High Treason

I like the Constitution. I like it a lot, it is a marvelously thought out document. I liked it so much that I got my law degree and was awarded the American Jurisprudence Award in Constitutional law. It is such a shame that we don't bother using it anymore. We are certainly in for penalties because of our failure to follow it.

Hillary Clinton is in charge of the State Department. The State Department wants to put out a bill that would make it possible for them to remove your citizenship if you belong to certain organizations. She thinks the bill might be good idea. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and should know the constitution.

The chatter over the net regarding this is pitiful. There are some who are saying that it only applies to naturalized citizens (foreign born people who become citizens). That attitude misses the point. It is not about sending them back to where they came from, it is about denying them access to the courts and due process.

The Constitution was meant not to be a privilege; but, outlines how we the people wish to be treated. Rousseau, a great philosopher, decried the horrid nature of French society before the revolution by saying that all men were born free, yet men were in chains all around him.

What rights are different for citizens. I mean, how should we treat non-citizens. Someone comes to America from England on vacation, if they have a car accident, should they be treated different. What rights do we expect when we travel to Europe? Perhaps if you are unbiased you will begin to see the real question.

Look, we treat citizens and non-citizens the same in the courts. This is not about citizens rights. It would separate rights between the "bad guys", terrorists and the good guys. Once the government declared you a bad guy, you lose all rights. They don't have to let a court determine if you are guilty. To propose such a law is treason.

The founding fathers believed in basic human rights. They called them unalienable rights, rights that nobody and no government could take away. They believed these rights were God given, not man given and not from the government, God given. I believe they are.

Hillary the Traitor


The whole ploy by the State Department is disgusting. The idea is to attempt to get people to see it as an us versus them while giving over basic human rights to the government. A government of the government, by the government and for the government. This is the antithesis of the Constitution. One that she swore to uphold and regards with such disdain. Filth.

There was a reason that the founding fathers wrote down certain rights. The right to not having police and military come into your house without having to show a third party, a judge, that they had a reason to go there. A valid reason. This is the right to not have the government come into your house just because they want to look around. Pretty basic thing.

The founding fathers also said that if you arrested someone, you had to bring them before a judge and say why. The person was to be given a reason in public so that others could make sure they did not live in a fricking totalitarian state. Pretty simple, not burdensome on government.

Wake the Xuck up. People deserve to be treated fairly and we cannot trust governments to do so, they have their own agendas. How hard is it to take someone before a judge and have to say why you arrested them?

Look at how silly the proposed law is. If you are a foreigner and kill your neighbor, you get to go to court. If you are a citizen and they "think" you may be a terrorist you can be denied any rights and no judge will be allowed to make sure they had a good reason for arresting you.

Some will say that we do not provide these rights in Iraq. We don't, it's a war zone. We have soldiers there and so did they. I am not saying that rights should not exist in a war zone, I am saying that they are less likely to be respected in one.

Oh, by the way. The founding fathers wrote in these protections while fighting the British. They knew exactly what they were doing. The "Bill of Rights" has an interesting story. Some did not believe it was necessary to write them down, they thought it was obvious that we had the right to free speech, religion and to protect ourselves.

I do not know if the Constitution was divinely inspired, I do know it sure seems that way. It's focus is on freedoms for people, not on powers for government. Wherever it talks about powers for government, it limits them.

Ms. Clinton was quoted as saying that citizenship was a privilege. That is true for people not born in this country. Citizenship means the right to live here, not the right to be treated as a human. She attempts to obfuscate and confuse the issues. Shame on her.

Let us continue, the "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights do not say they are limited to citizens. The rights are defined as inalienable, that means just being a human entitles you to them. Would you limit free speech to citizens? How bout Freedom of Religion?

I expect tyrants and self-centered elitist puppets to deny rights, that is their nature. What upsets me is that there are people who will go along with such things because the racist or bigoted in some other way. The issue is what "rights" we believe everybody should have. The question can only be answered by saying what "rights" we believe we should have.

Be well.