Reply Part V to a post from 4/28 [FN1] begins w/reference to a more recent post [FN2, 2a] by 4/28 mentioned in my last blog. 4/28 notes: “So much anti-America self sabotage going on in this country it's truly treasonous. ...” That’s a bit of a reach. “Treason” is a crime 1/19

that the Constitution both defines [FN3] and sets a standard of proof for. [FN4] Contrary to what some believe, “treason” can be committed without formal state of war. [FN5] That is important when someone like 4/28 tosses in allegations of “treason.” Consider context. 2/19

4/28 points to “anti-America self sabotage” as “truly treasonous.” Absent a foreign connection, a claim of “treason” falls flat. More accurately, an effort to overthrow the U.S. government is an act of insurrection, [FN6] but 4/28 does not allege conduct. 3/19

“Shame on you if you just watch one news source and take it for the truth you too are part of the problem. Our heroes should be held up high and honored.” [FN7] 4/28 is angered by people who doubt current military efforts. 4/28's stand is very “anti-America.” In this 4/19

Land of the Free, we most certainly have a right to question legality of war. People of 4/28's ilk have another problem in this regard. January 6 involved insurrection by a maga mob. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are disqualified from office. [FN8] On to #13: 5/19

4/28: “13) People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President?” 4/28 is consistent. Intentionally or not, 4/28 misstates concepts & then challenges me to show how they make sense. I’m not so shallow as to explain gender and 6/19

identity in a few words. As I noted in my first reply to 4/28, gender dysphoria can be traumatic for a person: “clinically significant distress caused when a person's assigned birth gender is not the same as the one with which they identify.” [FN9] And I never demanded 7/19

a female President. I demanded the actual winners of 2016 and 2024 be President. In both cases, the actual winner was a woman.
4/28: 14) “We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan for us?” 8/19

Economic structures are very complex and not subject to simple fixes. We continue to try to dig our way out of the crater into which we were shoved by “supply side” economics. When last I checked, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy listed 9/19

over 70 definitions of “socialism.” 4/28 neither defines “socialism,” identifies where such systems are collapsing nor says who advocates a model to adopt. As I noted in my first reply, a basic rule in discourse is s/he who asserts must prove. otoh, capitalism kills itself. 10/19

In the 1890s, laissez faire had almost religious standing, but then the economies of the World crashed and we had the Great Depression. [FN10]
4/28: 15) “Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now?” 11/19

My gosh, I guess 4/28 does not believe in “original sin.” That’s refreshing. Otherwise, his declaration/challenge on this point is amorphous. Details and research would be nice, but 4/28 seems to prefer others to research for him. I can tell. 12/19

Footnotes:
FN1. There’s been no response from the person who purportedly posted the challenge. I’ll continue to refer to the poster as “4/28" as I have in the prior 4 replies. 13/19

FN2. “So much anti-America self sabotage going on in this country it's truly treasonous. Shame on you if you just watch one news source and take it for the truth you too are part of the problem. Our heroes should be held up high and honored... 14/19

FN2a. “for the brave work they are doing. Certain groups of people never learned a thing from Vietnam. I say to those people....you disgust me. Do better. Country first ALWAYS!!!” 15/19

FN3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...” Const. Art. III, sec 3.
FN4. “...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.” Const. Art. III, sec 3. 16/19

FN5. The two clauses in Art. III, Sec. 3, are separated by “or.” Terms connected by a disjunctive are given separate meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 739-40, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3035, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978). 17/19

FN6. Amend XIV, §3: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...”
FN7. Id., at note 2.
FN8. Id., at note 6. 18/19

FN9. See, “Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression,” American Psychological Association, 3/9/23, last updated 7/8/24, accessed 4/28/26; also HRC Foundation, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Definitions,” accessed 4/28/26.
FN10. Thomas Piketty, “Capitalism,” (2014), pp. 136-137. 19/19