Who are the real traitors?

[Smilebong]

Are they those who believe the federal government has overwhelming authority, or those who believe the only way to save America is to burn the government to the ground? Or are they those who don't care and are satisfied so long as they can play video games and have ready access to social media?
Personally, the traitors are those who justify a government eager to become a tyranny by manipulating the Constitution to justify them breaking it.

False dichotomies are easy to discuss and impossible to resolve.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush this, Reagan that. You can't hold Obama responsible for doing the same thing. You're a hypocrite, wierdo.

Please, try not to play me for a fool.

Wow, hold on a minute.

I'm not the one claiming Bush and Reagan are traitors. I'm saying according to your logic you must be saying they are traitors.

So how is it I'm a hypocrite? I ask you for a definition, you give one, and then I use your definition to find Bush and Reagan meet your requirements for a traitor.

I'm not playing your for a fool, I'm showing you what your definition means. You don't like it, change your definition.

 

[Theowl32]

Bush this, Reagan that. You can't hold Obama responsible for doing the same thing. You're a hypocrite, wierdo.

Please, try not to play me for a fool.

Wow, hold on a minute.

I'm not the one claiming Bush and Reagan are traitors. I'm saying according to your logic you must be saying they are traitors.

So how is it I'm a hypocrite? I ask you for a definition, you give one, and then I use your definition to find Bush and Reagan meet your requirements for a traitor.

I'm not playing your for a fool, I'm showing you what your definition means. You don't like it, change your definition.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of desert tortoises after budget cuts to refuge | The Raw Story - Linkis.com

Harvey Whittemore Convicted Of Making Illegal Campaign Contributions To Harry Reid

You are the one that brought up arms for hostages, and it seems to be stuck in the craw of the hypocrites on the left. As if that is anywhere near the types of crimes this communist in chief is guilty of. Not in any way us arms for hostages in the same ball park as the crimes committed by this fucking Chicago political machine, and here you are. You and your types whipping arms for hostages in the 80s.

Morons.

Why haven't any of you pieces of shit addressed any of the 10 crimes this cocksucking commie in chief has committed?

1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama's house in Hyde Park, Ill. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

2. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election.

3. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.

4. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.

5. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.

6. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.

7. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.

8. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.

9. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.

10. Fast And Furious Scam, The Administrations cover-up of guns sales to Mexican drug lords that lead to the death of an American citizen Brian Terry. The House voted to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for contempt of Congress due to the cover up and refusal to release documents by the Obama administration and Holders office.

Congress Unconscionably Silent on Obama's Constitutional Crimes - Reason.com

Go ahead, address any of those for us. Thanks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are the one that brought up arms for hostages, and it seems to be stuck in the craw of the hypocrites on the left. As if that is anywhere near the types of crimes this communist in chief is guilty of. Not in any way us arms for hostages in the same ball park as the crimes committed by this fucking Chicago political machine, and here you are. You and your types whipping arms for hostages in the 80s.

Morons.

I brought it up because I'm trying to show someone that it works both ways. Most people pick a side and ignore everything their side does. That's why I brought it up.

Why haven't any of you pieces of shit addressed any of the 10 crimes this cocksucking commie in chief has committed?

Go ahead, address any of those for us. Thanks.

You're completely missing the point here. The point is both sides are doing the same things. However they want you to argue the toss, to throw rubbish at each other in order to deflect attention.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc etc. What's the difference? There's a little difference, but they're not the guy in charge.

 

[Theowl32]

You are the one that brought up arms for hostages, and it seems to be stuck in the craw of the hypocrites on the left. As if that is anywhere near the types of crimes this communist in chief is guilty of. Not in any way us arms for hostages in the same ball park as the crimes committed by this fucking Chicago political machine, and here you are. You and your types whipping arms for hostages in the 80s.

Morons.

I brought it up because I'm trying to show someone that it works both ways. Most people pick a side and ignore everything their side does. That's why I brought it up.

Why haven't any of you pieces of shit addressed any of the 10 crimes this cocksucking commie in chief has committed?

Go ahead, address any of those for us. Thanks.

You're completely missing the point here. The point is both sides are doing the same things. However they want you to argue the toss, to throw rubbish at each other in order to deflect attention.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc etc. What's the difference? There's a little difference, but they're not the guy in charge.

I do not see any conservative defending the crimes of republicans. I never have. That is if they are crimes at all.

For example, the fact that the left claims Bush lied about wmds in order to get a war to pay off Halliburton. That would be a crime, and yet it is totally untrue.

