Oklahoma Treason

Doot de doot. Just checkin' the ol' internet. Wonder if...

Oklahoma Rebellion
by Walter E. Williams

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War

Awesome! Totally crazy, and not even the first sentence is over! See, my American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed) defines civil war as A war between factions or regions of the same country. What aspect of that did the American Civil War not meet?

A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government

I see. It doesn't meet your definition, which, coincidentally, is defined in such a way that the Anerican Civil War doesn't meet it.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Right. See, wars of independence are usually declared after we know who won, not by some guy with a website. They don't say the victors write the history books for no reason, you know. And guess what? It turned out that the South couldn't operate independently of the North. So it's not really a war of independence. More of a war of emo Jefferson Davis.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "...that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Yeah, good luck with that.

See, here's the thing: If you ask just about any foreigner what the American Civil War meant, you're likely to get one of two responses. Either they won't know, or they'll say that it was the triumph of the federal government over the state governments. We see these things a little bit differently in the states, but the Civil War was really a watershed moment for the federal government. It really attained ascendency during that war and tilted the balance of power far away from the state capitols.

As much as I'd like to see a greater balance between federal and state governments, I know that that ship sailed a long time ago.

I suppose this isn't treason, per se, but it is rebellion fetishism. I figured I ought to follow the situation.

Quickie

Doc Orly has a question:

What are they waiting for? For people's anger to reach the boiling point and a revolt to start? Is that the end game?

No, that would seem to be your position.

Treason goes international!, take 2

Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders
By Mark S. McGrew

Oh, good. Nothing says competence like accepting crazy theories about someone's name.

I know that World leaders are fully accustomed to conducting business with all manner of criminals, terrorists, dictators and other illegitimate “leaders” of Nations.

Uh huh. Like when world leaders have to sit down with people like Hitler and Stalin? Or do you mean more like some guy whom a bunch of whackadoodles on the internet say isn't qualified to be president? Because I don't think I have a problem with the latter.

But Obama may be different, as no one knows his real name, his place of birth, who his true parents are or even his actual birth date.

First off, we do know all of that. Second...I'm not really sure how to finish that. It's difficult to top something as nutty as what he just said.

Because Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States, any agreements he makes are subject to change or removal by the current American government of by future administrations, far into the future. Any and all agreements he makes gives foreign powers permission to deny them, rescind them or renege on them, far into the future.

Now we get into the real nutty stuff. I'm sorry your guy lost, but please stop wishing that his laws will be rendered null. It's just going to angry up your blood when you realize that it won't happen, and I don't want to be near you when you get angry.

Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.

And there's the money shot. Treason!

By the inaction of the President of the Senate to call for objections, the certification of the Electoral votes was illegally obtained. This is another reason that makes Obama ineligible to be President, as well as neutering the US Congress.

Now, before you go off thinking that this guy means that Congress invalidated itself by doing this (a silly concept), let me tell you that we'll address that...right now:

No State or county or city in America has to obey his orders or his laws or any laws passed by an illegally operating Congress. In fact, it can be argued, and probably will, that any person arrested for any crime in America can use, as his defense, that no laws in America are valid because of America illegally operating Congress and an ineligible President.

Yes! Yes! Treason! Not only does Mark tell soldiers (in fact, JCS members) to disobey any orders coming from the president, and not only does he tell civilians to disobey orders from the president, but somehow, he comes to the conclusion that the Congress is invalid, despite having nothing to do with whatever non-issues the president is facing. And then, he tells people to disobey all laws, presumably including state laws, which have nothing to do with any issue at the federal level, but do include the bulk of the laws that you would disobey.

You know what? Please start breaking these laws. I'm not talking about murder or arson, but something simple like smoking in a non-smoking area. Then go to court and use this as your defense. I'd feel safer with you bozos behind bars.

Treason goes international!

Well, I honestly thought the well had run dry. I was filled with hope that this stupidity had passed and I was going to look foolish with a defunct blog that has only four posts.

Why couldn't I have been wrong?

Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders
By Mark S. McGrew

Well, we know this will end well. The more astute readers out there will note that this comes from Pravda, the former Soviet propaganda machine. In the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pravda has become a sort of Weekly World News that remains vaguely anti-American. Given the fact that Doc Orly claims to have hated the Soviet Union, you wouldn't think she'd be linking to it, but she does. She also links to a site called Count Us Out, which I will have to monitor for further treason.

But as to the quality of the report, I'd like to mention that the article on Obama also links to an article on underwear fashion that I recognize from the last time I visited Pravda a few months ago. They also have a great article about how birds can see through time.

What do we know about birds? It may seem at first sight that there is nothing amazing about them. However, the feathered tribe makes the group of one of the most ancient creatures on earth, which makes them the subject of numerous legends, myths and mysteries.

Seriously. It sounds like it could have come out of Birds of Britain.

Sorry, I'll try this post again.

Could it be...treason?

Dr Orly is looking for active members of the military from Nashville-Fort Campbell area that want to challenge Obama.

