Never said Israel was "the enemy." Not once in there.

But we do have other "enemies." North Korea. Iran. And others that aren't so much recognized nations - as they are collectives or groups of radicals within those nations. ISIS comes to mind in whatever country/countries it operates. And I'm not sure you'd consider Russia that much of a friend with a clear adversary like Putin in charge. I'm dubious about it, too.

But the "aid and comfort to the enemy," I think, applies as far as hostile groups and individuals who do wish us harm. Any time our leader is insulted and lambasted and defied and name-called and lied about and mischaracterized and misrepresented and portrayed as illegitimate - that certainly would "aid and comfort" to anyone who wishes us ill. I gave Putin as an example. Who wouldn't love to see the pile-on with that guy at the very bottom? And if it's internal - from within his own government - so much the sweeter. It would strongly suggest his leadership is unstable, on the rocks, even perhaps on its way out.

It used to be that there was a certain professional deference in place among political foes at the highest level of our government. "Politics stops at the water's edge." Well, it doesn't apply anymore, certainly not with THIS President. The GOP tramples all over his name and his position every chance they get - and to every open ear they see. I'm sure if push came to shove, they'd be cuddling up with Putin himself if they thought it'd weaken President Obama in the eyes of the world (certainly of this nation).

It is NOT a waste of time to bring up "Treason." I say, based on their behavior toward this President, all bets are off, and all is fair in politics and war. Especially if it puts republi-CONS on the defensive.

As LBJ would say - "make 'em deny it."

Indeed.

See my annoyingly-long reply below here (Don't wanna bore people a second time, especially in the same thread - ) :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6043124

I'm playing a slightly different game here, hack89.

I'm amping up the noise. Deliberately, yes. I imagine you might not agree with that, either, but I'm also thinking in terms of combativeness.

Part of my complaint here has always been that Dems are weak, Dems are wussy, Dems don't fight back, Dems don't fight hard, Dems fold like a piece of paper, Dems cave too easily and too often. The bad guys throw all kinds of crap at us - ALL THE DAMN TIME. They amp up the rhetoric and too much of it sticks and causes our pathetic tribesmen and women to cave and capitulate and apologize and back off. I always tend to lean toward forcing that treatment onto the other side. Find as rancid a pile of shit as possible, and throw it at them. Like the proverbial plate of spaghetti thrown against the wall - to see what sticks. In this case, with the GOP as the object, see what sticks on them. See what complicates their lives and slows (or better yet, reverses) their forward movement, gums up their works, sets them back on their heels, makes them look bad, makes them have to explain or apologize or defend. PUT THEM ON DEFENSE. They never seem to care what happens when they attack. They just attack. For the sake of and sheer delight of attacking. WELL WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT???? I don't always want to take the high road. I've seen the high road too often lead straight over a cliff.

So YES I'd throw that word around. YES I'd aim it directly at their heads. YES I'd attempt to tar and feather them with it and laminate it to them so they have to defend and try to explain and step around it and deal with that particular "ick" on their shirts and gum (or dog poop) on their shoes. I'm certainly the one who advocates fighting dirty against them. Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it.

Further - I find myself harkening back to this anecdote attributed to LBJ - which I LOVE. In a local campaign early in his political career, he fought dirty - accused his opponent of - er - "sleeping with" pigs, if you get my drift. Of course the opponent did no such thing. And LBJ readily admitted it. But his point went beyond just that. His explanation - "MAKE HIM DENY IT." Just put it out there anyway - and the point was to make him deny it. Then he's on record having to respond to this rather - um - disagreeable charge, and in the world of psy-ops, STICKS that charge to him as though with industrial strength epoxy. It's like the whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" canard. All the listener will remember is - "GASP! 'Beating his wife'??? He did WHAT?" Doesn't matter that he never did. Doesn't matter that he denies it. It's now on the record. You now are probably pre-disposed to THINK that maybe he did. It's actually planted that thought in your mind, associating him with the very idea of "beating your wife." The impression is made. The damage is done. The shit stuck to his shoe ANYWAY. And how he tracks that smell around with him, with his every step. lindsey graham is subtly trying to do this to President Obama. So then critics like me will attempt to manipulate the perception OUR way, and make lindsey graham's intentions look as bad as it's possible for them to look, and color the impression and interpretation of same - OUR way. I tend to do it in writing all the time - by refusing to capitalize the names of the enemy, whether it's bush or cheney or lindsey graham. Simple, minimal, subtle - maybe too much so. Might not have any impact, but it's another minor bit of shit I can throw to return the favor to dear disloyal lindsey.

