Posted on 12/25/2006 8:07:03 PM PST by Max01
When Dissent Becomes Sedition By Jim Simpson FrontPageMagazine.com | May 28, 2003
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. … He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist." -- Cicero
Times like these focus the mind. The confluence of events from the 9/11 "Day of Infamy" to Afghanistan and now Iraq, has given us a once-in-a-lifetime moment of national clarity. We must take from it every kernel of truth it reveals before that clarity fades with memory.
In war, people die. In some wars, nations die. War, preparations for war and measures to prevent war are the most serious business a nation can conduct. All else is subordinate. The environmentalists would say it’s the environment. Wrong. The social workers would say it’s social programs. Wrong. The health advocates would say it’s health policy. Wrong. The anti-tax crowd would say it’s lower taxes. Still wrong.
Whatever your view on these subordinate issues, as goes the nation, so they go too. Without our wealth-producing market economy, there would be no capital for environmental projects. There would be no funds for social policy. There would be no money for health initiatives or anything else. The first priority of our government must always be national defense.
Somehow, between World War II and 9/11 we forgot this.
Despite the many cries in the wilderness from professionals in the military, intelligence and security fields, we forgot the crucial value of good military and political intelligence. We forgot the absolute necessity of maintaining a top-notch fighting force. We dismissed as paranoid delusion the idea that some people are truly out to get us. We derisively ridiculed seemingly pointless security procedures required at airports and other facilities. We forgot that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Why?
Perhaps some is due to complacency borne of our geographic isolation and the fact that we have not had a shooting war on our shores for over 138 years. Absent an immediate threat, the natural human tendency is to become complacent. Also, our historical tradition has been to draw down the military after any large conflict. Our founders warned against the dangers of a standing army.
But there is much more to it than that. The political Left in this country, including people in the news media, entertainment, education, religion, think tanks (many of which are fronts for hostile foreign governments and organizations), even some past and present members of Congress and past Administrations, have over the years successfully sought to undermine both our national defense and intelligence functions – indeed the very fabric of our society – for the purpose of ultimately destroying it, all the while hiding behind the fig leaf of "free speech." In so doing, they made us vulnerable to attack from directions even they didn’t anticipate. They are still active today, but thanks to our recently revived national spirit, temporarily on the defensive.
It took 9/11 and the subsequent military action for our people to comprehend the ramifications of blinding our national eyes and ears. Today, we find ourselves asking how it got so far out of hand. Few now question the need for active intelligence gathering and a strong military. Indeed, many of those in Congress who used to criticize our intelligence agencies for being too intrusive are now asking why they are not more so. Virtually everybody claims to "support our troops."
Yet we still suffer the after-effects of long-term complacency. Anti-American activity seems like some kind of quaint rite. Radical activists are treated like celebrities. Hollywood actors boost their careers and their egos by excoriating our leaders (but they support the troops – really they do).
Over the past 30 years, members of Congress have blatantly aided and abetted enemies of our country. The outspoken Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, for example, lobbied for the release of jailed El Salvadorian FMLN terrorists during that country’s civil war. So did then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, D-CA. Instead of being investigated for her activities on behalf of communists, Nancy Pelosi has been elected by her Democratic colleagues as the House Minority Leader! Boxer went on to become a U.S. Senator.
Many congressmen made a notorious trip to Nicaragua in the 1980s to discuss ways Daniel Ortega’s communist government could counter President Ronald Reagan’s strategy there. Relatives of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, conducted business with the communist government of Angola while Kennedy himself voted against funding the Angolan anti-communist rebels we supported. Former Rep. Ron Dellums, D-CA, often bragged of his desire to dismantle U.S. intelligence "brick by brick." The charming Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, never met a leftist dictator she didn’t love. Don’t even get me started on Bill.
No one has ever challenged these blatantly seditious activities.
Instead, we congratulate ourselves for our "open-minded" tolerance of this malevolent behavior, never fully acknowledging its long-term impact. Even in Iraq, anti-American protests, obvious propaganda tactics, are casually dismissed as "free speech." But is it?
There is a fine line between legitimate protest and outright sedition. There is a fine line between our citizens’ legitimate need for privacy and the opportunity it provides conspirators to hide and plot. Concern for the former, however, provides no excuse for condoning the latter. Too often politicians have taken that excuse, and in so doing abdicated their pledge to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic .… " They choose to avoid the hard questions and tough fights. The 9/11 terrorist strike was one consequence of this. If we don’t learn, there will be more.
Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s methods against suspected American communists in the 1950s may have been wrong, but they were based on a legitimate premise, namely, that we do have enemies within.
