Monday, September 27, 2021
HomeRecommendedWho Dat Who Say Who Dat When I Say Treason?

Who Dat Who Say Who Dat When I Say Treason?

                                                                                                                                     Guy Fawkes

John Stormer wrote None Dare call it Treason in 1964 (early LBJ administration), then did a 25 year update in 1990, mid-Bush I administration.)

Daniel Pipes wrote this (below) as part of a review in 1991, all before Clinton or Obama, making Stormer’s observations all the more salient, for Stormer wrote of a thing I first observed in the corporate world in the 80s, and have written much about since. I called it “cultural conspiracy”, which speaks to why taking back the culture is at least as important as taking back Washington.

The original edition of None Dare Call It Treason came out in 1964 and, without benefit of a prestige publisher or reviews, sold something on the order of seven million copies. Arguing that the United States had been betrayed by its elite, it is a classic in what Hannah Arendt has called “backstairs political literature.”

Surprisingly for the genre, it did not contain the usual virulent animosity toward Catholics, Jews, and the like; rather, it blamed communist sympathizers. Nor did it unambiguously point to a plan: “Is there a conspiratorial plan to destroy the United States into which foreign aid, planned inflation, distortion of treaty-making powers and disarmament all fit?” Stormer went no further than to resort to a metaphor about the pieces all fitting, whether planned by communists or not.

Yesterday Rick Perry, newly announced presidential candidate, in an ad lib moment, stated that if Ben Bernanke starts printing money before the next election, that will be a ‘treacherous..nah, what the hell (my thoughts, not Gov Perry’s:VB))…treasonous…”

President Obama was quick to rebuke Governor Perry, in that patronizing, pat- -on-the-head sort of a way only a 10th grade Halo warrior speaks about his chemistry teacher’s gauche shirt. He’s just a governor, new in the game. I’ll give him  a pass, sayeth Obama.

Perry’s comment was a  little Freudian slip, perhaps. But just like that, the “t” word is out there. And like it or not, the ante just got upped because of it.

For you see, Obama, along with his Vice President, and most of his Party, all have been calling most of the American people traitors since Inauguration Day, only in more couth language. (Even Krauthammer agrees.)

From the beginning, Obama and the Dem’s have been saying “If you’re against us, or against this plan or that program, you are against America. (You are being treasonous.)”

In short, L’estate c’est moi.

We’re Late to the Treason Train

Since Bill Clinton first strode up those steps to be sworn in as president in January, 1993, I wonder how many times that “t” word has crossed the minds of millions of Americans. We have witnessed not just conscious criminality, but indeed, attempts…successful attempts…to subvert the Constitution and the sovereignty of the United States.

But before you run off to make you own list of indictments, stop and ask yourself, knowing what we know about the Left now we didn’t know in Reagan’s day, how many kids then (grown ups now) had those same “t” thoughts about Reagan, Bush I or Bush II when they were in office?

If Treason were a train, the front cars would have been filled long before we even thought to get on. Chew on that, for it brings this whole idea of “treason” into unclearer focus.

What we didn’t know then, but we know now, is that the Left has lived in a “dark, dark world” (LadyPenguin’s apt title) for a very long time. What we know now is that they live in an alternate universe where Light is Dark, where fighting Evil is fighting Good, where Love is Hate, where Virtue is Weakness and Envy is Virtue. I can go on, as can you.

They live in a world where loving America, as you do, is treasonous, where loving liberty is treasonous, where holding to free markets and personal merit is treasonous. Where truth is treason.

And they were on that train long before you even knew we were even selling military secrets to China in exchange for campaign contributions.

The truth is, the “t” word, like so many other words with a real dictionary meaning has been stolen, sort of like “love”, simply by allowing that any carnal act done  in its name can also to be called “treason”. Today anybody can call anything treasonous, and that is now a part of the popular political culture.

Me? I have a legalistic view of treason, for one, under law, it’s a crime that sanctions execution; the death penalty. See the Rosenbergs. I’d like to see that restored.

The US Code is really pretty straightforward, but since almost no one is indicted for it anymore, modern notions of treason have migrated to coffee houses seeking a pseudo-academic consensus.

This consensus seems to involve a self-serving idea of treason not to mean anything they are currently using to overthrow change the current government or Constitution. Even kids who run off from California to join Al Qaeda in Afghanistan will find an ACLU defense somewhere, based on the theory, shared by Ron Paul I think, that in any conflict in which the United States figured into the original sin, such as installing the first shah in Iran in 1963, or making war with the Barbary Pirates in 1801, forever absolves a person from the ‘crime” of treason by fighting back against the United States.

