IS AL GORE A TRAITOR TO THE USA Recent remarks by former Vice-President Al Gore that the United States had treated Arabs in a disgraceful way has resurrected the idea that his remarks may have been traitorous. Historically ex-presidents and other former high ranking governmental officials have obeyed a fundamental rule of decorum to withhold criticism of US policy and policymakers when traveling outside the United States. Some politicians have not had the grace to follow this rule. Bill Clinton while attending Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar demonstrated against the United States’ war in North Vietnam. Of course, Clinton was just another student at the time. (It should be noted that he failed to finish his studies at Oxford. He must have disappointed his mentor, Senator Fulbright, who more than likely got him the scholarship in the first place.) It has also been the lot of Jimmy Carter to bring dishonor to his country while traveling abroad. He only received the Nobel Prize because he hated the Bushes so much. While on this subject, there are several unwritten rules of courtesy ex-high ranking officials observe when they leave office: One, they do not directly criticize in public the person who took their place. Two, they never criticize the US or its high ranking officials while traveling abroad. And Three, they do not seek to undermine the policies of the USA while traveling abroad. Jimmy Carter has broken all these rules as well as a few others (remember Coretta Scott King’s funeral). Back to AL Gore. While visiting Saudi Arabia recently, he stated that the USA had treated the Arabs badly. There is no doubt that the USA is at war with a large segment of the Arab population, since most of the terrorists with whom we are at war are Arabs.. The United States Constitution is very clear as to the definition of a traitor. ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 of the Constitution states very plainly that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” One reason the definition of “treason” is so explicit is that so often when Great Britain was ruled by monarchs who had practically absolute power, treason could be defined as almost any act or thought against the monarch. One of the most explicit examples in English History was the actions of Henry Vlll. He divorced his first queen because she could not give him a male heir and had his second queen beheaded for the same reason. His third queen gave him a male heir, but the heir died shortly after assuming office. The fourth queen was beheaded for stepping out on him. The Americans wanted to define the act of treason in a very specific way so that no one in authority could have another killed on trumped up charges of “treason”. Al Gore is plainly a traitor based on the phrases “adhering to their enemies,” and “giving them “Aid and Comfort”. There is no doubt that Al Gore is guilty on both these counts, plainly spelled out in the Constitution. The word “adhering” comes from the word “adhere”, defined in the dictionary as follows: “to be a devoted follower or supporter.” Thus, when Al Gore criticizes the US for treating the Arabs badly, he is ignoring the fact that most of the Arab world opposes the policies of the United States, and in many cases the Arab countries are either antagonistic toward us or enthusiastically supporting that minority of Arabs who are conducting overt terror against the United States and its citizens. The irony of all of this is that while Saudi Arabia rulers want to shield their hatred for the US, they nevertheless allow the terrorists to train on their soil, and encourage some of their “princes” to support the terrorists in their evil endeavors. If you want to know more about these “princes” and their methods, read Greg Rucka’s novel, “A gentleman’s Game.” While admittedly, this is a novel, there is a lot insight given into the Saudi thinking on the subject of terrorism against the US and our allies. Also in SECTION lll of the constitution, is the phrase, “giving them “Aid and Comfort.” Here Al gore is plainly guilty. His remarks about the US’s treating the Arabs badly fits the definition of treason to a “T”. (No pun intended.) It would be interesting to ascertain whether Al Gore is on the payroll of the Saudi government or some large corporate Saudi entity. I’m not saying that he is, only that his connection with the Saudi’s should be investigated. The humorous side of the Al Gore story is his ability to lie with a straight face. We saw this in the first set of Presidential debates between him and George Bush. The occasion arose when one of the questioners on the panel asked Bush if he could say anything positive about the Clinton-Gore administration. Bush spoke up and said he thought FEMA had done some pretty good work in the aftermath of some hurricanes that hit Texas. Gore spoke up and said that he was on some of the planes that the FEMA people used to survey the damage which the hurricanes caused in Texas. It turned out that Gore was not on these planes. Bush was gentlemen enough not to call Gore’s hand on that one, although Bush looked at Gore like he, Gore, was an idiot. The fundamental problem with Gore is the fact that he can’t get over the presidential election of 2000, which gave the popular vote to him, but the electoral vote to Bush. And no matter how much the democrats squeal, Bush won fair and square according to the rules laid out in the Constitution of the United States. An even sorrier situation is the total breakdown of the rules of courtesy which, as mentioned above, hitherto were observed by former high officials of the United States. The worst violator of these courtesy rules is Jimmy Carter. One only has to review what he said at the Coretta Scott King funeral to understand the depths of evil to which this one-time Baptist Sunday School teacher has plummeted. Will Gore be punished for his indiscretions? Probably not. May God help us to elect future leaders who rise above the “Gore” level of iniquity.
P. O. Box 752
Buchanan, Georgia 30113