If it was a lie, then the lie came from the left, since indeed it was the left that propagated WMDs in Iraq before Bush ever took office. Yet, I cannot remember any left wing asshole holding protest after protest for Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. He then proceeded to bomb Baghdad. Not one protest.



We also know that not one protest was made when Clinton awarded at least FOUR no bid contracts to Halliburton in the 90s. At least FOUR and no protests. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Not to mention the fact that Gitmo is still open and that was one of......oh 100 promises Obama broke. It is still open, and I do not see code stink protesting like we did for 7 years under Bush.






The fact that the left went ape shit over those issues (wmds and Guantanamo) and the fact they are silent as hell when the democrats propagated wmds (and voted for the war) and the fact that Guantanamo is still open says what to you?

I will tell you, as you contemplate. It means the left wing voting base stand for nothing. That is what it means. Even when the left holds loud protests. Most of them if not all of them see that as yet another opportunity to pay lip service and show up to where the parties are.

That is pretty much it. How am I wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I do not see any conservative defending the crimes of republicans. I never have. That is if they are crimes at all.

For example, the fact that the left claims Bush lied about wmds in order to get a war to pay off Halliburton. That would be a crime, and yet it is totally untrue.

If it was a lie, then the lie came from the left, since indeed it was the left that propagated WMDs in Iraq before Bush ever took office. Yet, I cannot remember any left wing asshole holding protest after protest for Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. He then proceeded to bomb Baghdad. Not one protest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

We also know that not one protest was made when Clinton awarded at least FOUR no bid contracts to Halliburton in the 90s. At least FOUR and no protests. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Not to mention the fact that Gitmo is still open and that was one of......oh 100 promises Obama broke. It is still open, and I do not see code stink protesting like we did for 7 years under Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE


The fact that the left went ape shit over those issues (wmds and Guantanamo) and the fact they are silent as hell when the democrats propagated wmds (and voted for the war) and the fact that Guantanamo is still open says what to you?

I will tell you, as you contemplate. It means the left wing voting base stand for nothing. That is what it means. Even when the left holds loud protests. Most of them if not all of them see that as yet another opportunity to pay lip service and show up to where the parties are.

That is pretty much it. How am I wrong?

Sigh.

You're playing the game aren't you?

 

[Theowl32]

I do not see any conservative defending the crimes of republicans. I never have. That is if they are crimes at all.

For example, the fact that the left claims Bush lied about wmds in order to get a war to pay off Halliburton. That would be a crime, and yet it is totally untrue.

If it was a lie, then the lie came from the left, since indeed it was the left that propagated WMDs in Iraq before Bush ever took office. Yet, I cannot remember any left wing asshole holding protest after protest for Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. He then proceeded to bomb Baghdad. Not one protest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

We also know that not one protest was made when Clinton awarded at least FOUR no bid contracts to Halliburton in the 90s. At least FOUR and no protests. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Not to mention the fact that Gitmo is still open and that was one of......oh 100 promises Obama broke. It is still open, and I do not see code stink protesting like we did for 7 years under Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE


The fact that the left went ape shit over those issues (wmds and Guantanamo) and the fact they are silent as hell when the democrats propagated wmds (and voted for the war) and the fact that Guantanamo is still open says what to you?

I will tell you, as you contemplate. It means the left wing voting base stand for nothing. That is what it means. Even when the left holds loud protests. Most of them if not all of them see that as yet another opportunity to pay lip service and show up to where the parties are.

That is pretty much it. How am I wrong?

Sigh.

You're playing the game aren't you?

It is hard isn't it? To find out all of those things you probably did not know, cause the praetorian media that you watch and insulates everything democratic did not inform you of those things?

Which broken promise of Obama bothers you the most? Any of them? If none of the broken promises bother you, then why don't you tell me what you stand for exactly.

Your little obfuscation from those things that causes your cognitive dissonance is pretty telling.

Don't worry. You can achieve your cognitive consonance by ignoring those things, call me a knuckle dragging mouth breather, suck down some hippy smoke by burning some hippy lettuce and make yourself feel good.

You will be just fine. How much money is coming your way from your trust fund anyway?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is hard isn't it? To find out all of those things you probably did not know, cause the praetorian media that you watch and insulates everything democratic did not inform you of those things?

Which broken promise of Obama bothers you the most? Any of them? If none of the broken promises bother you, then why don't you tell me what you stand for exactly.

Your little obfuscation from those things that causes your cognitive dissonance is pretty telling.

Don't worry. You can achieve your cognitive consonance by ignoring those things, call me a knuckle dragging mouth breather, suck down some hippy smoke by burning some hippy lettuce and make yourself feel good.

You will be just fine. How much money is coming your way from your trust fund anyway?

