1984 is here…Break Out the Day-Glo Parachute Pants ASAP


Like pigs in a pen (thank you, George Orwell), Americans are now contemplating the possibility that Edward Snowden is a “traitor” for bringing to light policies that defy the U.S. Constitution. How is this possible?

Debating this at our home last night, someone mentioned the very obvious, “Well, Nixon went down for less,” to which my very wise mother countered, “Unfortunately, America was a different nation then.” Really? What happened in America since Nixon was brought down for lying to the American people? Are we really so different today?

I remember learning somewhere that the perfection of the Constitution was the foresight our founders employed; their clarity and foresight about the perils of government, and exactly how a government could use loop holes, fear, and excuses to undermine the the very laws that are the bedrock of our nation.

But Constitution be damned; suddenly, Americans have allowed the media to deploy “double-speak” to convince us that any  attempt to defy a sitting administration should be considered “treason”. Let’s clear up the definitions, shall we?

According to Article III, Section III of the United States Constitution,

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.

As unusual as it may be to have a vetted intelligence officer defy the policies that he/she has been employed to uphold, is it really “treasonous” to expose an over-reaching government? Edward Snowden didn’t reveal names, dates, or even the specifics of the policies that have stretched the meaning of  Constitutional law beyond recognition.  For this he should be punished?

Who is the true “traitor” here? The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with a requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by PROBABLE CAUSE,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does a “blanket” seizure of phone calls escape this definition?

It is revolting to hear Americans state, “I have nothing to hide.” You have missed the point, kind Sir. The law doesn’t stipulate that it is “ok” for the U.S. Government to over-step its powers as long as you agree to it; the law specifically states that it is illegal whether you agree to it or not.

That the DOJ was able and willing to define a journalist (Fox News’ James Rosen) as a criminal in order to gain those warrants speaks volumes. What is stopping them from labeling YOU a criminal? Or me? NOTHING.

Wake up, people. Snowden gained nothing from exposing what he knew. What does the government gain in convincing you that he is a “traitor”?

What is next? “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” Really?

Me thinks, perhaps, that some of us need to revisit our English Lit. and realize –  that mantra didn’t end well. Wise up, America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s