TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Friday, August 12, 2005

    Not Letting The Pillars Crumble


    Traitors have been around for hundreds of years. The worse threat is those among our ranks, pretending to do what they do for the good of us. They form groups and coalitions with names intended to hide the evil of their plans. They claim to be for "civil liberties", for "working families", "social justice", etc.
    Even over two thousand years ago Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote these still applicable words:
    A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

    An enemy at its gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

    For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

    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. A murderer is less to be feared.
    There are enemies among us involved in active sedition under the disguise of legal dissent, and advocating terrorism and terror attacks under the disguise of freedom of speech. Liberals (different from conservative Democrats), the ACLU, the likes of Kennedy, the Clinton Klan, socialists, haters of Christianity, haters of Jews, haters of the core principles that our country was founded on, haters of capitalism, etc.
    The Romans had their traitors from within - civilians as well as those in political office. Rome fell. Let's not let the United States fall.

    28 comments:

    : JustaDog said...

    For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

    And they have cute innocent labels for themselves, like "liberal", "activist", etc. They attempt to hide their identity by refocusing their sedition that good people are aware of towards any negative they can find or fabricate upon the leaders, as the liberal has posted above. Like the recent FALSE ad with fabrications against Judge John Roberts.

    We know, and more will know - thanks to the power of bloggers like me!

    : JustaDog said...

    I accuse those that must fabricate lies to make their point - reread my comment.

    Think you better reread the words of Mr. Cicero as well. Where is that dividing line where dissent become sedition? Obviously if you are the one involved with sedition you will always want it to be seen only as dissent in order to hide your real objectives.

    Do you really think those involved in sedition will openly admit what they are doing? If you think so, you are a fool.

    Why do most liberals and seditionors post as anonymous? Hmmmm - trying to hide I guess.

    Anonymous said...

    By the reckoning of your bizarre logic, working for social justice, working families, civil liberties - basically advocating policies contrary to your political bias, must be seditious and should be considered as such, even though you identify no actions that are seditious - other than dissent and disagreement.

    You've done nothing to link Mr. Cicero's words to any actions of your long list of enemies. As such, your argument, as so many, has no credibility. Your basic premise: "They are evil because I disagree with them."

    Not a shining moment for the American educational system.

    Pundit said...

    Your post notes that a traitor appeals "to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men," meaning that where there is no demand for his services, there would be no traitors. A traitor exists because the people would have it so.

    The question is at what point to we decide that the right of dissent, expression, publishing a controverting opinion, or freedom of association becomes traitorous?

    As Benjamin Franklin said, "If all printers were determined not to print anything until it offended nobody, nothing would be printed."

    John Zenger of the New York Weekly Journal wrote in 1733, "No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves."

    Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1805 in his second inaugeral address that public judgement will correct false reasoning, and that no definite line can be drawn between the liberty of the press and its worst excesses.

    And James Madison wrote in 1794 in a speech to congress that "Opinions are not the objects of legislation. You animadvert on the abuse of reserved rights--how far will this go? It may extend to the liberty of speech and the press."

    The best example of what these men were saying is how people today are willing to trade essential liberties for the safety of Homeland security. They would even trade the safety of people who are not involved in traitorous activities under the rubric that people who aren't doing anything wrong should have nothing to fear. But that is not what the founders believed when they instituted the Democracy that so many today claim to be protecting. Care needs to be excercised. As Abraham Lincoln said of slavery, any law that permitted somebody to enslave another, can be used in turn against that person.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    I find myself agreeing with you more and more!

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    I think the Cicero quote is truly fantastic. It's amazing that someone from that long ago could so aptly describe the 1st American president of the 21st century. Thanks for shining the light on Dubya so profoundly!! I couldn't have done better myself.

    : JustaDog said...

    A simple litmus test would be if the actions - whether verbal or tangible - undermine the pillars of our country (gee, the topic of the post). A couple of examples:

    While protest is good, civil disobedience is not since by even the basic definition of the word it is contrary to established law. Breaking the law is bad, duh.

    Our country was not established on the principles of socialism, so efforts to establish that ideology and remove the essence of capitalism undermines the pillars of our country.

    Speaking out against a war is fine, making the enemy look good and justified in their acts against our country (being sympathetic to the ememy), siding with the enemy (especially if you have media attention like a celebraty of large news station) undermines the will of the military forces of our country (aka, Fonda-ism). Let's put it this way - if you make the headlines of Al Jazeera and they speak proudly of you then you might have a problem with your patriotism.

    You're in the USA and have a position where others listen to you and follow your direction. You tell your followers that it's ok to strap on bombs and blow yourself up in an American subway, bus, school yard - just make sure there are as many Americans near you when you do this. Placing bombs in the same manner is also encouraged. I'll leave it up to the reader to make the choice whether such actions undermine our core or not. Perhaps how you would answer will define you!