The Army-McCarthy hearings for example, which focused in large part on spy activities at the Army Signal Corps Ft. Monmouth, NJ facility (where Julius Rosenberg had worked for a time) spelled the beginning of his downfall, when Attorney for the Army Joseph Welch posed the famous question: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" Three years later however, Congress shut down the Ft. Monmouth facility—determined to be irretrievably penetrated by Soviet agents.
Many politicians in both the Democrat and Republican parties agreed with McCarthy. One of his most ardent friends and supporters, John F. Kennedy, once expressed his outrage at a Harvard Spree Club dinner when the speaker compared McCarthy to convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss. JFK stood up, interrupting the speaker, and said: "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" He then walked out. Bobby Kennedy was minority counsel on McCarthy’s Senate investigations subcommittee staff. The Left would much prefer we didn’t remember JFK and RFK’s inconvenient anti-communism.
In part because of McCarthy’s failure, our reluctance to seriously investigate domestic subversive organizations really has its roots in this period. As noted columnist and conservative talk show host Chuck Morse relates: "The substantial power the left wielded over our government and media was on full display in the concerted campaign to stop McCarthy, who, in hindsight, has been vindicated of all charges. Politicians who would henceforth be more circumspect when investigating communist or any other subversive element in government heard the lesson of McCarthy's downfall loud and clear. Average citizens, at least subliminally conscious of the auto da fe McCarthy had been put through, would also learn to curb their criticism of the left as well."
But in those times even the communists sometimes revealed what they were up to. For example, the Soviet funded People’s Daily World newspaper explained a Hollywood studio strike thusly: "Hollywood is often called the land of Make-Believe, but there is nothing make-believe about the Battle of Hollywood being waged today…The prize will be the complete control of the greatest medium of communication in history." As Stalin said: "If I could control Hollywood, I could rule the world."
Those forces still exist in Hollywood today and at least partially explain why so many movies we see tend to have anti-American overtones. In fact, actors who want to be successful in Hollywood implicitly understand the necessity of being Politically Correct. Conservative actors attempting to get regular employment face their own "Blacklist".
Many of the organizations investigated in the 1950s have continued to thrive and grow while we have looked the other way. Seeing fertile ground, new ones have popped up.
Loyal Americans need to agree on a methodology for attacking this problem. That means bruising political battles, because some people in virtually all professional disciplines lie with the enemy and many others unknowingly support them. We have allowed them to weasel their way into positions of power that give them direct influence over measures intended to expose and stop them. Yet it has never been clearer just how dangerous these individuals and groups are.
You want to protest American policies? Fine. But if your activities serve to undermine our national security and threaten our collective future, we don’t have to tolerate it. After all, your actions are really threatening our lives. Threats like that cannot go unchallenged.
It is unfortunate that the death and destruction of a 9/11 and the untimely deaths and injuries of our young men and women in battle were needed to get our attention. But they have, at least temporarily.
So now we must seize the moment: The 9/11 victims and the troops who sacrificed all in Afghanistan and Iraq stand mute sentinel over our collective national conscience. We cannot let them down.
And there are scores of these traitors in the media and, yes even in Congress
Bump for later
Thank you for posting that.
It pretty much mirrors my opinion, but as someone who has not served in the military, I know that for many here my views lack an important sort of “credibility”.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had over a year of discussion. The summer prior all the Washington D.C. fools were prattling on and on about how the President had to have the support of Congress to attack Iraq. The President came back and gave them just what they wanted. Congress was forced to take a stand. About 75% supported removing Saddam & Co. The American public opinion was slightly less, about two to one. All the cries of censorship are B.S. This was the most hotly debated issue in the last decade.
The time to dissent is when the decision is being made. Once it's made dissent only weakens the country. We look weaker to our troops, our allies and our enemies. No good can come from that.
To me, it's like a football team before a crucial play that will determine the outcome of the game. Fourth and goal, two yard line, down by six, ten seconds left. The team takes a time out and the coaches and players decide what play to run. You, as the tight end, may decide a pass play is the only thing that will succeed. The rest of the team decides on a run. Do you then carry out your assignment and block? Or do you decide a pass was really the right call and run a pass pattern anyway? Do you bad-mouth your team's decision at the post-game press conference? Suppose you score, miss the extra point and end up in overtime (occupation). Do you keep trying your best or spend all your time in the huddle talking about how we should have run a pass play at the end of the game?
Same thing at a corporation. Perhaps you think a particular model of a product has to be offered with certain features. Your boss decides otherwise. Do you still work toward making the product a success or do you spend your days complaining about what's already been done?
