Of treaties and treason

By 9 Comments 2,687 views


democrats have been fast and loose with accusations of treason of late. On the one hand, they threw the accusation at Tom Cotton for reminding everyone that the Senate gets offer advice and consent to any binding treaties the President engages in. Soon after they agreed to support in principle what Cotton stipulated.

Hey, says James Lewis over at American Thinker, as long as treason is in the air…

What’s more, by bringing that ticklish word “treason” into the public debate, the left is opening up a can of worms. We can now ask some crucial questions that have been taboo until now.
•Does Hillary Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin, a lifelong Muslim Brotherhood acolyte, represent a clear and present danger in time of war?
•Did Hillary Clinton knowingly allow Abedin access to top secret State Department documents via Hillary’s private email accounts?”

And, to echo Prince Turki al-Faisal this week,
•Is Obama now opening the door to nuclear proliferation to rogues and terrorists, by letting Iran have nuclear weapons, thereby betraying this country, our allies and the entire world?

Those questions must now be asked. They should be asked as a matter of national survival.

Sultan Knish reminds us of other “traitors” from the not too distant past:

Biden, along with Kerry and Hagel, became notorious as the Tehran Trio during the Bush years for their advocacy for Iran and Assad, and their appearances at pro-Iranian lobbying groups and fundraisers despite criticism from Iranian democracy advocates. Biden, Kerry and Hagel, Obama’s VP, the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of Defense, all appeared at American-Iranian Council events, a group whose founder stated that he is “the Iranian lobby in the United States.”

Treason doesn’t get more treasonous than that.

And we’ve documented the treasonous actions of other democrats here at FA.

John Kerry, the Winter Soldier who testified falsely against he fellow servicemen, seems utterly confused by the thing called the “Constitution.” Kerry repeatedly has asserted that Congress cannot change any “agreements” entered into by Obama:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that U.S. lawmakers won’t be able to change the terms of any nuclear agreement with Iran because it won’t be legally binding, a statement likely to inspire greater congressional opposition.

He went on to clarify murkify:

“We’ve been clear from the beginning: We’re not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan,” Kerry told the panel. “We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it the capacity for enforcement. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now.”

Never mind for the moment that this is not legally binding.

Never mind for the moment that it would be idiocy to think Iran would abide by an enforcement agreement that is unenforceable.

Never mind for the moment that while the feckless Kerry is filling his drool bucket across a table from the Iranians while they blow up a mock US carrier as a gesture of good will.

Never mind all that for a moment. Let’s play “what if?”

What if Obama agrees to give Iran nuclear weapon technology in return for a promise not to use it?

What if Obama agrees to allow Iran to annex Alaska in return for an agreement not to use nuclear weapons?

What if Obama allows Iran to establish a military base on Long Island in return for an agreement?

What if Obama gave Iran sovereignty over the US in return for an agreement?

Is it the position of Kerry and the rest of the idiot democrats that Congress could not alter any such agreement?

Those of you who are tempted to ridicule these words, save it. If I told you in 2008 that Obama would embark on a multi-year effort to utterly deceive the country about his health care plan you would have dismissed me as a fool.

If I told you Obama would spend his two terms in office figuring out how to bypass Congress you would have cast nasty words my way.

If I told you that after twenty times Obama saying he didn’t have the Constitutional authority to offer amnesty that he would do it anyway you’d laugh at me.

If I told you that Obama would unilaterally rewrite a law dozens of times you’d suggest I was insane.

If I told you Obama would use the IRS to target conservatives and then to “police” political non-profits (i.e. conservative groups) you’d giggle.

If I told you the Obama regime would be the least transparent in decades if not ever and would then exempt itself from FOIA you wouldn’t believe me.

If I predicted Obama would kill four Americans without due process, well…there’s no telling what you’d have said.

But it all happened. All part of that “fundamental transformation.” Like the proverbial frog being boiled slowly in the pot, the left has mindlessly maintained their blind support for their Fuhrer whose increasingly bold and rogue actions taken by a Republican President would have seen impeachment long ago. They stand by in silence while the Constitution they swore to uphold is eroded. The acquiescence in allowing this to have happened may be the most treasonous act of all.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

9 Responses to “Of treaties and treason”

  1. 3


    The Tea Party also tried to ‘tell’ people…they were called “Racist”.

    The ONLY Prerequisite for being a part of the Tea Party – ‘joining’ a Tea Party….was a belief in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence… and the vision of our Founding Fathers and everything that attributes to the Exceptionalism (exception to the rule) of America…as opposed to the dictatorships, monarchy’s etc…of ‘other’ countries.

    Weird, warped so many people think, want people to think this is somehow racist?

  2. 4


    democrats have been fast and loose with accusations of treason of late. On the one hand, they threw the accusation at Tom Cotton for reminding everyone that the Senate gets offer advice and consent to any binding treaties the President engages in.

    This is because the pro-Obama, OFA, goose-stepping facists on the left who hate our constitution have (wrongly) got it in their heads that any objection to President Emperor Obama is “treason.” (It is mind-numbing to me how exactly the radical left and Obama are mirroring the rise and rule of Star War’s Emperor Palpatine)

  3. 6



    Logan act

    true, in fact the max penalty listed for violation of Logan is 3 years, hardly a sentence befitting treason.

    Dr John, not one of those items you listed would have surprised me. We knew he was going to be that bad when he got elected. A man that every detail of his life is ‘supposed’ to be a secret and has never accomplished one single act on his own, nothing is surprising.

  4. 8



    Americans real Americans know that the POTUS is in charge of foreign policy

    Total BS John, that is one area that he is NOT in charge of. Nothing he does with a foreign country is within the Constitution until it has been ok’d by Congress.

    The Founders of our Nation understood that we might need to join international agreements – but they didn’t make it easy. The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties – but only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution.

    If the President decides that a treaty is in the nation’s best interests (and does not violate the US Constitution!), the President (or designated representative) will sign the treaty. Signing a treaty does not make it become law! It means that the US Government believes the treaty is a good idea, and commits the President to seeking ratification.


    The founders didn’t trust the integrity of the country to any one man, so they put strict limits on his powers in that respect.

  5. 9


    What would Kerry do if someone asked to borrow his yacht? Would he ask for some sort of collateral or agreement that they would pay for damages if they ran it aground? Would he negotiate the use of his yacht the same way he’s negotiating this deal?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *