Are Liberals The Real Traitors And Threat To The United Kingdom

What is the greatest threat to our liberty?

In the modern US, it’s partisanship. We have become two tribes, mutually mistrustful of one another. And we are more concerned about beating the other tribe than we are about preserving our liberties.This means that when Bush was in power and the Patriot Act was passed, liberals were furious and conservatives who had reservations muted their responses.When Obama was elected, liberals muted their opposition to the National Security State, and learned to live with the War on Terror. Obama decided that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists gave him the power to use military force against anyone he labeled a terrorist, and liberals said nothing. They did not want to undermine their liberal president.Now there’s a conservative in power, and liberals again don’t like the Patriot Act or the AUMF. But conservatives are making their peace with things they wouldn’t like from a liberal president.This is why laws like the Espionage Act of 1917 never get repealed. It was probably the greatest affront to liberty every passed by Congress. But it’s still on the books, and people are still being prosecuted for violating it. It was passed during one of those ugly times of mass hysteria when America is at war abroad and gets all worked up about domestic traitors. We had a smaller version of this in the lead up to the Iraq War. Dissent is silenced and laws that curb civil liberties are passed, never to be repealed.People like to talk about how their guns would allow them to fight governmental tyranny. It’s nonsense. The tyranny has been happening since 1917. The guns haven’t made a difference. Loss of liberty doesn’t happen in the US because there’s a risk of a Napoleon staging an 18 Brumaire. It happens because when under threat, the reflex of the political class is to curb civil liberties, and the reflex of partisans is to stand by their party.

Should the United Kingdom bring back the death penalty for people who commit treason and terrorist offences on British soil?

I cannot and I will not speak on how other countries should run their criminal justice system. I can only give my opinion of how I think, or feel, things should be handled here in the US, and in California specifically.Yes I think they should reinstate the Death Penalty for cases like that. However, there have to be conditions in place to avoid executing the wrong person.California’s Death Row is a log jam because of the courts, even though the people voted to “streamline” the whole process 2 years ago.Here’s what I suggest/propose.If you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you have 90 days in which to get you appeal is order, and filed with the state supreme court. The Court then had 180 days in which to review and make their ruling. IF they uphold the original sentence, then the institution where that inmate is housed has 90 days in which to carry out the execution. End of story. The money that would be saved would be huge in the long run, as medical costs keep rising, and current “Row” inmates aren’t getting any younger.

Why did most Western traitors during the Cold War (Rosenbergs, Cambridge Five, etc.) follow liberal ideology?

They were more of the leftist socialism ideology than liberals. I like some of the liberals ideas. They have a more live and let live ideology where the leftists want you to live under their strict one system rule of law. The leftists are always a threat to free thinking and personal freedom. Those traitors were convinced that the world would be a better place if the population is controlled by the government. Remember that this was before the Russian”s / Soviet Union’s socialism / communism experiment that failed in the late 80’s. These traitors probably thought of themselves as martyrs for the cause. Like all other socialism experiments, the now failed cause.

Is it treason to call the President of the United States a moron or an idiot?

Yes, we do not realize that. Because we aren’t. Trump isn’t the head of the United States. He’s the head of the Trump administration. The head of the United States is the Constitution.Article 3 Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 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.The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.Calling Trump a moron doesn’t count as levying war or adhering to the US’s enemies, especially since it’s pretty clear that Trump isn’t particularly adhering to the US.

Is it treason if a U.S. citizen speaks against the United States Government on foreign soil/in another country?

Usually not. Treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution as levying war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies and giving them aid and comfort. So, at a bare minimum, the U.S. would have to be at war with that country for the speech to constitute treason. Even then, the speech would have to be in direct aid of the enemy’s war effort, doing something like encouraging U.S. troops to desert and working for that specific intention. Just saying something like, “I think this specific U.S. policy is bad” would not be enough.There have been two treason convictions for speaking against the U.S. government on enemy territory in wartime: Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who was the principal voice of the “Tokyo Rose” Japanese propaganda broadcasts in World War II, and Mildred Gillars, who was the main voice of “Axis Sally” in the European theater. Both women not only spoke against the United States, but worked under the direct orders of the enemy government, mainly delivering propaganda designed by the enemy government rather than her own thoughts and opinions, for pay. That’s enough for treason; if you remove any of those facts, conviction starts becoming very doubtful.Contrast D’Aquino and Gillars to the various U.S. prisoners of war who have spoken out against the U.S. government while in enemy custody in Korea and Iraq. None of those POWs were convicted of treason, because they were speaking under at least the threat of torture, and often had been actually tortured, rather than working for pay.

Is Donald Trump a traitor?

There are some differences of opinion amongst legal scholars as to whether Trump has committed treason on the basis of his shameful statements during his press conference with (Ras)Putin. According to the US Constitution, treason is very narrowly defined: A traitor is one, who owing allegiance to the US, levies war against it, or provides aid and comfort to an enemy against whom war has been declared.The US has not declared war against Russia, so de jure, calling Trump a traitor is technically incorrect. As to whether he owes allegiance to the US, he claimed to do so during his inauguration, and has not yet renounced his citizenship, so legally speaking, he does.On the other hand, Russia, far from being a US ally, is engaged in hostile activity against the US in the form of cyber attacks attempting to disrupt the lawful democratic election process, and also by way of cooperating with Iran, another hostile power, in the attempt to keep Bashar Al-Assad in power in Syria. Russia is currently under US sanctions due to the Magnitsky act, and also its illegal annexation of Crimea. Russia is clearly an enemy of the US.This being the case, the only thing that separates Trump from the charge of treason is an open declaration of war against the Russian Federation. He has given aid and comfort to an enemy of the US by blaming the US itself for its problems with Russia, taking Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election over the evidence provided by his own intelligence services, and by clearly favouring the leader of a hostile power over America's NATO allies.I think former CIA director John Brennan's use of the word “treasonous” is the best description of Trump's behavior: it's technically vague, but gets the point across.