Posted on 06/20/2004 3:44:23 AM PDT by Elkiejg
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:16:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
When did the right to freedom of speech trump the crime of treason? According to Section 3 of the Constitution, treason against the United States shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Corrected posting
We need to use it.
Now.
I agree. Now, if the powers-that-be would take time out of their busy schedules to actually declare war, I think we can actually get serious about this business.
It's amazing what can happen if the government goes to "war" rather than a "conflict"."police action", or "mission".
I agree
Bit slow, aren't we?The media continue to spin to the public that we are losing the war. This is helping convince the mainstream that by going to Iraq we became enveloped in a quagmire, which in turn, undermines public confidence and support for our efforts and our current president. The media promote their agenda and that of the terrorists to encourage the election of the "Not Bush" candidate while putting our country at greater risk for the success of terrorism.
The fundamental truth of the First Amendment is that journalists are fully entitled to push their own agendas. Note the plural, "agendas." Indeed Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored newspapers in which to conduct their partisan battles against each other.Treason has become so acceptable the Democratic candidate for president may be said to have committed it back in 1970 when he conducted a meeting with North Vietnamese communists. Laws forbid private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers.The scandal is not that journalists participate in politics, the scandal is that we-the-people sucker for the con that journalism is something other than politics. We imbibed it with our mothers' milk, but the conceit that journalists are, or should be, objective is based solely on the propaganda power of America's PR Establishment.
And journalism can be spoken of as a single entity - indeed, as The Establishment - precisely because journalists have in America formed a well-defined cabal around the notion that competition among them does not extend to questions of what is important.
That cabal coheres because it defines "What is important" in terms of the self-interest of its membership. That is, the journalistic establishment conflates "what is important" with "what will sell newspapers." And it coheres in the principle that "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the carload" applies to people who indeed buy ink by the carload themselves. It is the principle of avoiding flame wars - avoiding bad PR.
Since what sells newspapers best is what people are afraid not to read, "What is important" is what makes the public feel insecure. Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is like a raft. It won't sink, but your feet are always wet." The PR Establishment of journalism is not interested in the ineluctable flotation of the raft but only in the wetness of the feet of its passengers.
The con of the journalism establishment is that journalism is objective; the the establishment excludes anyone who breaks its consensus with a PR campaign to the effect that the miscreant is "not objective, not a journalist."
But the effect of claiming objectivity is to claim wisdom. If you start from the premise that you are wise, then the truth of any proposition follows directly from the fact that you have stated that it is true. That saves a great deal of the difficult work known as, "thinking."
But openly making such a nakedly circular argument would convince very few people, and anyone who seriously considers the case must realize that it is not the self-identified "objective" person but the person who admits the existence of an identifiable perspective in his own thinking whose speech and writing is least likely to be misleading. The term "philosophy" was coined precisely to distinguish the person who pursued wisdom from the "sophist" who merely claimed wisdom.
But then, sophistry allows you to prove anything. Why then should journalism have any difficulty promoting the traitor as the patriot?Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
This is a great post. Thanks for it. This message needs to get out and people need to understand it.
The parasitic media dogs are well beyond reporting. They have no right to interfere with military operations and troop morale (hey - we kicked Geraldo out of Iraq, and nothing horrible happened as a result).
Since the NYT/etc. isn't interested in "co-operation", censorship is the only alternative unless masses of us decline to buy their stinking papers. Unfortunately, in our squishy society, neither is likely to happen.
We are truly in a war ........
Those who don't believe in war deny there is a war. The issue of war or no war was settled in the 70's.... there shall be no more war, thus today there is no war. The belief in no-war trumps the belief in war. All the current activity involving the military is misguided political activity, it is not war. The belief in no-war is part of the utopian religon of liberalism. Religous fanatics will not accetpt reason nor will they accept any other view.
The left is truly a propblem. Refusing to defend against deadly attack and taking an active role to discredit or bring harm to those who do places the nation in a very bad situation.
The following was e mailed to most of the writers at the Kingsport Times News on 06/18/04
The Kingsport Times news is complicit in the traitorous actions of the Associated Press to force the antiwar bias and propaganda into the homes of America to gain a political advantage.
The leftwing Associated Press daily provides aid and comfort to America’s enemies in the war by focusing only on news considered harmful to the war effort and by carefully hiding news of any events in Iraq it finds harmful to the doom and gloom antiwar agenda. The AP is the enemy of the American cause of peace and freedom. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is no different from providing guns and bullets. An AP article kills just like an RPG.
By publishing the unedited AP propaganda and by refusing to find and publish accounts by sources devoid of antiwar sentiments, the Kingsport Times News has degenerated into a propaganda tool of those who oppose the war against terrorism.
Employees of the Times News should be ashamed for their part in killing American Soldiers in Iraq. As purveyors of antiwar propaganda and by encouraging America’s enemies to kill Americans, the Times News and those associated with it have blood of brave American troops on their hands.
AP Bad news sells papers while selling America out.
Citizens Coalition For Responsible Media
www.FairPress.org
Your comments are sooo true; but why do most "journalists" and other media types hate the U.S.? I cannot get my mind around their thought processes. Is it that they hate the idea that regular folks have too much power under a system of individual liberty? Are they after more power for themselves? Or is the groupthink so strong that they have never learned to think for themselves?
Excellent, and for me, a real eye-opener.
Anyone got any pics of NANCY SALVATO. LOL
I also think they have a distorted sense of morality, partly because they're lead by groupthink, partly because they are intellectually lazy, and partly because they're not as intelligent as one would wish them to be.