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    While protest is good, civil disobedience is not since by even the basic definition of the word it is contrary to established law.

    I constantly marvel at your overall brilliance. Of course, civil disobedience is about breaking the law! Duh!

    Just because a law is law doesn't make it morally or ethically just. Hitler, Mussolini & Saddam made laws. Does that mean that those who opposed them should then follow each and every one of them?!

    In the US, slavery used to be law. Separate but equal used to be law. Women didn't use to be able to vote. These laws were not changed because, one day, some politician said, "Hmm. We should change the law." The laws were changed because of decades of protest and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. CD was the cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement. And our nation is better and stronger because of the actions of people like MLK, Julian Bond and Ralph Abernathy.

    Our country was not established on the principles of socialism, so efforts to establish that ideology and remove the essence of capitalism undermines the pillars of our country.

    You continually confuse economics with politics. Capitalism is not the same thing as republican democracy. You can have the latter WITHOUT the former. In fact, when this country was founded, it wasn't a capitalist nation. It was far closer to mercantilism.

    You tell your followers that it's ok to strap on bombs and blow yourself up in an American subway

    [I haven't suggested anything of the sort to anyone. I'm a pacifist. I abhor violence.] If another American were to preach such crap (the KKK and Aryan Nations have preached similar kinds of rhetoric against Blacks & Jews), I still believe such speech should be protected. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Just because somebody says this kind of stuff, nobody has to follow it.

    I mean, I could tell you to go jump in a lake. Are you going to do it? If you did, then that's your own damn fault.

    Pundit said...

    Actually, civil disobedience is at the heart of American Democracy. That's what our Revolutiion was. It was also Jefferson, who was both an Ambassador and A President, who authored the famous quote that appears in the sidebar of my xanga site---fertilizing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The concept of a militia, which is not the National guard (not instituted until the mid-1800s) embodied the right of citizens to keep and bear arms as defense against totalitarian governments and standing armies. According to the Constitution, a land army is only supposed to exist for a period of one year (Article I, Section 8). According to James Madison (Debates at the Virginia Convention, 1787) a standing army is one of the greatest mishciefs that can happen. In Federalist #9 Alexander Hamilton wrote that the liberty of the people is constantly weakened by continual infringements by the military on individual liberty. The distrust of a standing military, brought about by British occupation of the colonies, was the reason for the second amendment--to keep people armed, ready to resist. That's why militias were formed of the general male population. From this the concept of civil disobedience arises. Where there is no threat of action by the people, mere dissent is meaningless. That is why the second amendment is constantly hammered on by the left---they want everybody to believe that people do not have the right to retain control over government activities. Waiting for the next election may be too long. Hopefully the threat of violence, or the possibility of civil unrest will operate to accomplish things without actual revolution occurring. That is not only the essence of democracy, it is also its downfall because it requires responsible thought on the part of the people, and when that happens, we run the risk of military takeover as a result of unreasoned actions by the Athenian mob.

    Pundit said...

    BTW---it was also Cicero who said that in time of war, the law fails. Meaning, we are at the mercy of whomever is conducting the war, and whatever instrument they are using. Just something to think about.

    : JustaDog said...

    Well I guess Jennifer Forsyth and George Hyatte were just exercising some healthy civil disobedience (the heart of American Democracy per pundit) when they killed a law enforcement officer and fled (subsequently caught) from Tennessee. Heck, let's just do away will all laws. You must be real happy that Peter Belegrinos from New York is free on $50,000 bail - a child molestor. According to pundit and trey he was just practicing a little civil disobedience - all part of what makes up the heart of America.

    If you promote breaking laws then you must promote breaking any of our laws, for if you are selective then you'd have to explain who and why would have authority to select which can be violated and which can not.

    Trey - grow up. Of course there were bad laws in the past and there are still bad laws on the books. But there are legal ways to go about changing those laws or get them dropped off the books all together - like Republican President ending slavery.

    BTW - I notice when you tell how you deplore violence you use examples of violence in the USA - do you deplore violence that terrorist and insurgents do?

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Well, while you understand what the definition of CD is, it's apparent you don't grasp what it means. According to TheFreeDictionary.com, CD "encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power WITHOUT resorting to physical violence. Civil disobedience has been used in struggles in India in the fight against British colonialism, South Africa in the fight against apartheid, and civil rights movement in the USA and Europe."

    Consequently, you're ridiculous example of Jennifer Forsyth and George Hyatte doesn't even MATCH the definition of CD.

    Another distinction of CD is that the people using it ACCEPT the punishment to be meted out by the justice system. Ordinary criminals commit crime and then try to evade law enforcement. MLK urged his followers to commit CD and then not struggle with the police who would arrest them.

