Posted on 02/13/2007 10:25:55 AM PST by NormsRevenge
What people don't see is the very seedbed that gave us the framework for this Republic is itself being poisoned by the kind of secularism that produces a very different flavor of society. People don't make the connection between God's blessing and a godly nation, between iniquity and bondage.
Hi, typically I ping people by memory, according to my best recollection of who may be interested. This is my first awareness of your position on this topic and I'll try to carefully respect that.
Cheers.
Look at the dates of those cases. Show me one case within 100 years of the enactment of the Constitution that makes treason a specific intent crime. The Constitution itself clearly makes no such requirement.
All the cases you cite are post-WWII, and since WWII treason has become nothing more than a word with no meaning. People commit it all the time and there is no consequence. Look at Jane Fonda. She should have long ago been executed, but nobody even bothered to charge her.
P-M, key observation.
All: ping to 123 for any comment?
I'm not voting for Guliani, but to imply that NYC is better under that dictator Bloomberg is ridiculous.
There is another term that is appropriate....it is called "quit the field."
It means "admit defeat."
Is "defeat" the same as surrender? Not exactly, but it is just as devastating.
When our folks talk about "redeploying," that is double-speak for "quitting the field." Redeployment is actually simply the return from the field, and it applies as much to a training exercise as to a live engagement. It does not address the nature of the departure from the field.
There is no doubt that a departure at this point is admitting defeat.
Let's pretend for a moment that they were attacking the "Great Satan" for religious, geo-political aspirations prior to 9/11. Do you think those aspirations have been fulfilled? If they have, then the attacks will cease.
If they have not, then "admitting defeat" will play into those religious geo-political aspirations.
The Constitution itself clearly makes no such requirement.
Your point being? The Constitution is the foundation of the law, not the end of it. The Constitution does not create the offense of treason; instead, it only restricts the definition (because of the abuses of the British Crown).
since WWII treason has become nothing more than a word with no meaning.
Treason prosecutions were rare, even before WWII. There have been only about 40 prosecutions for treason in the US ever. BTW, one of those 40 is Adam Yahiye Gadahn (aka "Azzam the American"), indicted Oct. 11, 2006.
What the democrats are talking about is not redeploying, but giving up and going home. Unless we are simply changing fronts, then to redeploy is to surrender. You are surrendering the Real Estate that you have captured. You are leaving it to your enemies to sack and pillage while you high tail it to the hills.
If that is our future in Iraq, then we have no future here at home. We made a committment, we took the ground and 3000 men and women have given their lives in that pursuit. To surrender the ground is to surrender the fight. If we leave without stabilizing the country or eliminating all the bad guys, then we will be surrendering. We can call it redploying or a tactical retreat or quitting the field or whatever, but the practical effect is surrender and the history books will call it that.
That's Merriam-Webster's definition of demagogue.
It is not Rush Limbaugh for a variety of reasons.
1. Limbaugh is extremely OPEN about being a Conservative Republican apologist, commentator. He regularly points out that he's not a news anchor, and that he's giving his take on things.
2. While he has occasionally been mistaken, he does not put out false claims, because it would kill his show. There are too many closely checking his facts for that to be possible.
3. Rush Limbaugh is not interested in political office. I could make a case that he's actually more effective when his conservatives are OUT of power.
4. As a soldier in Germany in the late 90's, we were fed a steady diet of AFN (Armed Forces Network) News. It was a mix of feeds from all of the major alphabet networks. They started carrying one hour of Rush in the evening about 8 pm. Honestly, Jude, it was the only non-liberal information and take on things that we had.
And that's what I'd call Limbaugh.....a conservative commentator. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Constitution defines the Crime of Treason. Specific intent is not required:
Section 3. 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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
He utilizes passions, prejudices, and logical fallacies to gain influence. He, frankly, reminds me of Father Coughlin.
I have already agreed with the above. It is admitting defeat.
Admitting defeat, however, is not NECESSARILY surrender. Sometimes it is. Surrender is when a defeated enemy makes himself and his forces subject to that victorious enemy.
Dunkirk, for example, was an admission of defeat, a quitting the field. It was, however, not a surrender. Had the British Army surrendered, Europe would be speaking German.
That defeat was extremely hard to recover from, though. It was some 4 years later before they were able to return to the place of their defeat.
That will be the result of our admitting defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda will establish a base in the Mid-East. They will gain access to huge oil reserves and petro-dollars. They will stretch their dreamed-of caliphate from Algeria to Indonesia, they will acquire nuclear weaponry, and they will dwarf the threat that the Soviets used to pose to freedom. They will be the unleashing of the angels bound in the Euphrates.
I totally disagree. He is a conservative commentator, he has no more "power" than any other news guy, and he's very open about his positions.
Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is in danger of seizing power in the US is smokin too much a da ganga.
The stars will fall from the sky before that ever happens.
No problem.
Duncan Hunter is a blue state republican!
From a very conservative district.
The last time a Congressman was elected President, his name was Lincoln. He's not electable. His views are too extreme. Only on FR does he have any support. He will not win any significant support in the primaries.
His views are too extreme. Only on FR does he have any support. He will not win any significant support in the primaries.
--
so he is not worth wasting any effort for, Is that your take? just want you on record as being supportive of the country moving further to the left. how say ye?
"However if you are a registered Republican and usually vote Republican then your sit-out would be a vote for Hillary."
I have voted the last 28 yrs for prolife republicans. I have never voted for a pro-abortion republican and I don't intend to start now. The answer to my own question is NO!
I'm tired of all the same arguements, so you want Hillary Clinton to be president!! If the republicans are so damned stupid as to put Rudy Giulianni on the ticket you get what you deserve. It will be your fault, not mine!
Not going to take the bait of the supporter of a fringe candidate.
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.