Energyplay Re: "Paranoid as Nixon" I've been reading another Nixon biography, 'Nixon' by Mazo and Hess, and he really is an interesting character, and a mistreated and abused one too, though he asked for most of it.
I don't think any American politician need fear for his neck just yet, first you would need a catalyst: a lost war or economic disaster of some sort. And that may be coming, indeed that is a popular topic on these very message boards.
We are in uncharted territory on the issue of treason and just in the last couple of decades we now have leading politicians of both parties with dangerously divided loyalties. You can say that this is just the natural result of the trend toward increasing global integration and maybe that is a big factor. But I think there is more at work and that we have let down our guard more than we should have. But even if that is so, that would be a "trend" and as we all know "trends" with politics, stocks or anything else can reverse sharply, never to return to the former trajectory. As I favor a vastly increased American nationalism I think I can see signs of this trend reversal beginning. <g>
There are at least two types of leading American politicians who are treading dangerously in the direction of treason, and I mean the type of treason for which The Constitution provides a remedy:
First you could consider the Bush clan. We have never had American political leaders with as many financial interests overseas. Lets say that the current Bush or a future successor took some action that greatly harmed his countrymen and took this action for some personal or family financial benefit; that is treason.
But the left is MUCH closer to treason, in my opinion. Jimmy Carter and his inner circle believe that we Americans "have it too good" and that we should be "taken down a notch or two" so as to be "fair" to other nations. I KNOW that this is their belief from personal connections I have. Now this is a free country and there would be nothing wrong with any private individual holding those opinions and even acting upon them in any legal manner in the private sector. But for someone in government, especially in a leadership role to have such a worldview and TO ACT UPON IT is the very definition of treason.
I think Carter crossed the line to treason with his Panama Canal initiative. But what if that action had resulted in some American military defeat or was a factor in some US economic disaster? That could be treason, without a doubt. The problem is not Carter's action but his intention. If stupidity was the prime cause of the action that would not be treason. But if his motive in taking the action was to "level the field" with some of our enemies so as to be "fair" then he could be made to pay the price our Constitution demands. As far as intentions go, Kerry would have probably been even worse than Carter.
Until Carter and maybe the Bush clan we have never had national leaders with these divided loyalties.
Slagle |
