At Some Point Dissent Becomes Treason

Pat Dollard:

"Not all Dissent is Treason, but all Treason is Dissent. This proves, finally and unquestionably, that not all Dissent is good.

This also proves, finally and unquestionably, that Dissent can indeed rise to the level of Treason.

This proves, finally and unquestionably, that not all Dissent need be tolerated by Americans.

This proves, finally and unquestionably, that we have the right to protect ourselves against certain forms of Dissent. To the fullest limit."

I believe it's completely fair for us to question the level to which the dissent against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq has risen in the Democratic Party. As pointed out above, just because it's dissent doesn't mean it's good for the country. And at some point it does indeed become Treason. People treat dissent as if ALL dissent is justified, warranted, and should be defended as a right. Not if that right impairs the well-being of our government. Our Constitution offers no protection for such acts. Americans should be keen to defend themselves against such actions.

trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] –noun

1.	the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.	a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3.	the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

"...Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government."

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The Democrats should consider this while they continually try to undermine the well-being of the Executive Branch of the government of this country. They should also consider how their actions serve to provide aid to our enemies and promote their goals.

Democrats Institute Treason As Official Party Policy

See the link above and draw your own conclusions.

John Stewart vs. John Bolton on Politics in Washington

Jon Stewart vs. John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, on the Daily Show.  Quite a different exchange than we usually see on the Daily Show.  But Bolton does a very good job of presenting his points on politics in Washington and refuting Stewart’s assertions.  Bolton puts the US Attorney crisis in a much more lucid light.

UPI Reporter Describes What's Really Going on in Iraq

Recently, UPI defense correspondant Pam Hess made a trip to Iraq. She spent time in Ramadi, Baghdad, Basra, Haditha, and Barwanah. C-SPAN recently held an hour-long interview with her on her experiences there. She is very candid about her experiences there. This is probably the most honest view of what’s going on in Iraq I’ve seen. Unfortunately, this will never make the news.

Below is a 10 minute excerpt from the interview from YouTube. You can find the entire interview on C-SPAN’s website by clicking here, and scrolling down to 3/9/2007. There will be a video titled: Pamela Hess, United Press International, Defense Correspondent. Optionally, you can also use the search feature at the C-SPAN link to search for “Pamela Hess”.

Video: Ted Koppel talks sense on Iraq

Ted Koppel was on Meet the Press over the weekend and had some very lucid things to say about the War on Terror and Iraq. I agree with Mr. Koppel 100%. I don’t think he could be any more correct in his statements. And I think he’s telling a message that really needs to be heard in this country – particularly in Congress.

Koppel: If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didn’t connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This war’s already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.

Here’s the link to the video at Hotair.

Government vs. Business

Recent bad experiences with the Post Office have sort of driven home the point of how business is better than government. After making a complaint that apparently my mail person was taking a couple of extra days off every week (or at least going past my house) - I got a response that just oozed nonchalance from their official dispute division. The problem was really pissing me off because - it created unnatural delays in my child support payments. That affects my kid and that REALLY pisses me off. Nothing like coming home to check the mail and seeing the envelope I placed in there the night before still sitting there with the flag still up and visible from 1/2 mile away. I could clearly see the flag sticking up on my mailbox as I turned onto my street. Now imagine coming home the next day TO IT STILL SITTING THERE. Once or twice - I would probably have just let this go. And if it wasn't child support payments sitting in there, I probably wouldn't have cared too much either. But when this started going on pretty regular and after 3 incidents of finding child support payments still sitting in my mailbox over a couple month period I'd finally had enough. Eventually I ended up just going out of my way to stick those payments in the slot at the post office to ensure they were properly mailed. After complaining a few more times - to the local post office directly and through their official channels - I eventually just gave up. I got excuses and even charges that perhaps *I* was in the wrong somehow. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have been the case if it were UPS or FedEx. It's not like I can call the Better Business Bureau or anything. What are they gonna do. It's the freaking Postal Service. I can call my Congressman. There's a reassuring thought.

Government is a necessary evil. But it is still that: an evil. There is nothing inherently good about it in my book. Government does not lead us down the path to roses and daisies. No government ever has or ever will in my book. Government is power. And power corrupts. There are checks and balances within the government itself. But the more power we give the government and the bigger they get, the less checks and balances they have with The People themselves. They are, for most purposes - unchecked in that regard anymore. It's government agencies being watched by... other government agencies. Each with their own agenda.

Anyone who's been in the military or knows people in the military will tell you about the military bureaucracy and all it's evils. There is the fun of medicare and medicaid - know anybody on those programs? Ever TRY to get on those programs? How about a pleasant trip to the DMV or your local tax office. The IRS is a fine example of power run amok. Then there's the CIA. Quite a list on those guys at this point. Know any farmers? Farmers will tell you hours worth of fun stories dealing with various government entities there. Talk about a publicly funded runaround. And the VA. We've seen those stories recently. And I'll save some suspense there: the problems won't go away on Bush's watch. Nor the next guy's (or gal's - whichever). In fact I'd be terribly surprised if the VA is ever "fixed." I truly would. Sure some changes will be made but after a while people will forget and it will be no better than it was last year or 10 years ago.

Ever call the city to get something done? How long does that take? Or does it even happen at all? Need some levies fixed? No but at least the governor gets a much needed office renovation, right? I really shouldn't have to mention public schools but I might as well. It's great when you have it out with school officials only for them to basically tell you they know far better than you how to raise your own kid. What are you going to do? Move? What if the next district is just as bad? Move again? It's a monopoly. But it's the good kind of monopoly (???). Sure there are private schools - that cost money. Which is great because the public schools get your money anyway - they just don't have to deal with your kid then.

