Just because it was inevitable, or as the Absolutist Wing, better known as AW would call it, an 'Absolutism' doesn't make the event of crowning their king or the ensuing break-up of the party because of it, any less an 'Extravaganza' than had been anticipated by Right-minded people.

The expected meltdown of the Democratic Caucus is truly a sight to behold! Even the 'Abdicationist Caucus', a wing of the party known better for giving up their place in line to anyone who asks has this year somehow found themselves NOT LAST on the rungs of power! Though the implossion of the party may have started with the Abdication-ism Wing when they started calling themselves Appeasementists and, their caucus the 'Appeasement-ism Wing' without permission from the anagram guys of AW.

If somehow AWWWW manages to hold onto that second from the bottom rung on the ladder of power in the former Democratic Party, it will only be due to the fact that the 'Women Against An Afrocentric Anti-American Hopeful (WAAAAAH) engaged in racist tactics in South Carolina (or at least thats what AAAAW says) and, the bottom rung has been theirs ever since

And if WAAAAAH can't get the repsect they deserve from the 'old-boy' network when they put forward the 'smartest woman in the world' against a less than one term Senator, a novice, when will they get their deserved respect? Will it take the election of someone who at this very moment is an Illegal Alien before a woman ever reaches the top of the supposedly very Democratic Party? Will they ever get off the bottom of the barrell?

In what has proven to be one of the strangest presidential election years in the modern era, both the Democrats, and the Republicans have in turn squandered their opportunity to put forth a 'can't miss' standard bearer who might have steamrolled the competition. In a year when a President who is publicly loathed by both the print & electronic media equally, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee should be able to score a decisive victory. Yet the party's power brokers and, the more influential than most Super-Delegates seemed poised, even determined to have as their nominee an apparently indecisive, obviously inexperienced, though hopeful pretender. That he is a man of color should not have mattered but there was no mistaking that at least for some it was certainly part, even a major part of the reason they gave their support to the less than one term senator from Illinois.

Yet because they can never lay claim to having a motive for their intense dislike of the Commander In Chief or for their promoting of one agenda over another lest their objectivity, or lack thereof comes into question. Motive would instantly bring into question Big Media's reliability and, truthfulness which is blindly accepted by far too many Americans who should be asking tough questions of Big Media mavens like Salzberger, Imelt and others. Admitting to motive would be the equivalent of admitting to the aforementioned bias, a charge steadfastly denied by the media heavyweights over the years.

Motive, Agenda, Bias. The troika! And this election year more people have been forced to come face to face with the overly slanted coverage of the process by none other than Big Media, their bias is that obvious. This same media has in great measure, informed the country of who the ultimate choices for president would be and, I don't think it takes a 'Magic 8 Ball' to peer into the future to be able to say with confidence that Big Media is going to do its best to influence the upcoming General Election. How else would they achieve the desired result of moving their own agenda forward? It is their version of truth, justice and, the American way!

Manipulation of the masses. Nothing more, nothing less.

The movers & shakers of Big Media however, have finally exposed themselves as having the capacity to equally despise more than one person at a time. They have shown the viewing public this one undeniable truth - they find it easy being equal opportunity haters. With a venom usually reserved only for the current President & his administration, Big Media has attacked not only the candidacy of Hillary Clinton but the very person of Hillary Clinton. All the while professing their admiration, their love for the young, unknown and, inexperienced black candidate Barak Hussein Obama. Informing us that we should follow their lead and, admire him too. Because, after all he is black!

Though we would like to believe the skincolor of a president should not be an issue, in this election year Big Media has made it the central issue. When faced with a choice the men who made the decisions regarding how the candidates were to be treated in the press chose color over gender as the deal-buster. Surely, the treatment of Mrs Clinton, former First Lady, sitting Junior Senator from New York would qualify 'Pinch' Salzberger of 'The New York Times' and Jeffrey Imelt, CEO of GE & NBC for membership in the 'Knuckle-Dragging, Neanderthal, Woman-Haters Club' (my sincerest to 'The Little Rascals"). But the Big Boys of Big Media thought it better to be thought a sexist than proven a racist.