I wonder why...

The Obama Oxymoron Oxymoron

I thought this crap might die down and we'd all be able to laugh at it as no one but those in insane asylums would ever again make reference to it, but this message made me reconsider:

At the gut level, there is something inherently incongruous about the terms "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Commander-in-Chief" being in the same sentence.

Let me guess: it's because he's got a dirty furriner name and not a Real American™ name like Buff Hardback or Rip Steakface.

Having served as, among other things, a military law-enforcement supervisor, I am familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the primary set of laws under which the military operates.

Oh, I see where he's going with this. It's against the UCMJ to commit treason, and since every senator, every representative, the entire electoral college, all Supreme Court justices and several state secretaries of state are now committing treason against us, not to mention the fakey-fake president...

It is also honor that causes a wise subordinate to -- rarely, and with reasonable trepidation -- rise up to disobey an order that is unlawful. Or, in the potential case of a soon-to-become President Barack Hussein Obama II, an order given by a person that is unlawfully in a position of command.

Well, no. It looks like I got that wrong then. You're saying that you're not even basing this argument off of the UCMJ, but rather off of something that you think the army forgot to include in the UCMJ?

Enter: an honorable man.

For Gregory is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Obama's inauguration.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Gregory says he was ambitious;
And Gregory is an honourable man.

This is awesome. It's full of such unbelievable unintentional hilarity. If these people weren't actually serious about treason, I'd think someone got me these kooks as a very belated Christmas present.

Colonel Hollister raises the question -- finally... and officially -- of whether military personnel under an Obama administration would be required to obey the orders of a commander-in-chief that has obtained that position by fraud.

You know, it's at times like these that I remember what someone once said about Watergate: the president of the United States was forced to step down by the legislature, and not a single soldier stepped up to take up arms for him. It's one of the most beautiful and humbling things about democracy. And now, these people are trying to undo it. Obama was elected fairly (as fairly as elections go in this country, at least). We may not agree with everything he does or stands for, and some may work to get him removed from office, but at the very least, we have a duty to recognize proper legal authority. We also have the duty to disobey unjust laws, but there is no reason to suppose that a law will be unjust simply because you don't like election results.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In fact, the suit also raises the question of whether said military personnel would have "an affirmative duty" to actually disobey orders that they believed to be unlawful. This is no trifling matter, no mere intellectual exercise.

I can answer that right now. All military personnel have the duty to disobey unlawful orders. Nuremberg Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

You may note that this explicitly says that the orders are orders of the government, so it doesn't matter if Obama is really the president (which, I hasten to add, he is).

Most of the high-priority areas contain "no-lone zones" -- areas where no one can enter by themselves. The sentries that control no-lone zones do so under rules where "use of deadly force is authorized". In the world of nuclear security, it is still "shoot first, and ask questions later". It must be that way.

I'm just going to pretend that he's right about that, partly because I don't know if he's right, but mainly because I don't care.

But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?

And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully? Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief? This is a real and legitimate question.

This, however, sends shivers down my spine. If the president showed up in person at a nuclear silo, I'd wonder why the heck he'd bother to show up there, since he has a variety of generals, colonels, secretaries of defense and others who are more suited to doing such a job.

Further, if I were a soldier and I received a direct order from the president, I'd refuse to do it.

Just like I'd be ordered to. All orders must travel through the chain of command, and so the President cannot directly order anyone but generals (and possibly colonels) or equivalent ranks to do anything.

Oh, but good job of putting the scary man near the nukes.

For the uninitiated, the best example of a nuclear-security environment gone awry is the 1995 movie Crimson Tide, which starred Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.

For the properly initiated, however, citing Crimson Tide will make you the laughing stock of the weirdo conspiracy nuts.

It matters not that people like "Peggy the Mooch" believe in the Obamessiah, that he will buy them gasoline and pay their mortgage. It matters not that, somehow, an illegal alien has occupied a seat in the United States Senate for four years. It matters not that this illegally-seated senator has managed to conduct a presidential campaign -- despite clearly illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources, and despite not being eligible for the office of president. It only matters that somewhere, someday, someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post.

Uh, if it matters not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

But yes, now we're going to get to the real meat and potatoes:

someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post. Or, hopefully, the officer in charge of the "nuclear football" will simply refuse to hand it over to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Yup, there it is. Treason. Officers who are under the direct control of the President should refuse to follow his orders.

I thought that this was just an isolated incident, but I was wrong.

What this blog is about

Samuel Johnson tells us that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

There are many variations on this theme, but the following, to the best of my knowledge, is my own formulation:

Jingoism is the first argument of the traitor.

It was there for Dolchstoßlegende,* it was there for the Tamil Tigers, Castro based his rise to power off of it, and now, it is part of a certain segment of American culture.

Certain groups of people are claiming that Barack Obama isn't president, and thus that...something. I'm going to ignore most of the crap that these people spew to focus on one very specific issue: treason. The next post will probably explain it better.

* Godwin'd in the first post!