You certainly have the right to dissent after the decision is made but just because something's legal doesn't make it a good idea.
Merry Christmas. Has anyone thought of the other enemy within, money.
Too many of us are running over each other, trying to make more money, while it seems to be devalued daily. At the same time, steady full time jobs are going by the wayside.
It seems that every package I opened yesterday had the same notation on it. "MADE IN CHINA".
IMO, we need to get the government out of our businesses, out of our pockets, and out of our daily lives. We need to pass along skills and remain craftsmen, not just warm bodies filling temporary jobs.
May you all have a Happy and Successful New Year. Do what you love, your God given talent, and God will provide the rest. (My new tag.)
Thanks for the correction.
Good post and analysis
There will come a tipping point, when the cost of potential legal and political retailiation is outweighed by the necessity to act to rid ourselves - if only for a time - of those domestic enemies who seek to destroy America.
I believe that we're not too distant from that point.
David Horowitz's "Unholy Alliance" is a book detailing the insidious (seditious) alliance between our enemy without (Islam) and the enemy within (the leftwing). Horowitz knows of which he speaks...he was once part of the problem.
Democracy is a fragile form of government - it is government by concensus. The fragility occurs when consensus seems to have been arrived at and yet one side doesn't accept that concensus (either an election or a decesion of policy) and continues to aggitate - the body politic is torn apart.
And so there we are...President Bush's authority was undermined from day one because of the left would not accept either of his elections (it wasn't about hanging chads) - they claimed victory in any case - no matter the vote count.
When the left successfully undermined the national will in Vietnam it experienced the glory of power and will constantly return to that glory.
Undermining the Vietnam War wasn't about saving the lives of our soldiers - it was really about the left advancing the cause of the communist regime of North Vietnam. The test of that pudding is that the left in this country found no fault with Pol Pot. That's what turned David Horowitz around.
The left is not an American phenom - it is part of a worldwide movement. It never dies....it didn't die with the downfall of the Berlin Wall, it didn't die with the topping of Lenin's statue in Russia or the downfall of the Soviet Union. It just hibernates for a while ready to be reborn and renewed. It has invaded our most cherished institutions and our most important entities.
When you watch a "protest" against a economic summit in some world capital and you see thousands of mostly young people carrying banners....ask yourself:
How did all those people suddenly materialize?
Who is paying them?
Who is paying for their transportation, food, board?
Who is paying for the signs?
How did these young people get instructed in this ideology?
How many young people do you know who spend their time thinking about world financial summits?
Where are they the rest of the time when not "protesting?"
This is all a paid-for circus -
I don't know if there is a vast right conspiracy as the junior senator from New York has said. But I do know there is an vast leftwing conspiracy - to bring down capitalism, to aid Islam if need be to do it.
And, no, the left doesn't care if Islam is victorious that the left will suffer - it doesn't care. The immediacy of power is more important.
I know that for many here my views lack an important sort of “credibility”.
Well, your bio indicates that you are "encumbered" by life experience and an uncontaminated education. Clearly you are able to think for yourself and look at things in a realistic and practical manner. Seems to me your thoughts and opinions would have credibility. Of course that is probably influenced by the fact that you agree with me.
I say YOU are wrong; Cicero was right. The fact that this nation has survived is rooted in the fact that we would NOT tolerate subversion. This nation will fail when it loses the will,the nerve to confront it.
USA was born and grew strong with many, close to most, inhabitants of this country against nearly every war we fought.
...with dissenters within, yes, but not with tolerance for enemies within. In fact, on occasion - not defending this, but noting that it was done - we relocated perceived or potential enemies, like the Japanese during WWII. You are failing to acknowledge(or purposefully ignoring?) that the key idea of this essay is the difference between dissent and sedition.
A large number and at times most colonial-era inhabitants were against the Revolution.
Many were tarred & feathered.
Our Civil War was one beloved brother "treasonous" to the other beloved brother.
And many of them died at the hands of the other...they didn't hold hands!
Again, this is not to say that we ought to relocate by racial profile, tar & feather dissenters or take arms in a civil war against political opponents. But for you to suggest that this country thrived and went merrily on its way these 200+ years without curtailing freedoms at times it was deemed necessary, without confronting the enemy within - even the wrongly-perceived enemy within - is plain ignorant.
The time to dissent is when the decision is being made. Once it's made dissent only weakens the country. We look weaker to our troops, our allies and our enemies. No good can come from that.
My apologies, but this is crap pure and simple.
If a country makes a decision that cannot withstand the dissent, then it wasn't the correct decision.