Such is life in the world of a PC-Liberal. They truly don't see the racism evident in their own thoughts & actions. So, in much the same way they weighed in on who the Republican candidate should be and we dutifully obeyed, Big Media is continuing to further their agenda by filling in the the other side of the ballot for the Democratic Party. And make no mistake, they too (Dems, Libs, & some Independents) will dutifully obey. The final choices this November seem destined to be between bad, and worse. Much, much worse.

Conservative Purists have a point. John McCain is not a conservative despite several stances that ARE decidedly conservative. Tuning in at the right time during the McCain campaign or at the right time during a speech might give one the impression that the Republican is indeed conservative but there are at least as many times one might tune in and, come to the correct conclussion that at best the Senator is a moderate Republican.

For years already, Republicans across the board have been calling John McCain (along with several of his closest allies in the Senate) Republican In Name Only or RINO and, the 'title' is deserving. For his part McCain believes himself to be a 'maverick', a moniker bestowed upon him by the Liberal Media for the seemingly countless number of times the Arizona Senator would buck the Republican establishment in Congress by siding with the opposition Democrats.

Just a few of the more egregious examples of McCain's 'anti-conservative' behavior would include (though by no means be limited to);

Forming the infamous "Gang of Fourteen" during contentuous Senate Judicial Hearings.

Co-Sponsoring the Kennedy-McCain Bill aka Comprehensive Immigration Reform/Amnesty

Co-Sponsoring the McCain-Feingold Bill aka Election Reform/assault on the 1st Amendment

Recent talk of backing for a Cap & Trade Global Warming Initiative/Buying into a scam

Asserting he would "Close Gitmo"

His calling waterboarding - "Torture"

Sticking his finger in the eyes of Republican leaders and, by extension their/his constituency, especially at those times when it seemed to mean so much to the conservative cause, became commonplace for McCain. The Main Stream Media, liberally biased as they are took pleasure in McCain's being a 'maverick' and, may have contributed to the Senators apparent enjoyment at doing so. He was after all getting a LOT of favorable press from his actions and, making some new friends every time he 'went against' the Republican establishment. Or so it seemed.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Article 3 would seem to bolster the premise that indeed, espionage meets the criteria for Treason through it's assertion that Treason consists of "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" but even Julius & Ethel Rosenberg weren't charged with Treason and, were in fact charged, tried, convicted, and executed, for the crime of "conspiracy to commit espionage against the United States," becoming the first American civilians ever to be executed for espionage. But were they also guilty of Treason?

And what of Barack Obama's 'friends' William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn? Or as Barak would call them, a married couple "from my neighborhood". In the 1970s (before they met Obama) both Ayers & Dohrn were members of the "Weather Underground", an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Basically the same crime as Timothy McVeigh, though none of their attacks injured anyone (although the Weather Underground is linked to the deaths of at least 4 police officers in various cities killed during bank robberies performed by the group).

Once again, Article 3 states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Would the attacks on the United States government (and by extension you & me) meet the criteria laid out in the Constitution and be enough to charge by Ayers & Dohrn with treason?

We'll never know because Federal charges against the pair were dismissed when it was revealed evidence was obtained through "improper surveillance" techniques. Funny isn't it...the same government they were trying to bring down kept them from being sent to prison by guaranteeing their right to a fair trial. But the story of Ayers doesn't stop there. Bill Ayers has since become more brazen about his life as a "domestic terrorist" and has even written a book about those days (I'm sure he looks back fondly upon them as "the good old days"). In fact, far from being repentant Ayers, in an interview with the New York Times that ran on Sept. 11, 2001 (could there have been a worse case of timing), was quoted saying - "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Oddly enough I feel the same way...I feel WE the people didn't do enough to lock these enemies of the state up for a long, long time!

Domestic Terrorism can take many forms but to lable attacks on the United States government, its buildings, monuments and institutions "domestic terror" is to lose sight of the fact that some crimes commited against the country and, its people truly are acts of Treason.

