Economic treason: The definition of "treason" and could Republicans become guilty of this crime?

Why is not the threat to make the U.S. government default on its debt the equivalent of economic treason? Every time one of the Republicans steps out and threatens to vote no on raising the debt ceiling, is he or she not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

If a terrorist group boasts it will destroy the U.S. Government by breaking it economically, as the late Osama bin Laden himself repeatedly said he would do, is an American citizen threatening to cast a vote which will prevent the lifting of the current debt ceiling not giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Keep in mind it is the Republicans themselves who boast that the late Ronald Reagan took down the Soviet Union simply by destroying its economy. By doing so, they imply this technique is an effective but non-violent approach to destroying one's political enemy.

When the Republicans started threatening to do this initially, I froze up with fear to think of the ensuing collapse. Of course, soon thereafter, I realized that was their purpose in making this threat: instill political paralysis through threatening to collapse our economy until they get what they want.

Of course, in order for a charge of treason to be made, we must be in a time of war. As we know, a formal declaration of war has not been declared by Congress. Still, with the recent "elimination" of Osama bin Laden, the use of extreme conduct by our military as so ordered by our Commander-in-Chief came with the explanation of that conduct being justified as acceptable in times of war. It would be awkward at best to make a legal case excusing a person charged with treason by a technicality that war has not been declared when arms of our government publicly speak in terms that we are.

I took my question a step further by looking up the term to find the precise definition. Here is a link to a full explanation. It is easy to see how a legal case could be argued either way under this definition, but please read it for yourself and let me know your reaction.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

"The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

"The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

"Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given." (emphasis added.)

I do not pretend to be an authority on this issue, but I cannot help but wonder this one thing. Why is it considered a threat of war for other countries to attempt to take down our domestic economy, which of course would seriously "weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies," but it is politically acceptable for our elected legislative officials to threaten to do exactly that, knowing as we all do that many of them speak on behalf of those who "buy" their votes as opposed to speaking on behalf of the American citizens who elected them to protect their welfare?

Does the simple exercise of raw political will supersede or at least serve as an acceptable excuse for executing the equivalent of an act of war?

Personally,I don't think so, and I cannot help but wonder why someone of exact expertise on this issue is not publicly raising this same question.

Your thoughts?

Sam

was the more appropriate title of this thread. You think I should change it?

have weakened our manufacturing capacity and therefore, our ability to be independent and self-sufficient as a nation.

but to tell you the literal truth, some of these issues are becoming extremely murky in our society. Maybe we need to be publicly raising these questions and put the hard topics up for debate.

Thank you for your response.

Sam

Since treaties are, by definition, an agreement to do or not to do something that is otherwise within the discretion of a sovereign power.

I always get a chuckle out if "This violates our sovereignty!" objections to treaties. I mean, duh, it goes without saying.

Why not?

I doubt that a proposition agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate is going to qualify as aid to "an enemy".

I mean, good golly, when we signed the peace treaty with Japan, we had to stop shooting at them.

A Federal law does not supersede the Constitution any more than a State law can negate a Federal law. It is just as simple as that. The definition of treason is defined by the U.S. Constitution.

An example of this is the act of declaring war. As we all know, there has not been a legal declaration of war I believe since World War II. Yet, the War Powers Act is chronically cited as a legal source for this that and the other thing. The path to the act of declaring war is specifically defined by the Constitution. The War Powers Act does not modify the U.S. Constitution. Yet several Presidents have cited the War Powers Act to justify attacks they themselves have initiated which lasted longer than 60 days. A sterling example of that is the Viet Nam war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

"Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties, ... some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

A President of the United States cannot declare language in the War Powers Act unconstitutional and the very act the President is committing is unconstitutional. It is done all the time but that does not make it "legal."


Sam

US Constitution, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

The legal definition of treason is also in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:

Section 3 - Treason Note

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.

same link

Legally, the treaties are on the same level as the Constitution. I just think that it was treasonous on the part of Congress and the president to enter into the trade agreements. But I know that, legally I am wrong.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

"(a) Treaties

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void
to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties. "

(End of quoted language)

The language "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" inserted AFTER the word "Constitution" was intended to incorporate all pre-existing treaties into the new government, PROVIDED said treaty was not in conflict with the Constitution itself. Otherwise, all pre-existing treaties executed prior to the Constitution being implemented would have become null and void. But those words "made in Pursuance" qualify the meaning to state that the treaty must be in furtherance of the Constitution, not in contradiction.

It is pretty obvious why we have a difference of opinion on this subject because many of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution also disagreed. But in Civics classes of old, the concept was taught that the literal Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, the Federal laws passed are subservient to it, and the state laws are subservient to Federal law.

