Treason by The Establishment for Sacrificing For China American Strength & Security on the Altar of Personal Enrichment

.
Traditionally, each month’s “Reference Materials” section that follows immediately below, includes not only any articles, research reports, etc. that our members consider relevant, but also book reviews from –

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post

An “advanced search” for “Schweizer” from 10/1/2021 to today (4/21/20220) of the websites of each of those three publications demonstrates that none of them has mentioned Schweizer during that time frame, much less published a review of “Red Handed.”

It would be fair to infer that the Peoples Republic of China has forbidden them to publish reviews.

INDEED, a Google search for “Schweizer ‘Red Handed’” disclosed that no more than 3 prominent newspapers/magazines published book reviews, adding to the inference that the PRC can “cancel” information about anything that offends it.

HOWEVER, there is posted in the following "Reference Materials" section one of those book reviews by Britain’s “The Guardian” newspaper which is owned by the Scott Trust to preserve independence.

The author of The Guardian’s book review is simply identified as Lloyd Green who, per https://www.theguardian.com/profile/lloyd-green, is --

“An attorney in New York, Lloyd Green was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992.”

Our members will recall our abhorrence of how American business commands the free use of our military for corporate purposes.

And how President George HW Bush (1989-1993) launched “Gulf War I” against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq ON BEHALF OF AMERICA’S GULF OIL COMPANY whose crown jewel Kuwait had been suddenly invaded/annexed by Saddam.

To fight Saddam, Bush’s invasion of Iraq was staged principally from Saudi Arabia.

Bush’s stationing American troops in Saudi provoked Osama bin Laden to issue a fatwā (which is STILL a religious duty of every member of Al Qaeda and its off-shoots such as ISIS) TO NUKE 10 MILLION AMERICANS.

How to cope with Osama’s fatwā was the subject of a book by Graham Allison, the Founding Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government – “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe” (Times Books 8/9/2004).

Graham Allison’s solution of keeping track of the world’s fissile material the way we used to keep track of gold at Fort Knox was rejected by Congress in favor of FISA Sec. 702’s empowerment of our intelligence services to spy on Americans WITHOUT A WARRANT so long as either the Attorney General or DNI labels it a “national emergency.”

HOWEVER, before the Congressional rejection, Dean Allison’s approach was championed by Tim Russert’s Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw, Sam Nunn (D-GA & long-time chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee), Richard Lugar (R-IN & long-time chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton (Chair & Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission).

[Please see the 5/29/2009 transcript of Meet the Press at viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166&p=212&hilit=al ... f7355#p212.]


[NB: This commentary has to be continued in the following section due to the size-limitation on commentary imposed by our website software.]
Post Reply
solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Treason by The Establishment for Sacrificing For China American Strength & Security on the Altar of Personal Enrichment

Post by solutions »

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Treason by The Establishment for Sacrificing On Behalf of China American Strength and Security on the Altar of Personal Enrichment
From: Solutions
Date: Sun, May 1, 2022 2:37 pm PDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

After reading yesterday’s weekly e-mail which featured this month’s Short Quiz, I noticed that you had already posted the Suggested Answers.

Since I work in Silicon Valley with self-styled “Citizens of the World,” I was intrigued by your lengthy answers to Questions 19-22.

Could you please elaborate on whether American citizens who sacrifice on behalf of the People’s Republic of China, American strength and security on the altar of personal enrichment are guilty of treason in addition to other crimes such as espionage?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Treason by The Establishment for Sacrificing On Behalf of China American Strength and Security on the Altar of Personal Enrichment
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sun, May 1, 2022 10:02 pm MDT
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The short answer to your question is “No, not really.” After all --

(1) My legal experience was concentrated on international mergers & acquisitions and international taxation which BTW I taught part-time for NYU School of Law.

(2) Although I could try to generate additional insight to the “belt” of the “belt and suspenders” field of treason back-stopped by the law of espionage, I don’t have a lot of time to “chase that rabbit”!!!