Strangely enough Barak Hussein Obama's relationships with "iffy" people doesn't begin nor end with Mr and Mrs Bill Ayers. There is the well documented and, well publicized 'relationship' between Obama and his "iffy" if not "wacky" Pastor, the (ir)Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright (who in Barak's own words is or at least was FOR TWENTY YEARS his "spiritual advisor") who screamed loudly enough from his pulpit for the whole country to hear "G** D*** America! G** D*** America!!"

Wright sold videos of his sermons in which he accused the US government of all sorts of crimes perpetrated "against the black man". But none of what the Reverend, has said comes close to Treason. Even IF Jerry has gone over the line of seperation of church & state preaching Pro-Obama political rhetoric from the pulpit, 'cheating' on your taxes does not meet the standard necessary to be counted among the highest of High Crimes one can perpetrate against the country. So everyone can take a deep breath now, that is not where this essay is heading.

Though there is another example of a Barak supporter who may be guilty of Treason (is there a statute of limitation on Treason?) and, THAT supporter in Obama's own words is his campaigns "champion". Yes, the Benedict Arnold of the Obama inner circle is none other than the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward "Ted" Kennedy!

During the 1980 Presidential Campaign Ted Kennedy initiated unsanctioned back-channel talks with Soviet Premier Uri Andropov. His 'offer' to Andropov was to appear on American TV on CBS' "60 Minutes" for the entire one hour of the show so's Uri could 'explain' to the American audience that Ronald Reagan was "more of a danger to world peace" than Andropov and the USSR was. The 'coup' came at a time when Teddy was also challenging Jimmy Carter, the sitting President from his own party who was running for re-election and, Ted thought the Dems would abandon Carter for him because of his obvious ability to talk to the communist leader

The incident, to my way of thinking, fits the definition of Treason, though it took a long time for the story to become public and the MSM never ran with it (surprised?). The result of course is that the (now ailing) Senator from Massachusetts has never been held to account for his actions.

So where does it begin and where does it end, this list of 'actionable' Treasonous crimes?

I would guess most people reading this, being politically astute, would know who Bill Richardson is and, are aware of what he did recently to draw the ire of Hillary and her supporters. But switching his allegiance, along with his important Super-Delegate Vote, from the Clinton For President camp to the Obama 'juggernaut', does not measure up to what is defined as Treason. It is certainly not a National Security issue and, despite what James Carville might have opined, I don't think it measures up as a tragedy on the Biblical level either. Governor Richardson may have brought to the mind of every member of Team Clinton either Benedict Arnold or in Carvilles case, Judas but let's face it, both references are just a lot of hyperbole.

The same can be said about Rush Limbaugh. When Democrats discuss Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" they use terms like "un-American" to describe the conservative talk show host's urging his listeners to "switch party affiliation" for the primaries and "vote for Mrs Clinton" as a means to drag out the Democrat party's nominating process for as long as possible. Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida, two states that were being penalized by the DNC for moving their primaries to a date earlier than the DNC allowed and, had already "crossed over" to vote for the Republican candidate they thought would be the easiest to beat in November and, then had the nerve to brag about their actions probably also helped spur Limbaugh to do something to even the score.

But then the inevitable happened. In several states the Democrat State Committees & the DNC began threatening that they intended to "challenge voters" they believed were following Limbaugh's directive and, would prosecute those found to be doing so. Nothing came of the empty threats. There were scattered reports of voters who had indeed been challenged and, as a result were either 'forced' or 'asked' (depending on the storyteller) to sign a 'pledge of loyalty' to the Democrat Party. Talk about Un-American!

Short of a confession on the part of any voter who did take part in "Operation Chaos" I can't think of a way the Democrat challengers could prove how anyone actually voted. But it left me wondering - if an individuals secret ballot could be examined or traced to a particular voter would that act in and, of itself border on Treason? Deliberately circumventing or interfering in any way with a citizen's Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of choice" and, their "right to vote" strikes me as an assault on the Constitution itself and, that is about as harmful to US National Security as it gets. Is that Treason? Or is it just another example of domestic terrorism? Does it at least reach the threshold of a Capital Crime? Is it really a crime at all?