Someone asked me to talk about how things would change under Obama once he'd won the election. I said it wouldn't change. It'd all be the same.
Promises by a president are like a prostitute telling you she loves you. You can dismiss them straight away, as long as you know this, then what's the problem?

I didn't listen to Bush's promises, Obama's promises, Clinton's promises.

But you seem to be telling to open my eyes by keeping my eyes on what THEY want you to keep your eyes on, and not the truth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bush this, Reagan that. You can't hold Obama responsible for doing the same thing. You're a hypocrite, wierdo.

Please, try not to play me for a fool.

Wow, hold on a minute.

I'm not the one claiming Bush and Reagan are traitors. I'm saying according to your logic you must be saying they are traitors.

So how is it I'm a hypocrite? I ask you for a definition, you give one, and then I use your definition to find Bush and Reagan meet your requirements for a traitor.

I'm not playing your for a fool, I'm showing you what your definition means. You don't like it, change your definition.

LOL. Just... LOL.

Where in this entire thread have I ever said those two men were traitors? Your false attribution of my argument is duly noted.

 

[editec]

Treason is a LEGAL TERM.

Calling the leaders of the nation traitors (even if you hate them) is just silly.

BETRAYERS might fit better.


Traitors doesn't.

 

[Theowl32]

Treason is a LEGAL TERM.

Calling the leaders of the nation traitors (even if you hate them) is just silly.

BETRAYERS might fit better.


Traitors doesn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL. Just... LOL.

Where in this entire thread have I ever said those two men were traitors? Your false attribution of my argument is duly noted.

Funding terrorists for example? Namely the Muslim Brotherhood? What about giving tanks and jets to the Egyptians? You're kidding right?

You said funding terrorists is being a traitor, right?

Did Reagan fund Iran and Iraq, both of whom you might equate with being "terrorist nations"?
Certainly they became the "axis of evil".

What I'm doing, and I thought it was quite clear, is taking your definition, and putting it on other situations. So no, you didn't say this directly, but indirectly.

It's a way of trying to get people to think about their own views. I often try and do it. If I think something, I compare it. It helps me to be more consistent.

So, would you say that Reagan funding two countries like Iran and Iraq is a traitor of the US or not?
Would you say funding the future Taliban ( the Mujaheddin) also makes him a traitor?

Or do you think this is justified?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Only he won't.

There have been far more corrupt presidents. Nixon will be considered quite corrupt. There was a president in the 1800s who gave all positions he could to his friends.

You just want this to be the case, but it won't happen.

 

[Theowl32]

LOL. Just... LOL.

Where in this entire thread have I ever said those two men were traitors? Your false attribution of my argument is duly noted.

Funding terrorists for example? Namely the Muslim Brotherhood? What about giving tanks and jets to the Egyptians? You're kidding right?

You said funding terrorists is being a traitor, right?

Did Reagan fund Iran and Iraq, both of whom you might equate with being "terrorist nations"?
Certainly they became the "axis of evil".

What I'm doing, and I thought it was quite clear, is taking your definition, and putting it on other situations. So no, you didn't say this directly, but indirectly.

It's a way of trying to get people to think about their own views. I often try and do it. If I think something, I compare it. It helps me to be more consistent.

So, would you say that Reagan funding two countries like Iran and Iraq is a traitor of the US or not?
Would you say funding the future Taliban ( the Mujaheddin) also makes him a traitor?

Or do you think this is justified?

Here we go again. Break out the hippy left wing script, and break out the old.....

ARMS FOR HOSTAGES thing.

Yeah, must be difficult for the left to accept their liar in chief. Then again, many of them know what he is doing and that is why they are behind him in actuality.

 

[natstew]

I do not see any conservative defending the crimes of republicans. I never have. That is if they are crimes at all.

For example, the fact that the left claims Bush lied about wmds in order to get a war to pay off Halliburton. That would be a crime, and yet it is totally untrue.

If it was a lie, then the lie came from the left, since indeed it was the left that propagated WMDs in Iraq before Bush ever took office. Yet, I cannot remember any left wing asshole holding protest after protest for Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs. He then proceeded to bomb Baghdad. Not one protest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

We also know that not one protest was made when Clinton awarded at least FOUR no bid contracts to Halliburton in the 90s. At least FOUR and no protests. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Not to mention the fact that Gitmo is still open and that was one of......oh 100 promises Obama broke. It is still open, and I do not see code stink protesting like we did for 7 years under Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE


The fact that the left went ape shit over those issues (wmds and Guantanamo) and the fact they are silent as hell when the democrats propagated wmds (and voted for the war) and the fact that Guantanamo is still open says what to you?