As for your football comparison - There are dissenting voices during the play - It's why quarterbacks and linemen are given authority to audible when necessary. It's why blocking assignments or pass patterns change at a moments notice, sometimes for reasons only known to a particular linemen or receiver at a particular time. Arguments happen in the huddle before the play and plays change based on the circumstances. They aren't set in stone because the defensive players aren't a bunch of robots and sometimes, s**t happens. Winning coaches teach their players not to "obey or else" they teach them to think constantly on the field, analyzing the situation constantly and remaining fluid. If everything was static, then they wouldn't bother to play the games in the first place.
In business, one of the worst things a company can do is silence dissent just because it doesn't like the message. Typically if you have many unhappy employees, there's a reason. Silencing unahppy employees instead of dealing with their concerns causes other employees to question and before long you're causing what you were hoping to avoid in the first place. I've seen several companies die under the weight of this problem and it isn't a pretty death - It's slow and painful.
Silencing dissenting voices at any time for any reason is not a trait of a free society, it is a bulwark of tyranny.
Regards,
Col Sanders
The immediacy of power is more important..
That certainly can apply to the right (republicans) as well. They are just as focused on getting and keeping political power. And of course "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Is the left responsible for the republican's deficit spending? Is the left responsible for the horrendous border policy the republicans have allowed. Is the left responsible for the increasing growth of government while the republicans were in charge. Is the left responsible for the corruption and waste involved with the hurricane relief efforts. Is the left responsible for the U.S. invading a country which did not attack us (and was not responsible for 9-11)? Is the left responsible for the depletion of our active and reserve Armed Forces? Is the left responsible for the huge debt this is leaving for our future generations?
I would offer that there is much more than a leftwing conspiracy to be concerned about.
Once the decision is made, a citizen should support his/her country. The time to dissent is when the decision is being made. Once it's made dissent only weakens the country.
What if it is the WRONG decision? If you start down the wrong path, does it make you stronger to continue down that wrong path or is it better to get to the right path as soon as possible? The best support you can give your country is to try to help your country get and stay on the right path.
There is much of what you say I agree with. I was terribly disappointed (disgusted actually) with the failure of the Republican congress - both House and Senate. They did not accomplish 90% of what I would have liked and they tolerated egregious immoral and corrupt behavior amongst its members.
However, I think there is a huge difference between the leaders of the left/right and the electorate on the right and left. The Republican leaders were seriously remiss - the Republican electorate was not. We did not re-elect corrupt or morally deficient representatives.
It is my opinion that the electorate on the left would be willing to see ANYTHING occur to secure an election however fraudulent that might be. I think that the electorate on the left will do ANYTHING to discredit a sitting president because he is of the opposite party. I think think the electorate on the left is happy to see its leaders discredit America both at home and abroad. No, not EVERY person who votes left - but a goodly percentage. They literally celebrate undermining their own country.
Additionally, I think the electorate on the left finds it suitable to support corruption and immorality amongst its elected leaders no matter how egregious. The re-election of Clinton, Jefferson, Barry, Traficant - are examples. The law might hold them accountable, but their electorate did not.
From what I see the electorate on the right will not support a corrupt representative, will not flock to support immorality, will not go abroad to undermine a sitting president and American policy. The electorate on the right values the process as much as the result. We don't want to win an election we did not actually win. We don't want representatives who are morally deficient.
As for the right supporting invading a country such Iraq....well...that's food for a complete thread on its own. There are many valid arguments for invading Iraq and it was supported initially by BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL DIVIDE. The vote to invade Iraq was bi-partisan and in fact regime change in Iraq was voted affirmatively whilst Clinton was president.
Facts the left conveniently forgets.
You mean Iraq? Iraq where missles and anti-aircraft guns were fired at American troops on a near-daily basis for a decade? Iraq where American troops were supporting a UN negotiated cease-fire, a cease fire which brought an end to a war that Iraq started when then attacked another country for no reason? Is that the country that "didn't attack us"?
You have a very high threashold for that statement, in my opinion.
BTW: I'm with you on the other sins of the Republicans but the whole "innocent Saddam" and over-aggressive USA is a tool of leftist propaganda. I was there, I know.
Treason is clearly defined in Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
What the CIA cabal around Plame did was sedition, not treason. What Adam Gadahn did was treason. What Jay Rockefeller did prior to the Iraq invasion is borderline, since it is unclear if he gave our enemies advanced warning or not. In any event, they have all gone beyond protest and dissent, by taking affirmative actions to undermine the policies of the United States.
Conservatives certainly do want to go down this road. They just want to go down it first.
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.