And from the same link as cited above:

"The understanding of the Virginia Convention in this connection, in keeping with Madison's statement, was even more specifically expressed by member George Nicholas as follows: "They can, by this, make no treaty which shall be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or inconsistent with the delegated powers. The treaties they make must be under the authority of the United States, to be within their province." The question of the Treaty Clause being limited by the Constitution as a whole was discussed in the United States House of Representatives on April 6, 1796 concerning the Jay Treaty (with Great Britain), when the point was made by Madison and other members that the record of debates with regard to ratification in the Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina Conventions in 1787-1788 had made it clear that the understanding was "that the Treaty-making power was a limited power" (limited by the Constitution as a whole). (emphasis added)

Here is an additional link which supplies legal authorities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.<6>"

This is not my area of expertise so I would not challenge anyone who disagrees to a duel! But this is also why I think those who are expert on the subject posted in my original thread should be speaking out to clarify some of these very important points.

It's like asking "Can God sin?"

The question was whether a treaty, per se, could be "treasonous".

It's something of a silly question, since a treaty is an act OF the United States.

I said a treaty does not carry an equal weight to the Constitution and it is automatically void if it does not comport. I also gave legitimate references.

And what is ratified today may not be ratified forever. And I am hoping that we get out of some of these horrible trade agreements.

but having worked in the legal arena for 25 years, that does that to a person. But there is also that saying that when we see the breakdown of the law in a civilized society, that is when chaos rules. I see the latter as happening now.

Thank you so much for your thoughts on the subject and contributing to this thread. You are a thoughtful person.

Sam

And one of the symptoms is that multinational companies have acquired the power to obtain passage of trade agreements that, on a moral level, are treasonous.

Strictly legally -- no, but morally, yes.

And Carter negotiated the terms under which transfer of certain assets would occur under that lease expiration?

Jeez, it was like FOREVER before the wingnuts finally quit yammering on about the "treason" of "the Panama Canal giveaway".

Oy.

But you can construct the same type of criticism around ANY treaty whatsoever, because treaties are based on bargains which involve the forbearance of sovereign discretion.

SALT II - We were "shackled" by limits on nuclear warheads and launchers in a treasonous decision to willfully weaken our arsenal.

But if you are talking about NAFTA, I'd want to know since when is Canada an "enemy" (notwithstanding 1812).

weight as the Constitution, as argued above.

Here in DC, some of the Republicans are STILL complaining about the Panama Canal and Jimmy Carter. I guess you just don't hear it where you live!

Sam

They all seem to come from China now. And none of them last more than one summer.

Back in the day, my dad would buy a "made in America" garden hose and it would last for years.

When you think about the nuke industry - where will all the materials for the hosing and tubing and connectors come from? If we aren't making it here, it will come from China or elsewhere.

Do I really want Chinese hosing for the new generation of nuke plants that Obama is guaranteeing us by his friendly offer of 33+ billions of dollars to that industry? (The Federal Government has to give the nuke power people this money - Wall Street and Big Finance people don't want the liability that the nuke plants bring with them for any amount of "guaranteed profit.")

I have lived here. The original owner left the hose here, and she bought the house new in 1950. I am not sure when she placed that hose out front, but she told me, laughingly, it belonged to her mother. I thought that was astounding and I keep it, telling people the story of the hose. So my answer to you is that I don't want new nuclear sites, but if any are built and guaranteed by the United States taxpayers, I want the hoses made by the same people who made Wilma's mother's hose....

Sam

then there is no debt ceiling.

I am just asking questions here. I don't pretend to have the answers but am interested in what others here think.

Sam

nt

Just asking. I read the definition and it appears to me that legally anyone voting against raising that ceiling and participating in crashing the economy could literally be guilty of a crime. I mean prosecutable. Do you?

Don't get me wrong, what has happened in terms of lobbying and destroying our economy is just as defined by Ross Perot as economic treason or the revolving door between the Bush and Reagan cabinets and foreign countries, changed our world forever.

The USA is signatory to GATT, NAFTA, WTO, etc. which makes those arguments moot. We're not going to get 'unsigned' to those treaties no matter what. Sovereignty or a country that would cry 'treason' means little when the corporations run most of our lives and have been negotiating everything across borders for years without public input. Which is what's happened.

Speaking in a narrow definition to them threatening to allow the government to default, the answer could be 'no.' Because it's just class warfare and internal politics. These groups know they have us by the neck, because of their foreign contracts that make what we as Americans make think is good for the USA, nothing more than the squawking of the chickens the elephants are dancing on.