HOWEVER, a few additional comments are in order since you ask --

(1) As you are aware, we always view Wikipedia articles as “only as good as their footnotes”!!!

(2) However, the Wikipedia article entitled “Treason” contains sections on “treason” in 20 different countries and the section on the U.S. reports that popular-historian Ron Chernow has chronicled how early American Presidents viewed political opposition as “treason”!!!

[NB: This was even true of George Washington who was our first President 1789-1797 after the U.S. operated under the Articles of Confederation 1777-1789 – and yes, for “wise acres” the Articles of Confederation were not officially ratified until 1981 though they provided the framework under which the Continental Congresses operated ever since the adoption of the Articles 11/15/1777 by the Second Continental Congress.]

(3) It would appear, per Ron Chernow, that preventing political differences from comprising “treason” is the reason for the Constitutional requirement of “levying war” against the United States and/or “ENEMIES” to whom one is giving “aid and comfort.”

(4) The “levying war” alternative is interesting in light of the fact that Congress has not “declared war” as required by the Constitution since World War II. Though this raises the question of whether someone or some organization/country can “levy war” against the U.S. without the U.S. “declaring war” on that person/organization/country. Though not an opinion of any court, it is interesting that Adam Yahiye Gadahn was charged with “treason” on 10/11/2006 for appearing in videos as a spokesman for Al Qaeda in which he threatened attacks on U.S. soil -- and he was zapped by President Obama using a drone attack in Pakistan on 1/19/2015 (NB: President Obama often said all drone killings had to be approved by him personally and, after all, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years at the U/Chicago Law School).

(5) The “ENEMY” alternative is interesting because there have been so few federal prosecutions (as distinguished from state prosecutions for treason against a particular state) -- for example, the famous Cold War trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for aiding the USSR was brought under the Espionage Act rather than for “treason.”

[NB: Presumably the prosecutors did not want to confuse the jury with arguments about whether the USSR was an “enemy” since capital punishment was then available under The Espionage Act -- BUT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT A COURT WOULD (OR WOULD NOT) HAVE FOUND THE USSR AN “ENEMY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.]

(6) The 2/17/2017 issue of the Washington Post contained an article by Carlton F.W. Larson, a U/Cal-Davis Law Professor, as saying vis-à-vis the “enemy” alternative --

“But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war. Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross.”

(7) Prof. Larson IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG!!! HE IS READING THE “ENEMY” ALTERNATIVE OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! He explicitly says that “enemy” status requires a “declared or open war” but if a person is “adhering” to such an “enemy” or “giving them aid or comfort” then one is ALREADY “levying war” against the United States!!! Prof. Larson, who cited no authority for his opinion, should have known that at least the U.S. Supreme Court (if not lower courts in California) is famous for GIVING MEANING to each provision and Prof. Larson is giving NO MEANING to the “enemy” alternative since it is (per him though he doesn’t explicitly admit it) subsumed in the “levying war” alternative and has no scope of its own!!!

*****
Bottom line???

As stated at the outset, this is NOT my field of expertise and I do NOT have time to “chase this rabbit!!!

However, it would appear that the Washington Post’s “expert” is even more ignorant than I am!!!

NEVERTHELESS, Q&A-19 through Q&A-22 of the Short Quiz are erudite as far as they go – which should be as far as you need worry about since 15 years in prison for espionage (vs. execution for the Rosenbergs during the Cold War) ought IMHO to be enough to remove any temptation for mischief!!!

Thank you again for your e-mail.

Your friend,

John K.

PS – IMHO politicians are the worst offenders, not only because of the damage they do as Chinese “puppets” but also because of the horrendous example they set. In this regard, please see our 3/18/2020 campaign imploring ABC’s “The View” co-hosts and producers to “breath life” into McCain-Feingold (aka The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) IAW the “road map” approved by the U.S. Supreme Court BUT NEVER FOLLOWED BY OUR POLITICIANS!!! The letters and USPS tracking numbers are available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1910&sid=adc75ea59 ... dcb841a34c.

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – “Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win” by Peter Schweizer – May 18”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest