Walt's agent in Washington -- so anonymous that he doesn't even have a number! -- reports that Jeff Bezos, owner of the WaPo, was like the fly on the rim of the toilet bowl yesterday, when he was told that the anonymous, gutless traitor inside the White House had gone to the New York Times with his/her/zer story -- and that's the right word -- of how a brave cabal in the administration was protecting America from President Trump. Walt trusts Mr Bezos feels better seeing that the NYT op-ed piece has been met with less than universal approval.
Speculation is rife as to the authorship of this amateurish, scandalos, scurrilous POS. Wouldn't it be funny if there is no patriotic anti-Trumper working his/her/zer ass off to undermining POTUS from a rathole somewhere in the West Wing? Suppose that the piece is the fabrication of a committee of "resisters" who got too deeply into the sauce in the NYT boardroom in an orgy of wishful thinking? Until a name is put on the piece, we have to regard that as a possibility.
But it's also a possibility that there is a real person, or a group of people, who are, as the article says, "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." Perhaps he/they are sincere, having drunk deeply of the Koolaid ladled out by the Prez, Mr and Mrs Clinton, and of course the Times itself. Even so, Walt asks, whatever happened to the concept of fidelity to the oath one takes on assuming high office? Whatever happened to loyalty? Does all that go out the window if you find yourself with a boss you don't like?
Yesterday evening POTUS tweeted a one-word comment on the article.
The lefties immediately put their fine legal minds to that tweet, and concluded that (as usual) President Trump was lying, because Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides two fairly narrow definitions of "treason" -- "aid and comfort" and "levying war" -- and publishing an attack in a newspaper doesn't fit either of them. But, dear "resisters", that's not what we're talking about. Here's a broader, more apt definition.
Treason: (1) the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
(2) the action of betraying someone or something. Synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness.
That's what POTUS meant, I'm sure, and that's what I mean when I ask "Whatever happened to loyalty?" If you disagree with the person to whom your loyalty is owed, the first thing to do is confront him in person -- not anonymously -- with your concerns. If he won't respond or won't even listen -- as in the case of Pope Francis and the dubia -- you might publish your questions, but if you wish them to be taken seriously, you have an obligation to identify yourself. And finally, if no satisfactory response is forthcoming, the honourable thing to do is resign.
The phrase "none dare call it treason" first appeared in an epigram by Elizabethan writer John Harington:
Treason doth neuer prosper? What's the Reason? for if it prosper none dare call it treason.
In other words... if everyone agrees with what you say, no-one will call it treasonous. But not everyone agrees with the unsigned hatchet job which appeared in the Times. It is not "prospering". POTUS calls it treason. I call it treason. What do you call it?
"Kavanaugh hearings, Times op-ed, Woodward book make it official -- Washington elites have gone mad", by Steve Hilton, Fox News, 6/9/18.
None Dare Call It Treason, by Rev. John Stormer, Liberty Bell Press, 1964, argued that America was losing the Cold War due to domestic subversion by Communists. Click here to read the full text.
"Funerals as 'acts of resistance' portend coming civil war", WWW 4/9/18.