“It depends on what your definition of ‘traitor’ is.”

When The Guardian and The Washington Post published their articles on Edward Snowden, his sharing classified material on top-secret NSA programs including the PRISM surveillance program with them, the immediate response from many public figures was a dichomty.  Some called him a hero while others labeled him a traitor.  At the time I thought giving him the title “hero” was a bit too hyperbolic but I do admit to being on his side.  I was glad to have had him expose such an egregious violation of protections afforded every citizen under Amendment IV no matter they were passed by Congress, enacted by the signature of the President and a judge okayed the whole.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano opines, “That may make it legal but it does not make it Constitutional.”  The lastest revelation about America’s surveillance of China has me turning my opinion, it is one thing to tell us what our government is doing to us, an entirely different matter to discuss intelligence gathering from other nations, the hows, whos and whys.

But almost before this information was made public, many people including any number of elected officials were deeming what Snowden did as traitorous.  On June 11 when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopolous, Speaker of the House John Boehner what he thought of Snowden, Boehner didn’t wait for the end of the question before spitting out “He’s a traitor,” the indignant tone and the anger on his face evident.  I only make note because he has this opinion formed right quick while we are still waiting for him to stop dragging his feet and set up a Special Select Committee to investigate the Administration’s transgressions on Benghazi, the IRS, EPA, now we can add the NSA.

There are too many committees of jurisdiction to do the investigations justice, but for some reason, Boehner continues to hold off his House colleagues who have requested just such a committee.  Snowden may be a traitor for revealing classified information, especially in the manner he did.  But how less a violation did the president commit the night of September 11, 2012 when he was informed of the armed assault on the Benghazi compound, sovereign U.S. soil, yet he did no more than attempt a hand-off to Secretary Panetta and then left the room to speak with no one, check up on the situation with no one all night?  Why are we here nine months later with no detail as to where he went or even why he left in the first place?  Where is Boehner’s curiosity, to put it mildly?

Now we have revealed to us that there are seventy Republican members of the House who are demanding of Boehner a conference meeting on the upcoming bill regarding the immigration legislation.  Some of them have let it be known that apparently a deal was struck between Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama that first a bill will be brought to the Floor,  then once it passes a conference committee will be formed to have the language comport with the language of the Senate bill. When that comes back to the House for Final Passage all the Democrats will vote “yea” along the Republicans necessary, the committee chairmen who wish to keep that position and anyone else who is threatened to lose some committee assignment he wishes to keep will vote “yea” as well, the legislation will pass and be signed by Obama.  Legislation that has already had the amendment to secure the border first before any amnesty is offered was defeated in the Senate; all the members of the so-called “Gang of Eight” voted against it.  So much for Marco Rubio and his protestations as to how he would not support a bill that did not secure the border first.  An unsecure border is not about Mexicans; how many nefarious people from other countries, Saudi Arabia, included, are waltzing in through the wide open Southern door?  Is there not some manner of traitorous behavior with this whole procedure?

It depends on what your definition of ‘traitor’ is.