    I suggest you grab a book on US history and READ it. You might learn enough to allow you to debate in a coherent manner based on fact, NOT the silly notions that seem to pervade your noggin'.

    If you promote breaking laws then you must promote breaking any of our laws, for if you are selective then you'd have to explain who and why would have authority to select which can be violated and which can not.

    That's up to each individual. The important point is that, if a person chooses to violate a law using CD, they do so nonviolently AND be willing to accept the consequences.

    Of course there were bad laws in the past and there are still bad laws on the books. But there are legal ways to go about changing those laws or get them dropped off the books all together - like Republican President ending slavery.

    I haven't decided yet whether you're simply naive or willfully ignorant. Laws don't change in a vacuum. Do you honestly think that Lincoln just ended slavery on a whim? People had been agitating for its abolition for decades, many agitated via CD. Also, Abe was an old time Republican -- nothing like today's Republicans. (Again, grab a history book and READ it.)

    I notice when you tell how you deplore violence you use examples of violence in the USA - do you deplore violence that terrorist and insurgents do?

    I use American examples because you have a penchant for celebrating everything American. My point is that violence is pervasive.

    For the record, I deplore violence in all its forms by whomever, wherever.

    : JustaDog said...

    You've got to be kidding me. How many so-called peaceful "civil disobedience" activities have gone violent? Now I'm sure you will blame the police for starting any violence in their attempt to uphold the law.

    So if, by your definition, CD in non-violent form is ok, then we best free all the CEO's and CFO's and upper-level management types from raiding investor's $$$ and falsifying records since they were just practicing a little non-violent civil disobedience.

    Poor trey - he still refuses to say it point blank - that he deplores violence that terrorist and insurgents do. Making generalizations won't do it trey. I'm not surprised.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Gosh, your lack of comprehension is utterly amazing!!

    So if, by your definition, CD in non-violent form is ok, then we best free all the CEO's and CFO's and upper-level management types from raiding investor's $$$ and falsifying records since they were just practicing a little non-violent civil disobedience.

    If such individuals committed said crimes as a form of CD, then a) they would have publicized that they were guilty and why; b) They wouldn't have hired high-powered lawyers to try to "beat the rap"; c) They would have gladly reported to prison; and d) They wouldn't want out of prison until their time is served.

    As I stated previously, CD is OPENLY committing illegal acts in a nonviolent manner and ACCEPTING the consequences. What part of this definition is so hard for you to understand?

    Poor trey - he still refuses to say it point blank - that he deplores violence that terrorist and insurgents do. Making generalizations won't do it trey. I'm not surprised.

    Again, you seem to be bereft of comprehension. The word "whomever" means ANYBODY -- rebel, insurgent, patriot, soldier, etc. A 6 year old would understand my point. Why don't you get it?

    : JustaDog said...

    Because you have yet to be specific. Repeat after me - copy/paste if you want:

    "I deplore terrorists and insurgents and their tactics of killing and maiming innocent people with their suicide bombs and roadside bombs and any method they bring death to others. I deplore the actions of these killers to the extent that I support whatever it takes to stop their actions."

    Now if you can say that under your name without including American elements as you always do, then I'll believe you and might even believe you support this country. I won't hold my breath on that one!

    Countrygirl said...

    I absolutely agree with your post. We have enemies working around the clock to undermine us in any way they can, and Bush is fiddling while Rome burns. The ACLU is the most prominent group that comes to mind. I cannot possibly convey in words how much I detest that organization and their utter disregard for Judeo-Christianity.

    : JustaDog said...

    Bravo Countrygirl! Yes, if there were ever a seditious organization in the USA it would be the ACLU. I will be posting soon how they are beginning to loose more and more - thanks to the good people!

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    I deplore the actions of these killers to the extent that I support whatever it takes to stop their actions.

    I'm not going to play your childish game. I meant what I wrote and, if you're too dimwitted to understand its simple meaning, then that's YOUR problem. I would never cut-and-paste your statement BECAUSE of the sentence above. It invites the concept of violence to stop violence which is about as effective as throwing water in a flooding river to stop the flood.

    P.S. Long live the ACLU!!

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    I just realized WHY the concept of Civil Disobedience is such a difficult concept for JustaDog to grasp. In order to commit to CD, a person needs to have both principles and dedication to those principles. Since our host seems to lack the former, it's easy to understand why CD makes no sense to her.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    You've got to be kidding me. How many so-called peaceful "civil disobedience" activities have gone violent? Now I'm sure you will blame the police for starting any violence in their attempt to uphold the law.

    Your penchant for confusing terminology is mind-boggling. You are confusing a protest demonstration with CD. While you can most likely offer a plethora of examples of demonstrations that have turned violent, I challenge you to find more than a scant few examples of CD that turned violent.