The fact that China and other countries hold that debt, may be forcing the GOP to act this way. They may be telling us to stop going to war and start paying the bills. The IMF and World Bank have done this around the world. The other technique is to declare war and oust leaders to get real assets.

Right now, the USA is giving up real assets to the corporations, because of the debt for the wars, and the refusal of those who got the most profits to pay a pittance of what these wars cost. They are more arrogant than ever, because their money is now offshore. Out leaders signed these treaties. They don't need us, they don't need the USA, they have no loyalty to the USA or its people.

So they are going to treat us as a third world nation, because everyone in the world except America, where the media doesn't feed everyone on the mushroom theory like here, knows the truth. America has passed the point of no return with these oligarchs pulling the strings.

Obama is like the boy with his finger in the dyke trying to hold back the flood. He gets tremendous abuse for 'not standing tall' or whatever line of tough-guy game people expect him to do. He's learned that he has to compromise or they will not do a slow and gradual killing, but a fast kill. That holds no fear at all for the oligarchs/Koches/GOP. So they are going to ramp up the pain.

Countries where people rioted in their fast kill economic moves, and were gunned down in the street, had their governments replaced with martial law and other forms of tyranny, fell back under the control of the oligarchies and corporations. It took years before they returned to democracy. We have as little to say as they did, except when we are united and can push back at these powerful forces.

We didn't do our job as Democrats -- well, not those here, but in some other places, and get out the vote to allow Obama room to negotiate legally with the GOP.

In a larger sense, the GOP is committing treason and terrorism. But they are doing it at the behest of the corporations that have been committing it both here and around the world for years. And they are not going to allow their lackeys to be punished, unless they see some serious opposition, that will cost them.

As a verbal weapon, calling the GOP traitors can't be just about the budget and its partner the debt ceiling. You have to go after the entire cabal. Henry Wallace defined fascism and how it would come about in the USA. We are dealing with fascists, plain and simple. They don't take no for an answer. Here is what they did, how they did it, as predicted years ago:

http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

This is what we are dealing with. And we don't know what to do. We are no longer permitted in political dialogue to even call them what they clearly are, as Wallace defined it. Our Founding Fathers and Abe Lincoln warned us.

As a rallying cry, call them traitors. But widen the definition of who they are. Legally, they aren't, because they are operating above our government, IMHO.

OTOH, I may be all wrong in the way I've tried to answer you, too.

I agree with everything you say and totally understand your point of view. But if you reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, treaties and laws passed by Congress and/or legal agreements with other countries are subservient to the United States Constitution. It is true that from a practical point, instead of a legal point, that the battle American citizens are now fighting is a mighty one that will be extremely difficult if not impossible to win. But, in terms of strict constructionism, a term which some find handy on the Republican side to use to justify outrageous conduct, there is no way these treaties, agreements, corporate policies, et cetera offset the definition of treason as defined in the Constitution. That is the supreme law of the land. The very real problem is they feel they can get away with whatever they want without fear of reprisal because the United States Supreme Court as currently composed with give them a free pass to stay out of jail.

Another thing that has been eating away at me is that at least twice over the last ten years, commentators have remarked during times of economic recoveries following recessions (the first time was during the recovery from the recession which had its start in late 1999, 2000; the second more recently) that when other signs such as a growth in GDP in two successive quarters revealed no job gain, that we would experience a recovery which would realize no job growth. This is exactly what we are experiencing now. I do not think the lack of job growth is accidental; it is deliberately suppressed by the corporations and celebrated by the Republicans as an election tool which will help to defeat the Democrat and restore a Republican to the Oval Office. But try as I might to find some of the articles written earlier on the Internet, nothing, nothing, nothing. Have they been scrubbed?

I do not pretend to know what the answer is here; but I do strongly believe that more on this subject should be openly and unabashedly publicly discussed to at least make the average American citizen become instilled with some alarm and to let those guilty of this know we know exactly what they are doing. Additionally, all of the points you bring out in your post should be openly discussed and brought out for more public debate because one thing I do know is this: not talking about it publicly and openly only implies we are submissive and controllable on these issues. We have to broadcast the debate.

Thank you so much for doing exactly that.

Sam

the word treason around.

In fact, it is one word I'd like to see stricken from our political debate.

I agree with you, this word should not be thrown around casually. I thought about this for two weeks before I posted the question. It was simply too volatile for my taste.

I don't think the word can be stricken from our political debate because it was important enough to be defined within the Constitution.

I only posted this question after I tested out on a Republican, no less. I ask him what was wrong with my reasoning. He responded he didn't see anything amiss. So I asked the question here, giving the definition.

Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. You are in good company. Thanks for responding.

Sam

giving actual aide to an enemy that the United States has declared war.

It's why the Rosenbergs were charged formally with treason, but "conspiracy to commit espionage." Same reason why Jonathan Pollard wasn't charged with treason.

Given the way this word has been thrown around loosely to target progressive activist, much to the detriment of our democracy, I'm not comfortable to doing the same thing even with people I think are horrible human beings. I'm for a very narrowly and strictly defined definition of treason.

This does not fall within in it.

and I truly dislike introducing a note of reality on the side of the Jonathan Pollard issue, but sometimes the outcome of these matters doesn't always depend on the literal facts as much as the attorney in D.C. one chooses to defend them. Additionally, Pollard handed off information to Israel, which is considered to be an ally not an enemy of the United States.

Robert Hanssen got the best attorney in DC for his defense, Plato Cacheris. The deal Cacheris negotiated with the Justice Department was an incredibly good one, so good it infuriated many in the intelligence community. Cacheris even managed to retain Hanssen's pension for the man's wife. That is unbelievable!

The Rosenbergs were tried for espionage as opposed to treason because they did not spy for an enemy of the United States; they spied for one of our allies during World War II, the Soviets.

So if you are uncomfortable with saying politicians who threaten to perform an act that comports with a goal an enemy has stated is its objective, what word or phrase would you assign to what they are doing -- fear mongering, simply political maneuvering, a huge bluff they will not carry out, or totally acceptable conduct in light of the fact they are simply refusing to sign off on something they truly believe is unacceptable. Actually, I am not talking about the here and now, I am wondering about the aftermath if they follow through and the consequences should end up being as many economists predict. How do you see it?

Sam

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the US Constitution:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

I went and read Article 1, Section 8, so maybe you can fill in the blanks.

Sam

to borrow money. That would suggest it is a power of congress to raise the debt ceiling - or not. So how can a power of congress be deemed "Economic Terrorism"?

It is the Republicans (many) in the House which have publicly said they will vote no unless significant cuts are made. Significant cuts have already been agreed to by the Obama administration.

Some legislators have repeatedly said entitlements must be on the table. It is generally known by all people who have followed this debate over the last few decades that Republicans do not support these type of programs. The implication is clear, and Cantor, for one talked candidly about it publicly. The debt ceiling vote has come up 74 times in the past, and each time it has been raised. There seems to be a clear consensus from economists (even Ronald Reagan's) that not raising the debt ceiling can have catastrophic consequences. Not the least of these is that the interest on the debt that we have already accrued faces the possibility of going up if there is a default.

They clearly have been complaining about the amount of the debt. George Bush* is responsible for 11.5 trillion of it. Where were they then?

I'm not supporting what the Republicans are doing. I'm just disagreeing with it being called "terrorism" or "treason".

first of all, bin-Laden's path to economic destruction involved physical destruction. Secondly, no republican is threatening to destroy the economy. You claim that they're doing so. Really? Uh, no. They're not making that threat. Are their policies destroying the economy? Well, they sure aren't helping it.

Thanks for the thread, Samantha.

Perhaps I underestimated all of DU following the threat of Osama bin Laden attempting to take down the United States by crushing its economy. I am posting a link to a recent Ezra Kline piece which discusses exactly that. It is just one of many times this issue has been discussed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the ensuing, resulting instability on our stock market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.htm

"Apparently not. Bin Laden, according to Gartenstein-Ross, had a strategy that we never bothered to understand, and thus that we never bothered to defend against. What he really wanted to do — and, more to the point, what he thought he could do — was bankrupt the United States of America. After all, he’d done the bankrupt-a-superpower thing before. And though it didn’t quite work out this time, it worked a lot better than most of us, in this exultant moment, are willing to admit."

Other commentators on this subject have suggested that the late Osama bin Laden delighted in planning the physical attacks knowing the United States would spare no expense in its retaliation. He had made this judgment in light of past responses to assaults of various types, and he calculated that by initiating more, how many dollars he could force the United States to spend in striking back.

Ezra Kline discusses in the article referenced that for a long time many in the United States did not understand his (bin Laden's) nuanced strategy on the monetary side, but now realize exactly how many dollars he has "goaded" us to spend at a time when we could least afford it.

My original question was simply to inquire if the results of threatening not to raise our debt ceiling by members of Congress and risking the ensuing potential economic calamity was in fact risking the same consequences on our government that terrorists were directly aiming to achieve. And if it is terrorism when our enemy does it, why is it permissible for an American citizen to threaten (and I do mean publicly state with the intention to instill fear about our economic future)to block a legislative action that could possibly do the same thing.