Then, I started examining the word and concept "treason."

When you Google the word "Treason," this pops up first:
trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
-noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
-the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
historical
-the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

NOTE: The second point here, I think, applies perfectly. To sidle up to a foreign leader and say you'll follow him rather than your own, especially when you are, as a Senator, an agent of the government that YOUR leader heads (whether he's of your party or not, he's still YOUR leader - especially as we were forced to stomach when bush/cheney held us all hostage for eight years), seems to me a perfect example of "the action of betraying someone or something." Look at the synonyms, that include "disloyalty," "betrayal," "faithlessness." Those apply PERFECTLY in this case, IMO.
-------

treason
[tree-zuh n] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

NOTE: Point 2. "a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state." Um --- how could what lindsey graham did NOT fit this description? I don't know what else to add here. It's too glaring and too perfect a fit, again, IMO. Granted, the President is not a "sovereign," but he IS head of state. Which in America is as close as we get.
And note Point 1, as well. "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign." Okay, the word "sovereign," YES, the President is not a sovereign. But consider the context, and what THIS President has had to deal with. The ON-GOING and NEVER-ENDING attempted trampling on him by the opposition. The incessant attempts to de-legitimize him AND his presidency. The dramatic increase in death threats and actual attempted threats against this President as counted and confirmed by the Secret Service - it was up by as much as 400% against President Obama versus what any of his predecessors faced. For his enemies to pound away on "he's a Muslim" and "he's not a Christian" and "he wasn't born here" and "where's the birth certificate" and the general "he's OTHER/he's not one of US" - that only encourages every nutcase in America who's still sure he's "coming for our guns" or he's "siding with Islam" or whatever excuse they come up with for "he's presidentin' while black" to try and "solve the problem," taking matters into their own hands because they perceive that no one else is willing or able to remove that "imposter" from the Oval Office. All that crap has put him and his family at risk. At PHYSICAL risk. If anything ever happened to him - IMO - THEY WOULD ALL BE ACCOMPLICES, for fomenting the kind of atmosphere that encouraged it. lindsey graham's effort here to further de-legitimize President Obama by turning to some foreign leader and saying "I'll follow YOU instead, to me, fits this to perfection.

------

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, owing 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.


LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

NOTE: Here, too. Seems to me a duly-elected U.S. Senator is a figure very well indeed "owing allegiance to the United States", n'est-ce pas? Then the "giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere" - granted, Israel is not an enemy, nor is Bibi an enemy leader, although he is frequently adversarial. NOT an enemy. THAT SAID, however, OTHER leaders in other nations - friend AND foe - see this and can easily read it as another attempt to fray the mantle of our OWN duly-elected leader, placing him in a compromised position, attempting to weaken him, his credibility, and his authority. The GOP goes into lock-step mode when it's "one of theirs" in the White House, but they have adopted what seems to me is almost a psychopathic attitude toward the Oval Office when "one of ours" is in the White House. Where's the loyalty then? When they A) refuse to accept the "one of ours", and B) do everything they can, in every way and at every turn, to damage, insult, demean, and delegitimize that "one of ours," it seems to me that MORE THAN gives "aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere" to any and all of those who wish us ill (and would do something about it if they thought they could). Here, in my opinion, lindsey graham is subtly attempting to delegitimize his own President by assuring another nation's president he will follow THAT president rather than his own. Indirectly, seems to me, it gives our enemies PLENTY of "aid and comfort."