    More often than not, it IS the police that initiate the violence against peaceful protestors exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech. On some occasions, the violence has been initiated by anarchists who tend to use peaceful protestors as their shields. And I am sure there are some so-called peaceful protestors who turn out to be not so peaceful.

    However, reiterating a previous point, by and large most people who decide to violate a law via CD do so with much thought. The whole purpose of the action is to GET arrested to highlight what the particular individual olr group believes is an unjust law or an unjust application of a law.

    Writing from a Birmingham jail in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with."

    In that same letter, he also stated, "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

    Pundit said...

    Once again, your comments about the hyattes killing a law enforcment officer in response to my post on civil disobedience is an attack on me without considering the facts, assuming I would take such a ridiculous position. Civil disobedience takes place in democracies as attempts to prevent the implementation of unjust laws, or to prevent the establishment of tyrannical governments. It is quite obvious that convicted criminals committing acts of violence against law enforcement officers duly excercising their duties in defense of just laws and protection of the public is not legitimate civil disobedience. At least I would think it's obvious. Maybe it isn't. I don't know where these extrapolations come from. The same goes for your comments about a sex offender. Where do you come up with these ideas? I keep repeating, and will keep repeating, not only in my site but comments I post elsewhere, that I am making a serious attempt to express political thoughts. I don't rant. I don't make accusations. I don't call people names in their sites or other posts. I document with references what I am talking about. The responses I get sometimes don't address the points I make. the whole concept of democracy is founded in natural law--a principle that states that people inherently know the difference between good and evil. If that is true--and natural law proponents believe it is--then reasonable, educated people know the difference between the just laws that are instituted for the betterment of society as opposed to unjust laws that drag society down. And where dissent and the ballot box do not work, civil disobedience is in order. It wasn't my idea. It was the founders' idea. That's why there is a first and second amendment. I would point out also that Thomas Jefferson was the lead proponent in attaching a bill of rights to the constitution. He was also the one that noted that the people of America reserve to themselves the right of revolution. I don't think that is a coincidence. I also do not think that Thomas Jefferson would have sanctioned the acts of child molesters and escaped convicts killing police officers. I don't know how you come to these conclusions.

    Pundit said...

    BTW--if civil disobedience is not an option in your democracy, and if to break one law is to break all laws, it would seem that you do not believe that it is possible for a government to institute bad laws, or for bad laws to exist that need to be tossed out. It would therefore follow that any government could do no wrong. And from that, the colonists who persisted in retaining the right of revolution had no right to rebel against Britain.

    Pundit said...

    Nor do I understand how you come to the conclusion that because I believe Americans have the right of dissent, the right of arms, and the right of civil disobedience, that somehow I believe the crime of international terrorism is acceptable. I can't even begin to make a guess as to how you connect these two totally unrelated issues and make that conclusion.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    As you've illustrated repeatedly, you utilize facts, logic and rational thought to come to your conclusions. You're attempting to reason with someone (our host) who tends NOT to utilize ANY of these three things. For anyone who frequents this blog, it's easily apparent that JustaDog latches onto an idea (one she believes she has cleverly discerned) and refuses to let go of it, regardless of any semblence of reality.

    Simply put, she becomes angry and even more irrational when anyone disagrees with her. She calls people names. She makes fun of them. She draws assinine conclusions that rarely even make sense. She utilizes the time-honored mantra of "the best way to make herself feel important is to push other people down".

    : JustaDog said...

    BTW--if civil disobedience is not an option in your democracy, and if to break one law is to break all laws, it would seem that you do not believe that it is possible for a government to institute bad laws, or for bad laws to exist that need to be tossed out.

    Like I said in an apparently unread comment previously, there are bad laws and there are legal ways to remove them from the books without resorting to breaking laws.


    is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law

    This is the perverted mindset of the liberal neo-socialist. It's the sort of "logic" that would tell a drowning person that drowning is the highest respect they can show for water. A better example would be Muslims in American prasing the killing of innocent people in a suicide attack, and for liberals to declare they are expressing the highest respect for freedom of speech. So pleeeeeeeeeeeeeze, you are hardly one to give me an English lesson on confusing terminology.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Like I said in an apparently unread comment previously, there are bad laws and there are legal ways to remove them from the books without resorting to breaking laws.

    Name some (with cogent examples).

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Hmm. It's now August 15th and our dear host has yet to offer EVEN one example of activists engaged in CD initiating violence. She must be having a hard time pouring through hundreds of web sites trying to find an example to backup her allegations. Then again, since we KNOW she makes a lot of baseless accusations, maybe she simply wrote this one and moved on to the next lie. (Hey, it's easier that way. Why let FACTS get in the way?)

    : JustaDog said...

    Guess I'm still waiting on that list of companies that were created by only socialists and are still in business by socialists.