I will tell you, as you contemplate. It means the left wing voting base stand for nothing. That is what it means. Even when the left holds loud protests. Most of them if not all of them see that as yet another opportunity to pay lip service and show up to where the parties are.

That is pretty much it. How am I wrong?

Sigh.

You're playing the game aren't you?

"Playing the game"? That's your response? You're really dumb!!

 

[Theowl32]

Only he won't.

There have been far more corrupt presidents. Nixon will be considered quite corrupt. There was a president in the 1800s who gave all positions he could to his friends.

You just want this to be the case, but it won't happen.

Nixon? He got caught spying on like five democrats. You pathetic hypocrites reaction to that...........

Obama is guilty of all these things......

1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama's house in Hyde Park, Ill. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

2. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election.

3. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.

4. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.

5. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.

6. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.

7. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.

8. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.

9. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.

10. Fast And Furious Scam, The Administrations cover-up of guns sales to Mexican drug lords that lead to the death of an American citizen Brian Terry. The House voted to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for contempt of Congress due to the cover up and refusal to release documents by the Obama administration and Holders office.

Congress Unconscionably Silent on Obama's Constitutional Crimes - Reason.com

What is the reaction of the left?

The fact that they do not find that pathetic, is beyond ridiculous.

Hence, our liberties being ripped away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here we go again. Break out the hippy left wing script, and break out the old.....

ARMS FOR HOSTAGES thing.

Yeah, must be difficult for the left to accept their liar in chief. Then again, many of them know what he is doing and that is why they are behind him in actuality.

Trying to attack again. Jeez. It's ridiculous.

I'm telling you that you're playing the game, and every damn time all you do is come back with more of the game.

Have you read what I've written at all? Or do you just look for the bits that fit into the guidebook so that you can just try and make some kind of attack.

I'm not interested in the whole rep v. dem bullshoes attacking. I say what I see. I see both sides are corrupt. But if I'm talking to someone on the right I'm not going to tell them what they already believe. That doesn't do anything.

I want people to see what they're doing. Do you see it or not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nixon? He got caught spying on like five democrats. You pathetic hypocrites reaction to that...........


Hence, our liberties being ripped away.

I'll reply to these two parts. Can't be bothered with the rest.

Yes, Nixon got caught, he got put up for impeachment and he resigned.
The last president forced out of office by someone other than the electorate. History sees that. History judges that.
I don't know how history will judge Obama. Probably as a run of the mill president who made his two terms, didn't do anything seriously wrong, struggled with the recession. That's about it. Oh, and the first black president is what he'll be known as.

Bush will be the guy who went to wars and caused a recession.

Clinton will be the guy who liked the ladies.

Bush senior will be the guy who became president because he was VP and that's about it.

If you want to claim that Obama will be seen as the most corrupt, you're going to have to make a good argument, and I've said this before, possibly to you, i don't remember, and it simply hasn't even been argued, let alone done well.


As for liberties being ripped away. They are. By who? By the two parties who have a monopoly over the US.

And what's your response to this? "It's the dems' fault", and the dems' response is "it's the reps' fault"

Great, it's all a game. It's BOTH THEIR FAULT.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are they those who believe the federal government has overwhelming authority, or those who believe the only way to save America is to burn the government to the ground? Or are they those who don't care and are satisfied so long as they can play video games and have ready access to social media?
Personally, the traitors are those who justify a government eager to become a tyranny by manipulating the Constitution to justify them breaking it.

LOL, best practice a bit more if your goal is to be hired to do push/pull polls***


A Push Pool Poll is a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL. Just... LOL.

Where in this entire thread have I ever said those two men were traitors? Your false attribution of my argument is duly noted.

Funding terrorists for example? Namely the Muslim Brotherhood? What about giving tanks and jets to the Egyptians? You're kidding right?

You said funding terrorists is being a traitor, right?

Did Reagan fund Iran and Iraq, both of whom you might equate with being "terrorist nations"?
Certainly they became the "axis of evil".

What I'm doing, and I thought it was quite clear, is taking your definition, and putting it on other situations. So no, you didn't say this directly, but indirectly.

It's a way of trying to get people to think about their own views. I often try and do it. If I think something, I compare it. It helps me to be more consistent.

So, would you say that Reagan funding two countries like Iran and Iraq is a traitor of the US or not?
Would you say funding the future Taliban ( the Mujaheddin) also makes him a traitor?

Or do you think this is justified?

You've never read the Tower Commission report have you? Reagan didn't sell anything to anyone. His staff worked under his nose to get weapons to the contras. He was never charged nor implicated for any wrongdoing.

So what was that about me calling Reagan a traitor? He isn't.