'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.

Washington Insider: Hillary definitely running in 2016

The first part of this clip has seemingly nothing to do with the headline of the post but stick with it. This ABC News White House ventriloquist dummy Report starts out with another shameless exploitation of a shooting victim. The report plays an ad that features the mother of a young lady who was gunned down. The purpose of the ad is to push for universal background checks. The anchor then kicks it out to Reena Ninan who says that the gun control whackos think that background checks are something they can get through congress. Chuck Schumer calls that the 'sweet spot'.

Where was this push for gun control when Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face and where are gun rights activists when it comes to pointing this out?

But I digress...

If, as the authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' allege, that John Brennan led an effort from the White House to ship weapons out of Libya to 'start another conflict' (presumably to arm Muslim Brotherhood / al-Qaeda rebels in Syria), it could mean that the administration is simultaneously attempting to disarm American citizens while arming her enemies (watch the video at the bottom of this post that will demonstrate how registration leads to confiscation).

Now, at about the 1:20 mark of the ventriloquist dummy report, the discussion turns to Hillary's plans to run in 2016. According to a Washington 'insider', it's all but a done deal. If true, what are the plans for Huma Abedin? Will Hillary appoint her to the same position currently held by David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett?

Based on Abedin's irrefutable familial connections to the Brotherhood, do you think she's on board with a policy that would disarm Americans and arm the Brotherhood?

Yes, that is a somewhat rhetorical question at this point.

One more thing that happens at the end of this report worth mentioning. Ninan makes reference to who could be Hillary's Republican challenger and mentions Chris Christie by name. Every presidential election cycle, the mainstream media pushes a Republican candidate. Invariably, that candidate is someone who either doesn't have a chance against the liberal Democrat of choice or would be the best alternative for the liberal establishment (Romney, McCain, and Dole are prime examples).

Whenever the media pushes for a Republican nominee, rest assured, it's the worst possible Republican nominee. As for Christie specifically, he is rather Muslim Brotherhood-friendly.

Via Breitbart:



Here is why any attempt at universal background checks are all about universal gun registration, which ultimately leads to confiscation because, once again, nameless, unelected bureaucrats will be empowered to decide who gets what and who doesn't.

Sounds like a sour spot, doesn't it?

Chris Christie's hypocrisy is bigger than he is

Does anyone remember the refreshingly bombastic Chris Christie who took on teachers unions and seemed to be a conservative hero during the height of the Tea Party? Yeah, it's not taxing on your short-term memory, is it? Those days almost can't be seen in the rearview mirror anymore.

The new Christie may be just as bombastic but he's become quite the Barack Obama sycophant. First, it was Hurricane Sandy and now it's the gun control debate in the wake of Sandy Hook. In the first video below, Christie responds to a question about an NRA ad. The ad highlights the fact that Obama's children are protected with armed security at their school while your children are left defenseless in theirs.

If the hypocrisy the New Jersey Governor demonstrated could be transformed into a tangible mass, it would dwarf him.

At the essence of each one of his points is an undercurrent view that the children of public officials are more important than the children of everyday Americans. In trying to rip the NRA, Christie ends up even further proving the point made in the ad.

First, he says the children of public officials don't have a "choice" when it comes to what their parents decided to do for a living. Uh, hey Governor, the parents of American children don't have a "choice" when it comes to sending their children to 'gun-free zones', which are inherently more dangerous because such things are as enticing to criminals as picnic baskets are to bears. The truth is that Obama's children are safer at school than any child in any school that is a 'gun-free zone'.

Christie then says, "the effects on their (children of public officals) lives is significant" while diminishing the "effects" on his own children's lives compared to Obama's children. By extension, we are to conclude that the "effects" on the children of parents who are not public officials is much less significant than the effects on Christie's children. Uh, hey Governor, do you have any idea what the effects of high unemployment are? At least you don't have to worry about that personally, nor do the children of most public officials.

Then, Christie says:

"The President doesn't have a choice and his children don't have a choice of whether they're going to be protected or not. The reality of our lives in American society don't lead to that... it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate. They don't deserve to be there."

Again, the Governor actually makes the point of the ad by missing it. PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE LEFT DEFENSELESS DON'T HAVE A CHOICE EITHER, MR. CHRISTIE.

Perhaps the cherry icing on top of Christie's hypocrisy cake is this quote:

"They've got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don't be dragging people's children into this. It's wrong."

Either Governor hypocrite missed the egregiously bald-faced political theater when Barack Obama signed 23 Executive Orders with young children standing behind him OR Christie believes that it's ok to exploit children in the gun control debate as long as their parents are not public officials.

Over. The. Top.

Via MediaIte:



Here is the ad that Christie finds 'reprehensible':

Chris Christie hugs Springsteen; goes home and cries

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was allegedly a finalist for being selected as Mitt Romney's running mate. It's becoming more apparent by the day that Christie was not the right choice. First, a hug and a stroll on the beach with Barack Obama. Next, he hugged Bruce Springsteen and proceeded to cry when he got home.

Via CBS News:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hasn't been shy about his passion for Bruce Springsteen.

He's been to countless shows (more than 100, he says), has quoted lyrics in speeches and speaks openly about his love for The Boss. But Springsteen hasn't really acknowledged Christie - until now.

The Republican governor had a couple of interactions with Springsteen this past week in the wake of superstorm Sandy. Christie says he was so moved by their conversation that he cried when he got home; it was a high point in a long and tough week.

Chris Christie has some serious issues.

Do you think he has this Springsteen song in his iPad?