Thanks for responding to my thread, Uncle Joe.

Sam

to deliberately default on its' debts would give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Bin Laden; (if he were alive) Al Qaueda, and the Talaban would be most happy with such a circumstance and no doubt this is why Boehner would never answer Jim Lehrer's question the other day about whether the catastrophe by such a scenario would exceed Boehner's contention that just raising the debt limit would be a catastrophe.

Boehner just wouldn't answer Lehrer because he knew the economic repercussions from a default would be devastating to the nation.

Peace to you, Sam:hi:

I wondered why the silence when Boehner was asked that question. I was thinking he had to know the consequences, why the silence. Your explanation is perfect.

Sam

Please let me ask you a couple more questions. Maybe I will sleep better tonight.

Do you think this is a huge bluff the Republicans are running simply in order to get large concessions from President Obama on entitlement programs?

Do you think there is any chance whatsoever politicians threatening to vote no on raising the debt ceiling will follow through with that threat should President Obama not give them exactly what they want?

If the answer to the above question is either yes, or maybe (hopefully it is a no, but I am not sure yet) and the consequences are as bad as some economists predict, would not the ensuing calamity demand some sort of penalty on those politicians (aside from defeat in their next election)?

Why is it okay at this particular time of economic insecurity for some politicians to walk out to the camera and tell the world we are broke? Doesn't this undermine our ability to negotiate anything of benefit to help offset our current situation?

Thanking you in advance, Uncle Joe, for your opinion,

Sam

People throw these words around until they have no meaning.

I do not know that Reid has. The circumstances then were entirely different, as far as the degree of the severity in the condition of our economy. Additionally, there was no attempt to install fear because it was pretty well known the vote would pass. It is not uncommon when the outcome of a vote is pretty much already realized because of the head-count taken by the leadership. So sometimes a vote contrary to passage is a protest vote on principle only. This is not one of those times.

Yes, people do throw the word around too loosely, along with other words. I have been at this site since 2000, and I do not start incendiary threads or throw provocative words around casually. People who have been here a long time know this about me; perhaps you do not.

I asked a question to encourage people to post their response. It was a sincere question, truly. And after all of the input acquired so far on this thread, I still have received no legitimate reason that differentiates what makes it unacceptable, perhaps even a threat of war, for an enemy of this Country to threaten our economy, but it is totally okay for an elected politician to do so. In my opinion, one's citizenship does not authorize him or her to act in a way that could have a calamitous impact on our recovery from what the late Osama bin Laden started, and the banks and Wall Street later exasperated. To imply legislators' actions are simply political acts doesn't work for me at this particular moment in time. So if the word itself truly bothers you, let me substitute another phrase: apparent depraved indifference to the well-being of our Country. What do you think other people in other countries think when our domestic politicians stand up and publicly say, "We are going broke." At the very least, many have to be thinking, thanks for warning me, I am not investing anything there.

Thank you for your response.

Sam

because of failure of consistency in law.

At times in the past, the USA had a semblance of moral and pragamatic action.

The American myth is dead, democracy is dead in the USA in action, and the USA is a rogue nation, albeit the most economically and militarily powerful of all, in the international community.

The Federal government has not been acting in the best interests of the People as a whole or long term benefit of the Nation; perhaps likely never pure anyway but we are in a long down cycle now beyond my imagination when younger and do not know the bottom.

I believe in the USA system; the problem is that those that game our system are our leaders in politics, military, finance, spirituality, and business and there is not any effective resistence. Croneyism and inheritance and media that is mostly propaganda prevail and consolidate from local to global. The globalists could be technically traitors. Thinka n American-born international corporation with partial foreign ownership and management and better profit opportunities elsewhere and a market than can be abused domestically? Better yet backed by the USA/NATO/UN military in aggressive, ginned up resource wars for profits of the few and not even for general welfare of the American People that pay and provide family members for the wars.

Dislike being so negative.

I live right outside DC and have been a political observer since I was eight years old, believe it or not. I have worked in some top-notch places and observed some incredible things first-hand.

All this is to simply say I am not the least a politically naive person. I am a true believer of following the law, not just the letter but the intent as well. I thought Election 2000 was really, really bad and I never realized when we were going through that that things could possibly get worse. I simply do not believe what I see. I do not understand why so many people are complacent about these things. But then I am a veteran of the 60s, when women refused to have sex with Republicans who violated women's rights for political purposes. We just do not have the same quantity of people ready to stand up and repel the ugliness and the illegality we had in those days. And worse, we seem to be losing ground every day. Where will this all end?

Thank you for your response.

Sam