The Republicans must always move left. The liberal media is always holding up a plastic cup of “compromise” Kool-Aid and demanding the GOP drink up. Republicans should listen to this advice, knowing the correct response is always to do the opposite.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

 

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/01/16/bozell-he-medias-favorite-fake-republicans/?subscriber=1

Obama Administration to Egypt: Turn over government to Muslim Brotherhood, or lose US aid

by 1389AD ( 90 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood at June 20th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Openly giving aid and comfort to our enemies:

Obama Administration Gives 1.5 Billion to Muslim Brotherhood

Published on Mar 22, 2012 by GohmertTX01

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor and addressed the recent report that the Obama Administration is giving $1.5 billion in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On June 18, as the Muslim Brotherhood faction claimed victory in the Egyptian election, the Obama administration made US aid conditional on the military regime turning over control to Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama Threatens Any Opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with the Withdrawal of All U.S. Aid

The Obama administration warned Egypt’s military leaders on Monday to speedily hand over power or risk losing billions of dollars in U.S. military and economic aid to the country.

It wasn’t enough that Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his submission speech in Cairo in June 2009, despite the fact that the group was banned at that time for obvious reasons: they wanted to install a Sharia government, and the draconian, barbaric code of Sharia in Egypt. It wasn’t enough that after he invited the Brotherhood to his speech, he had officials in his administration meeting with this Islamic supremacist group. It wasn’t enough that he abandoned the true freedom movement, when the women of Iran and the Persians, Zoroastrians rose up after 30 years of oppressive Sharia rule. He spit on them and left them to die. They met bullets with bare flesh and broken bricks. It was a squandered historical moment – remove the head of the snake of Hezb’allah, Hamas, the shiite fighting American soldiers in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the shia agitation in Bahrain. Obama could have saved the free world and gone down in history as one of the magnificent heroes for good. But that is not who he is. He is a tool, a malevolent subversive who managed to seize the most powerful office in the world with the PR expertise of the enemedia.

Obama’s war on the good continued.

It wasn’t enough that he abandoned our 30-year ally in Egypt, the first Muslim country to make peace with the Jewish people despite the Jew-hatred mandated in the Quran. It wasn’t enough that he threw our great friend and ally out with both hands, the most liberal of reformers in the Muslim countries in that region.

On January 25, 2011, the “Freedom Revolution” — in fact, the Fascist Revolution — showed its fist. I, along with a few other courageous observers like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, warned that this was the Muslim Brotherhood and had nothing to do with the freedom being sold like “new diet Coke” by the enemedia. And I suffered the slings and arrows of Islamic apologists who derided me for insisting this was a Brotherhood op and insisted that this had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. (January 2011: Egypt Going From Bad to Brotherhood) And here we are, eighteen months later, with the Muslim Brotherhood declaring victory in a presidential election, and what does the leader of the Free World do? He threatens to withhold all U.S. aid to anyone who stops the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power. Does he threaten to withhold aid from the Muslims in Gaza who daily talk about their desire to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews, and who glory in the murders of young families with their children, and lob rockets into civilian areas so that the people there have to live in terror going to work and to school? Of course not — he increases the aid to the annihilationists who thirst for genocide in their mad Islamic Jew-hatred.

Stand up people. Get up. Stand up for your life…

Much more here.

The story is far from over. Though Obama’s intentions are clear, not so the election results:

AP: Mubarak’s ex-PM claims to win Egypt president vote

By Hamza Handawi

CAIRO (AP) — A campaign spokesman for Hosni Mubarak’s ex-prime minister said Tuesday that Ahmed Shafiq has won Egypt’s presidential election, countering the Muslim Brotherhood’s claims that its candidate was the winner and setting the stage for a divisive fight for the leadership.

The rival claims potentially open a new chapter of unrest at a time when opposition already is growing against a constitutional declaration announced by the military on Sunday which robbed the next president of many powers and gave the generals who succeeded Mubarak last year legislative powers as well as control over the process of drafting a permanent constitution.

The Brotherhood is already gearing up for a confrontation with the ruling military. It has called for mass demonstrations in Cairo and elsewhere on Tuesday to protest the military’s declaration, which made changes to the interim constitution, as well as a court ruling last week that dissolved parliament, where the Brotherhood controlled nearly half the seats…

More here.

Tiny smiley eating popcorn, waiting to see what happens

One possibility is that Egypt’s military may attempt to wait it out in the hope that Obama will leave office before he can make good on his threat to discontinue aid.