TREASON: US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, Para 2381

“Whosoever, having allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

This law is not in the least ambiguous. It is clear and concise in text and meaning. The phrase “adheres to their enemies” is perhaps in need of some clarification but generally the intent of the law is precise and not debatable.  Far too many laws, and even the Constitution itself, are the topic of debate as to meaning. This must stop if our country is to survive and its people remain free to enjoy the fruits of freedom. I have often said that “Words have meanings.” These meanings change over time and usage so one must understand that in order to glean the meaning of a text or document, one must use the same dictionary as the author or authors. To impart meaning based on today’s lexicon is criminal and disingenuous. This act renders the text under scrutiny meaningless or worse, contrary to the original intent. In some cases, it may be treasonous.

The phrase “adhere to their enemies” would seem to be redundant considering the phrase that follows: “giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere”. Any act which assists a potential enemy of the state is by definition a treasonous act punishable under the above section of the US Code. Any failure to enforce a law of the United States which directly or indirectly furthers a potential enemy’s plans can be proven to be treasonous. In other words, failing to disrupt an enemy’s actions and plans which could help him in his goals of overthrowing the US government and the people, or committing heinous crimes against them is necessarily treason. This does not require a law degree or advanced cognitive skills to understand.

Having said this, let’s look at some recent events.

ISIS is on our southern border. They are most likely in our country. Mexican officials, unfortunately unnamed at present, have confirmed an ISIS training base some eight miles from El Paso Texas. So says Judicial Watch. This may or may not be the truth, but for the sake of argument let’s assume there is a grain of truth in the reports. Homeland Security denies such is the case. OK, who actually believes anything Homeland Security says nowadays?Congressman Beto O’Rourke went on his face book page vehemently denying the existence of such bases. His source is most likely .. tada … Homeland Security. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that the US doesn’t have any intelligence supporting an ISIS-threat theory.  I can concur with his statement up to the part about Homeland not having any intelligence. As for the rest, well, he is one of Obamugabe’s chosen insiders.

All conjecture aside, let’s see what the possible scenario could be if this is found to be true.

Let’s say ISIS manages to make it to Dallas or San Antonio or any other big city in Texas. And, let’s say they manage to set off a humongous car bomb during lunch hour. What exactly might, and I say might, be the response from our fearless leaders?

There are few references to a national emergency in the Constitution. The only allusion to a state of emergency speaks of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The clause states:  “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” a Section I grant of power giving Congress the sole authority to suspend the writ; and an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of “public danger”.

To fog things up a bit, there are no less than fourteen executive orders giving the president the authority to declare a national emergency and implement some serious curtailments of individual liberty. The United States is formally in an ongoing limited state of emergency declared by several Presidents for several reasons. A state of emergency began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947  by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order’s actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with “Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process”. This “national emergency” was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden, and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush. There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type, regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy are the ongoing states of emergency declared on November 14, 1979 regarding the Iran hostage crisis, that declared on March 15, 1995 with respect to Iran, and that declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush’s Proclamation 7463, regarding the September 11 attacks.

President Barack Obama extended George W. Bush’s Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009, on September 10, 2010, on September 9, 2011, and on September 11, 2012. President Barack Obama extended the Declaration of Emergency on November 12, 2013, citing continued conflicts in Iran.

The latest Executive Order concerning a national emergency is 13603 signed into “law” by Obamugabe. Here is an article from the Independent Sentinel webpage.

“President Obama has been using executive orders (EO’s) in ways they have never been used before. He is using them to do end-runs around Congress by legislating from the White House. Some EO’s are dormant but pose a potential future threat. One of those is EO 13603.

President Obama signed EO 13603 on March 16, 2012. The purpose is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.

It is an update and it is not much different from prior EO’s on the National Defense Resources Preparedness. However, one difference which is concerning to some is that the definition “national emergency” is now broader and it is quite vague. There were other subtle changes that might be of interest.

The EO includes all of Obama’s out-of-control agencies and they would have unlimited power if the president declared a “national emergency.”

Executive Order 13603 — National Defense Resources Preparedness allows the government to completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” should the president declare a national emergency.

EO 13603 gives Obama the power over all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forces labor such as military conscription; and federal officials can issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”

EO 13603 is the plan to control our economy and our lives in the event of a crisis endangering our national security. There are no checks and balances written into the EO.

Could a cyber threat be used as an excuse to use this authority? Could an economic crisis cause the president to take over retirement funds using this EO?

In Obama’s hands, this EO does give one pause.

President Obama is behind the nationalization of education, car companies, energy, school loans, and housing. The growth of government and the unbridled spending seems endless under his reign.

One of the issues to be concerned about is his expressed desire to wrap his financial hands around the trillions in private retirement savings. A national financial crisis would allow him to do that.

Those are hypothetical and there is no indication that President Obama will do any of that, however, the biggest concern is that we have now allowed our government to pass laws, EO’s, rules et al that give the government the right to do pretty much anything they want to us. We’ve been careless and inattentive.

We need an order like this but we don’t need an order that gives undefined and unlimited power to one person in the government who can then utilize his/her out-of-control government agencies as s/he sees fit.”

I agree. We should never allow any one person or group of people to have this kind of power over the citizens of the United States. So how does all of this relate to treason? Well, as I said, let’s concede for the sake of argument that ISIS does indeed have bases in northern Mexico. The area in question is controlled by drug cartels and it is dangerous if not suicidal for Mexican military or police to even go in the area. Other rumors allude to the fact that cartel “coyotes” are moving ISIS terrorists across the Texas border and into the interior of the state. Again, let’s say this is so. And let’s say they do manage to set off a big bomb killing hundreds of citizens. This is an opportunity. Remember Rahm Emanuel’s comment about never letting a crisis go to waste? In this scenario does anyone believe that Obamugabe won’t activate EO 13603? It is the perfect place to suspend the congress, the Constitution and declare martial law. Obamugabe can now “rule” by executive fiat and the military will back him up. He could even do the unthinkable and declare himself president until the emergency is over. Over when? Never. President for life .. Hooray!

I am far less worried by ISIS than by Obamugabe. They want to rape, pillage and murder. Obamugabe wants to rule as the first king of the United States. Even the Clinton administration didn’t evoke the level of distrust and fear that the current group of criminals does.

So, back to treason. If Obamugabe allows ISIS to infiltrate the United States over the southern border due to his reluctance to enforce immigration laws and secure the border, who is to blame when the aforementioned group of terrorists kill our citizens? It would seem to me this fits the “giving aid and comfort” clause of the code. So by definition, any terrorist crossing the border with Mexico is a literal guest of Obamugabe. Any terrorist act should be laid at the feet of the one man responsible .. Obamugbe. He should then be arrested and charged with high treason, BEFORE he can implement EO13603. In point of fact such action is called for now, not after the fact.

For those wondering why I call our so-called president “Obamugabe” , I would refer them to another leader of note, one Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. They have the same notions of the rule of law. “I rule, my laws”. This is my opinion, nothing more. I have no trust of or respect for this administration. The current regime is the most dangerous ever to hold power in this country. Our elected officials are gutless and powerless to challenge the status quo. Unless we the people take matters in hand, there is no hope of regaining our coveted way of life .. free and prosperous. Nuff said.