Look at it this way - if we were watching while vocal opponents of Vladimir Putin were badmouthing him openly all the time, everywhere they could, schmoozing up other international leaders than him and declaring their intention to follow THEM rather than him, thereby declaring their loyalty to other nations' leaders than him, we would be celebrating! We would be gleeful as hell! We'd be enjoying every minute of it because it would make him look - for all the world to see - like his leadership is unraveling and becoming more and more unstable by the hour - INTERNALLY. We'd want them in turmoil. We'd want their leader on shaky ground. We'd want to see him overthrown and taken out of office. Wouldn't we? He's the enemy after all. And the internal war against him is doing a lot of OUR work and OUR heavy lifting for us. Because WE don't like Vladimir Putin and we'd LOVE to see him shoved out of power, wouldn't we?

------

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

NOTE: Then I sought out more specifics on what the Constitution says. There's that "aid or comfort" thing again. Rather than being repetitive, I'll just refer you back to the rather wordy examination in the large paragraphs immediately above this-here short one.

Your reply took me aback, hack89, and then made me stop and think further. And then when I got over myself and stopped feeling personally insulted, I decided your reply deserved a response. A well-researched response at that, out of respect. So there you have it! Actually, I appreciate that your reply ultimately compelled me to examine more closely what I'd posted. And I'm pleased to say I found it to stand on rather solid ground. In my opinion, of course. Thank you for helping me to underscore my original point!

Hear hear!

Although I'd go one step farther. I'd rather see some of 'em in jail. Or in the loony bin (mr. gohmert...).

I'll join you, madokie!

Agreed. My mom's friend sent these obnoxious emails around, and forwarded chains of others.

He'd rhapsodize about "I love a cowboy" when bush2 was pResident. That was a nauseating one, considering dubya was about as far from being anything remotely like a real "cowboy" as I am. Farther, even, because I'm not afraid of horses as he is. Then later, this individual would eagerly circulate the "my rights are being violated because I'm not allowed to say the n-word" email. Ever see that one? GEEZ, Mom, you're friends with this person?

He really believed this shit. And he influenced her thinking as well. YOIKS. It IS dangerous - and not a little bit scary - to have that many people so far out on the loony edge and embracing that mindset so thoroughly that they are indeed unreachable.

Welcome to DU, gregcrawford!

Great to have you join us! It's really ridiculous. And saddest and most discouraging of all - THESE are the people who will make damn sure to get to the polls and vote. I wish more of us voted - to cancel them out. It just grates on me to think - OUR side, that isn't infected and rendered mentally impaired by watching Pox Noise, those of us among liberals who keep ourselves well-informed, believe in and value science, and appreciate the much-needed separation of church and state, OURS are the ones who are more likely to stay home.

And now that I've written that and really looked at it, I must admit that sadly it does make me start wondering - "well, then, exactly WHO are the stupid ones?"

Welcome to DU, johnnylefty2000!

Good to have you with us! What you see is what you get. They tend to be poorly educated and gullible, and willfully ignorant - and they're undoubtedly kept that way by loyally watching only Pox Noise. As long as that condition continues, that's how they'll be. They'd probably refuse to believe it, and go ahead and drink it. As some have said here - "the stupid is strong with this one, Luke."

Welcome to DU, project_bluebook!

Glad you're here! If anyone needs further proof, there's another thread here that tells us that the marvelous Mensa-member louie gohmert fancies himself fit to challenge boner for Speaker of the House. Lord Have Mercy...

Awwwww... what a cutie!

I love rescue pets. They're the best! And they seem to know they've been rescued and given a wonderful new life. Our Goldie sure behaves that way. The cats? Well, they're cats.