Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. - The American Heritage Dictionary

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. - Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

Words are like living things. They come into vogue, get bandied about, become part of the zeitgeist, lose their power due to overuse, and then fade away again, rarely mentioned, like an urn of ashes on the fireplace mantle. It seems the word treason is like that.

During the Bush Administration it was used non-stop, sometimes for the most mundane things. Liberals accused Bush and his cronies of treason for their heinous mismanagement of the wars in the Middle East. Conservatives accused liberals of treason for ... well ... being liberal (that was the entire thesis of a book by Ann Coulter). Some conservatives didn't explicitly say "treason", but declared any criticism of Bush during wartime to be "aiding and abetting the enemy". The inference was clear.

Now that Obama is president, the word "treason" is almost never heard. Perhaps it's time to perform an etymological voodoo ritual and resurrect it, considering the actions of some elected officials, those who are actually members of government.

President Lincoln famously pardoned of treason those who attempted secession. It seems obvious then that the leaders of a state which tries to secede from the union would be committing treason. What then to make of Texas governor Rick Perry who has suggested just that?

Of course, this is just talk, and until he actually takes action it's not actually committing treason, but it seems as though he is advocating it. Where is the criticism? Why doesn't the media use the "T" word?

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is a completely different animal. He has compared the U.S. to Germany before WWII and Obama to Hitler. One sort of expects that from pundits, but from a sitting U.S. Senator? He's also famous for saying that if Republicans can stop health care legislation, it would "break" President Obama. Again, this from a Senator? One can only imagine the outrage from the Republicans and the right-wing media if this were a Democratic Senator saying the same things about a Republican President. There are plenty of our enemies that likely find "aid and comfort" (especially during "wartime") in these statements and desires by DeMint.

Most damning of all, though, is recently breaking story about DeMint and Honduras. In a nutshell:

DeMint is trying to go to Honduras and meet with the government and leaders that the U.S. has officially stated are not the leaders of that country. He is directly trying to undermine and go against the official stated position of the U.S. State Department. Considering that the U.S. officially supports the ousted government, the usurpers there can be called an enemy of the state, whom DeMint is trying to support and legitimize.

That falls squarely under the definition of treason.

Will the Democrats call it what it is? No. Will the media call it what it is? No (other than Rachel Maddow on her show last night). Will he suffer ANYTHING AT ALL for purposely trying to subvert our government? Perhaps... There are already two Democratic challengers for his seat, which is up for election in 2010. One can only hope that they will call him out for his treasonous actions. Considering that the first shots of the Civil War were fired in South Carolina though, I fear the voters there will consider DeMint's treason an honorable action.