Part of this groupthink is "internationalism", which means that one's concerns include all of the people of the world, not just Americans. We all share this to one extent or another, and we should. However, American "Liberals" translate this into anti-Americanism.
They probably believe that they are liberal in their thinking and that their imagination and open-mindedness bring all the people of the world into the scope of their concern, and there is a degree of liberalism in this.
However, the "Liberalism" that plagues the U.S. today has little or nothing to do with liberalism. It is itself enslaved to groupthink, to control, to iconiclasm, and to tyrrany. It is a form of decadence.
The anti-Americanism of the American "newsmedia" is an expression of this decadence.
"Internationalists" reject the idea that the U.S. is a benevolent nation or that Western Civilization is uniquely superior to other cultures that have developed in the world.
They also seek accomodation and common ground with leaders outside the U.S., and this brings them into anti-American conspiracy with some of the most brutal and tyrranical people and regimes the world has ever known.
These people are horribly misguided. They also tend to be self-congratulatory and hubritic.
Many of them do hate the U.S.
Many are in a habit of criticizing and denigrating the U.S. and American values and lack the wit or the energy to stop doing it.
And many lack the courage to come into conflict with the "internationalist", anti-American point of view of the "media" establishment.
I had a mildly interesting discussion with a woman lawyer not long ago.
She had been reading some of Winston Churchill's writings, and she claimed that history was repeating itself, that President Bush was the contemporary incarnation of Adolf Hitler, and that somebody-or-other was Winston Churchill out there shouting warnings.
I pointed out to her that the parallels are there, all right, but that President Bush is a contemporary Winston Churchill, standing up to the 21st century recrudescence of Naziism, viz. Islamofascism.
Well! She fizzled and blustered, got hysterical, and had a nervous breakdown, and then the truth came out.
She had just been to an "internationalist" convention, where she met people from Third World countries, who were strongly anti-American and critical of Americans. She was embarrassed to be an American and to receive their criticism.
It did no good to explain that such people were concerned about their own interests, not hers, not mine, and not those of the American people, and had an agenda of their own--or to explain the realities of the contemporary international situation, the courage of President Bush, or the similarities between him and Winston Churchill or between the Islamofascists and the Nazis of the Third Reich. It didn't sink in.
When I left her, she was all in a tizzy...didn't know where to go...what to think...what do do... Oh! It was just awful!
What's really awful is having to deal with people who are not very smart.
I think she and her husband are FReepers. I just can't remember Frank Salvato's screen name. He is an excellent editorial writer too.
The problem with censorship here, however, is that this "war" has no defined exit point. Unlike fighting Japan, or Germany, when we knew that when they surrendered the war was over -- when do we finish this one? Will it be 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Now imagine the DemonRats in office (it is inevitable) with the full legal power of censorship. And don't think censorship won't mean shutting down websites -- LIKE THIS ONE!!!
During WWII the disease of liberalism had not infected out national political scene to the extent found in the sixties and seventies. Today, the disease is a raging infection and the democrat party is the major vector for the disease. Time for epidemic eradication ... time to purge the political ranks of liberal fecal material like Ayatollah Teddy, Feckless Kerry, Panzies Pelicanosi, and Li'l Tommy Daschle, the little emperor of liberalization for the court system. Time to relegate the Dungheap Harkins and Brainless Bidens to the retirement they deserve and freshen the democrat party gene pool.
The current democrat leadership have loudly and with great manipulation defended partial birth infanticide in order to have devoted cosntituencies invested of dehumanizing all human beings prior to birth. The current democrat leadership has proven with their rhetoric and hate-mongering that they put party empowerment above national safety.
I personally believe a sitting president should not be open for civil suits while in office, but fair game for civil suits and to be held to a higher standard when out of office. That said, when Clinton lied openly to the American people, and committed obstruction of Justice to weasel out of a civil suit and public disgrace, the current leadership of the democrat party tossed the rule of law aside in order to protect their criminal democrat president! Such a party, willing to serve up the alive, sensing unborn for heinous slaughter just so they can insure votes from certain liberal constituencies is showing signs of putrefaction!
When a political party feels OK with setting aside the rule of law in order to protect a lying, sexual degenerate, obstructer of our Justice system, that party is showing signs of contempt for our founding principles. When a political party goes out of their way to slander and aid enemies with whom our Nation is at war for its survival, that political party is committing sedition (and possibly treason) as a means to empower their vote potentials ... and without the hate these democrats monger to the masses, their efforts at sedition would be a death knell for their party, but we see what they are reaping with this sedition: declining poll numbers for Bush and rising elect-ability for their chosen candidate, regardless of his past history or his current love affair with the thoroughly corrupt United Nations.
All of this filth by the democrat party of today works to empower the democrats only because political correctness and liberalization of courts and the public media and education have brought our Nation to a high state of vulnerability to be moved from a Republic to some oligarchic form of governance that the democrat party can control. The democrat party leadership is now the greatest threat to the survival of this Republic, because their three-decades program to dumb down the voting populace while making ever larger segments of the population dependent upon what the central government controls and doles has prepared this nation for self-destruction from within ... and the leftist, liberal whore media has the propaganda power, unobstructed, to control what the average citizen thinks is the truth. The democrat party is the party of well aimed lies and indefensible defense of infanticide. Time for them to go!
Ping, my friend, if you're interested.
I call it treason!
So we have now a war on two fronts: abroad and at home against the terrorists, and at home against the seditionists.
So we have now a war on two fronts: abroad and at home against the terrorists, and at home against the seditionists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.