I'm sure someone (or someones) will try and convince me that despite these things government is indeed good. Really? Good? Better than going to Staples or Home Depot? I dunno... I'm skeptical about the whole "government good, business bad" thing. Maybe Staples and Home Depot have been taking me out on golf outings or flying me on private planes to win me over or something.

Or maybe it's because free enterprise actually works. And government is well - the opposite of that. If you compare a service from business versus a similar service from government - I would bet that business yields you better performance and better service every time. Why? Because there is incentive for them to improve on those things to attract and retain customers. Competition in the marketplace drives innovation and efficiency. Government's objective is to simply provide a service. That's it. Congress creates the service, the people pay for it, and someone provides it. End of story. The incentive just isn't there. Government services are allowed to exist regardless of performance in nearly all cases. For businesses, service and efficiency are a matter of life or death. That is unless you take away competition. Remove competition for a business and stagnation and loss of quality are sure to follow. Sounds just like the government to me.

The Constitution, Jefferson, the ACLU, and the Danbury Baptist Assocation

The ACLU is not a public service. They are an agenda driven private organization that does pick and choose its battles to set precedent and steer public policy.

In this recent article, you have this quote:

"Dixie County essentially thumbed its nose at the Constitution," said Glenn Katon, regional director for the ACLU's Central Florida office. "We were shaking the trees for a plaintiff."

The ACLU has a very sordid history in this country going all the way back to its founder, Roger Baldwin. Without going into a detailed account of all these things, I invite readers to perform their own research on the subject.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

-Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU

The ACLU will use their interpretation of the First Amendment to remove Christianity from as much of the public light as they can. This despite rampant references to God and Christianity by our Founding Fathers in the creation of this nation and indeed in the very running of this nation. The Founding Fathers never said to limit Christianity in public or by public officials. The Founding Fathers did indeed engage in the very activities the ACLU denounces as unconstitutional. They merely instructed Congress not to make any laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I also suggest reading the discourse that went on between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association where the infamous "wall of separation between church and state" reference comes from. The Library of Congress has a great section on religion in the early days of our nation and it has Jefferson's letter amongst other things listed there. The Danbury Baptist leter is here. Jefferson's letter directly is here.

In the letter sent to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptist Association stated their position:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals - That no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions. That the legitimate power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour.

Jefferson apparently labored over his response. As is made clear by his notes on his letter to the Danbury Baptists as originally drafted.

Of note here are these comments made at the Library of Congress's website:

The draft of the letter reveals that, far from dashing it off as a "short note of courtesy," as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. Jefferson consulted Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts while drafting the letter. That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.

A good article explaining the politics of the day that plagued Jefferson and the reason for his labor over his response to the Danbury Baptists is explained in an article at the Library of Congress.

Despite the contemporary political tone of his letter to the Danburys, his letter - or rather, the one phrase from that letter - is used as a herald to indicate the original meaning and intent of the Founding Fathers behind the First Amendment. I would suggest that this interpretation - and indeed the use of his particular letter to such ends - not only besmirches the Individual Rights which our Constitution provides, but it also takes out of context the discourse between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association and it does not take into account the political atmosphere of Jefferson's Presidency and his apparent use of this letter to address some of those politics.

As noted in the book, The ACLU Vs. America: exposing the agenda to redefine moral values, Craig Osten and Alan Sears spell out some of the ACLU's actions against Christian organizations and public Christianity. You can use Google Book Search to view part of the chapter on ACLU vs. Religion here. The following are some of the highlighted cases noted in the chapter:

The ACLU fought to force Catholic Charities to provide contraception coverage to women in any group health plan offered to its employees - regardless of the Catholic position on contraception and regardless that Catholic Charities is obviously a private organization.

The ACLU backed a lawsuit filed against the Salvation Army because of its employment requirement of divulging religious affiliation and accepting its Christian mission.

The ACLU fought Yeshiva University, and conservative Jewish university, for not allowing two lesbians to live in married student housing. Again, despite the religious position of the private university.

The ACLU seems to be more interested in eroding religious liberty than preserving it. They do this by taking to task those who have certain religious beliefs and forcing them to accept secular standards. They use the powers of the state to enforce these beliefs. By doing so, they are working to provide freedom from religion - not freedom of religion. Instead, I'd argue that these are steps toward a government sanctified religion of atheism - not religious freedom.

It's important for us to understand our religious heritage. Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of a foundation of government built on the notion that human beings have certain "inalienable rights" that do not come from the ideas of man, but that are "endowed by our Creator." Since these rights come from our Creator and not the opinions of a group of men, it is not for other men to alter or take those rights away. Our nation was built upon a foundation of Christian principles. And Christianity was a significant part of our government during the times of our Founding Fathers. We should not selectively choose the parts of the founding of this country as we see fit - but view it as a whole.

I would suggest here that some of the woes that plague our society now stem from the adoption of "secular wisdom" over religious principles.

It's interesting to note that a few days after penning the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives.

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof - Lev. XXV, v. x. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pensylvania [sic] for the State House in Philada." -Inscription on the Liberty Bell containing a quote from Leviticus 25:10

Here are some additional quotes from Jefferson as listed here.

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546

Note: This article was originally published on Newsvine.

The Contrast of Support: 1998-2005