TREASON WATCH

Documented Hostile Acts Against the United States

These aren't theoretical concerns—these are documented acts that traditional allies do not commit against each other. Stealing weapons, killing service members, aiding enemies, and conducting espionage are hostile acts.

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3

Key Legal Points

• No "enemy" requirement: The Constitution doesn't define "enemies" as requiring official war declaration
• Aid and comfort: Actively helping a foreign power that acts against US interests
• Active vs passive: Deliberately choosing foreign interests over US interests = active betrayal
• Intent: Must prove knowledge that actions harm the US

The Pollard Precedent

The United States imprisoned Jonathan Pollard for 30 years for giving classified information to Israel. This establishes:

1. Legal precedent: Aiding Israel against US interests is prosecutable
2. Severity: Such actions warrant decades in prison
3. Double standard: Individual citizens are prosecuted, but politicians who openly prioritize Israeli interests face no consequences

Active Neglect = Betrayal

There's a critical distinction between:

People Actually Convicted of Treason for Less

Throughout American history, individuals have been prosecuted, convicted, and executed for treason involving far less serious actions than openly serving foreign powers that have attacked the United States. This section examines actual treason cases and compares them to modern political declarations of foreign allegiance.

Historical Treason Convictions

Comparison Analysis: Then vs. Now

Lesser Crimes That Were Prosecuted

Examining what the US government considered serious enough to prosecute as treason historically:

What Got People Executed or Imprisoned:

1. Speaking on enemy radio - Multiple life sentences and long prison terms
2. Planning sabotage that never happened - Death penalty
3. Helping enemies during official wars - Prison or death
4. Making propaganda - Decades in prison
5. Giving information to non-wartime adversaries - Execution

What Gets Politicians No Consequences Today:

1. Publicly declaring primary allegiance to foreign power
2. Making policy that prioritizes foreign interests
3. Serving nations that have killed Americans
4. Serving nations that stole US weapons
5. Serving nations that aided US enemies like Soviet Russia

The Pollard Comparison

Jonathan Pollard serves as a bridge case—recent enough to be relevant, harsh enough to show the double standard.

The fundamental inconsistency: Doing it secretly gets you 30 years. Doing it openly gets you re-elected.

What This Tells Us

The historical record of treason prosecutions reveals several uncomfortable truths:

1. The Bar Was Once Much Lower

Americans were executed or imprisoned for life for actions far less serious than openly serving foreign powers that have attacked the United States.

2. Speech Was Enough

Multiple people were convicted of treason for nothing more than propaganda broadcasts—pure speech on behalf of enemies. Modern officials make policy decisions favoring foreign powers.

3. Intent Wasn't Always Required

Some convictions happened even when the person claimed they were coerced or didn't intend harm. Modern politicians openly declare their intent to serve foreign powers.

4. The Double Standard Is Stark

The contrast between historical prosecutions and modern impunity cannot be explained by legal principles—it's a matter of political will and who has power.

Case Studies: Modern Examples

Examining specific instances where US officials have publicly prioritized foreign interests over American interests.

The Pattern

These case studies illustrate a consistent pattern:

While individual citizens like Jonathan Pollard serve 30 years for aiding the same foreign power, elected officials who openly declare their service to that power face no consequences whatsoever.

The Braveheart Parallel

"Every man dies, not every man really lives." - William Wallace

The film Braveheart depicts Scottish nobles betraying William Wallace and Scottish independence for personal gain from the English crown. This historical pattern mirrors modern American politics.

The Structure of Betrayal

Five Parallel Motivations

1. Self-Preservation Through Compliance

Then: Scottish nobles feared English military power

Now: Politicians fear lobby groups, loss of campaign funding, media attacks

Result: Both choose personal security over national interest

2. Personal Enrichment

Then: English crown offered lands, titles, gold

Now: Foreign lobbies offer campaign funds, speaking fees, board seats

Result: Financial incentives override patriotic duty

3. Class Loyalty Over National Loyalty

Then: Scottish nobles felt kinship with English aristocracy over Scottish peasants

Now: American elites feel kinship with international elites over working class

Result: Globalist class interests supersede national interests

4. Cowardice Disguised as Pragmatism

Then: "We can't fight England, we must negotiate"

Now: "We can't oppose [foreign power], we must maintain the alliance"

Result: Capitulation framed as wisdom

5. Active Sabotage of Resistance

Then: Scottish nobles undermined Wallace's campaigns

Now: Elites undermine politicians who challenge foreign influence

Result: Those who resist are isolated and destroyed

The Wallace Question

William Wallace represented common people's interests, national independence, willingness to sacrifice for principle, and resistance to foreign domination.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Throughout history, ruling classes have often found it easier and more profitable to serve powerful foreign interests than to defend their own people.

The mechanisms change—feudal titles become campaign donations, land grants become consulting positions—but the fundamental betrayal remains constant:

Choosing personal benefit over national welfare