Crazy stuff, huh?

One of the underlying reasons the Left insists that the Constitution is a living, breathing, ever-changing document is that you cannot indict, try and convict any one for then advocating or conspiring to “change” a document and system of government that is, by its very design, as formless, shifting, vaporous and nebulous as a passing cloud. You can’t betray a wisp.

You can also see why “original intent” and “strict construction”  is so important to conservatism.

But most of all, it can’t be treasonous if it is about process.  We are just now inquiring about what socialists and communists have been conspiring and answering in private conversation for over 50 years:

Taking over the American government, throwing down the Constitution, proscribing liberty as defined, and changing it into whatever version of socialism that can be desired is not treason…

if you can just do it without violence, but rather through process.

As we all know now, this they’ve almost done. The Left has done a very good job of injecting their dark counter-world into our schools and popular culture, where, today, it is indeed almost a toss-up as to what treason is, and who the traitors really are….us or them.

When society cannot arrive at a consensus as to what treason is, any more than it seems it can about morality, truth, the legal dictionary meaning no longer matters.  We can’t begin to deal with treason-the-law until we deal with treason-the-pop-meme.

This means that the issue that now divides us will ultimately be settled by force of arms, just as slavery once was…UNLESS…

…we rededicate ourselves to win, and win big, this next time around.

It’s that simple.

We still have the voting edge, but in my view 10%-20% isn’t really that safe a margin, particularly since,  if you haven’t noticed, we (our side) are the ones still afoot, and they are the ones up on the horses. They still wear the badge.

And they would love to goad us into violence first, for while a good hard lick across the bridge of the nose with a rolled-up newspaper works wonders and still stays within my idea of good taste, it’s clear they are more than able and ready to engage in hard violence if we continue to take back territory.

There is much we will need to do. I have my own ideas how to prevent “treason” to become such a wispy and nebulous term ever again, but first, let’s win.

 

vassarbushmills
Citizen With Bark On

25 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

25 COMMENTS

  1. Vassar, your posts always “make me think.” Today I am thinking “Ends justify the means” is the constitution of the left and “to each according…” is their preamble.

    Also, today I am starting to realize why Perry sounds a deep note in my psyche. His “treason” remark applied to Bernanke exactly echoes my sentiment that Bernanke should be hanging in effigy in every neighborhood in America.

    Great piece.

  2. Perry will blow his chances unless he disciplines himself. The use of the word treason in this way bespeaks a recklessness not fit for the presidency. The term treason is quite specifically and narrowly defined, intentionally so by the Founders who committed same against Britain. It is to levy war or adhere to enemies and give aid and comfort. I have spoken of how Obama’s and Bernanke’s policies combine to destroy the economy and the currency but it is not levying war or adhering to enemies. It surely does give aid and comfort but the latter part of the definition only matters if one adheres to the enemy. I have debated long and hard against the reckless use of the term treason for many years at Redstate and other blogs with overly zealous conservatives. It does our cause no good to misuse the term. We can make substantive arguments against Obama and the Dems that will ring true and lead to a landslide for the GOP. We don’t need to overreach and in fact the only way we could lose is to overreach.

    • I sort of agree about Perry not sounding presidential. Not sure yet. But as I said, Obama has been very presidentially calling us traitors for some time.

      The problem with the law as currently written (or defined) is in defining “enemies of the United States.” Marxists are no longer considered that. Neither is the Muslim Brotherhood, nor Islamic radical radicals in general, except for Al Qaeda.

      Popular definition, for the purposes of carrying on politics, have over-written legal ones. I don’t like that, but that is a reality we will have to confront.

      • Treason is a legally defined crime for which the death penalty is prescribed in the Constitution. It is not just a word that has lost its meaning. Some overzealous, reckless conservative bloggers may wish it so now, but they certainly didn’t back when the word was hurled at Bush, Cheney and others fighting back after 911. There are all kinds of ways to describe certain political and other acts” patriotic, unpatriotic, neutral, reckless, bad judgment etc. And to say almost “treasonous” is no help either. It would be nice if the conservative/tea partier movement of which i am a part and have been for 11 years could act like adults. I wish for too much? Maybe. But I will be the adult and call out our own especially when it comes to the use of this word, which should be reserved for actual traitors.

        • Yeah, you wish for too much, GC. Your ideal of “treason”, which I share, by the way, is simply not a part of the current national conversation. Unless we can regain political power peacefully, we will have to settle that issue in the streets before we can restore it to its rightful position. That will be there call, not ours, but they will call it.

          • We are supposed to be the party that takes the owrds of the Constitution seriously. Your view seems to have ceded the current national conversation and proper use of the term to what Cindy Sheehan turned it into. And I don’t recall the Redstate/UP crowd that I am familiar with coming to the defense of her. Yes, I do hold this group at UP to a higher standard and don’t think that wishing that the term treason be quite restrictive is asking too much. Gamecock is also a part of the national conversation and if the Left goes to the streets, I will defend America. In the meantime, I will not misuse the word treason and traitor or variations thereof. Whatever the future holds, that is no excuse for lowering ourselves to the Sheehan level. It is our call what we say and do and whether what we say and do is proper for patriots.

  3. In the quote I read somewhere, Perry said *almost* treacherous, or treasonous. So there’s that important distinction. The other thing is that it is about time that a wannabe leader is taking a cue from the people. Whatever Perry said, and in whatever context, pales in comparison to the insufferable, miserable, faux-intellectual President of the United States telling people they need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh; telling people the police department of a US city “acted stupidly” when they arrested his personal friend, telling people they need to “get out of the way and not do too much talkin'”. Did I mention that the President of the United States, on live television, at the White House health summit, said Lamar Alexander wasn’t telling the truth? There is a growing list of things that a President of the United States does not do or say, much of which has been published on these pages.
    For those wanting our candidates to heed the White House directive to “watch their mouth”, I say “This ain’t John McCain’s party anymore.”

    • GC, words are ‘funny’ entities, which have all kinds of attributes and associations. I understand your legal definition, narrowly defined as in law, (which I would expect from you counselor, 🙂 but two things:

      Obama’s and Bernanke’s policies combine to destroy the economy and the currency but it is not levying war or adhering to enemies. It surely does give aid and comfort but the latter part of the definition only matters if one adheres to the enemy.

      You said they had the latter (aid and comfort) but not the former (the enemy), I think there is an enemy, the Left. Their efforts to subvert the Constitution, the brink at which they’ve brought the country to the edge, well, at least to a lay person, it brings it into the realm of treasonous, as bob says above.

      When Vassar says this:

      alternate universe where Light is Dark, where fighting Evil is fighting Good, where Love is Hate, where Virtue is Weakness and Envy is Virtue.

      Then we have a battle, even if viewed as an “unseen enemy,” it is still an enemy.
      For example,George Soros hates America and has done everything he can to take her down, I consider him, then, an enemy of the United States. Going against King George was considered treason, and treasonous; seeking to destroy the economy of a country, or destroy the very foundation of a nation, is treasonous in its own way.
      Perhaps the Founding Fathers had too narrow a definition in mind, as they could not have foreseen the last 100 years of progressive/liberalism.

      • Nothing Obama and the Left says should cause us to go down to their level and misuse the term treason. The Founders had too narrow a definition? We are talking about a crime define din the Constitution that carries the death penalty! There are plenty of accurate ways to describe the evil of Obama and the left without becoming Cindy Sheehan. Our movement needs to be the adults. That may be too much to ask for but insist upon it I will. I now lean to Mitt if Perry insists on acting this way.

        Other word beside treason for Soros: unpatriotic

        Bernanke: Reckless and wrong

        Its easy to be a non-thinking hurler of hyperbole. Like John F Kennedy, I do things because they are hard! smile

        • I agree with you GC about the misuse of a term. I also think Perry has not repeated the statement of Bernanke being “almost treasonous” when reporters have tried to bait him into saying it again. An analogy for me is if someone said I do not like what that woman is doing and she is “almost pregnant”. It just shows a moment when you do not use the right words. Someone is either pregnant or they are not. Someone is either a traitor or they are not. I still lean to Perry, but I do not defend the original statement that he made, and I am glad that he has not repeated it.

          • Pil’, you made my day, and let me be clear that while I lean to Mitt, I very much want to support a candidate that is more reliably conservative than Mitt and who can also be elected and maintain the character and credibility at least to a mimimal degree so that I can be comfortable. I suspect that Perry will easily meet that standard and more and am glad that he has not repeated the term as applied to Bernanke et al.

      • There are two defined ways to commit treason:

        1) Levying war

        or

        2) Adhering to the enemy AND giving aid and comfort.

        None apply to Bernanke in any way. Of course any act that hurts America could be called giving aid and comfort, which is why it only constitutes treason if one is also an ally of the enemy that has taken action to adhere to the enemy.

        None apply to Bernanke.

        Now, I would say that Ted Kennedy did commit treason when he secretly contacted USSR’s leader in the early 80s and pushed for the nuclear freeze.

        John Kerry did so when he met with N Viet leader in Paris and opposed US action to win the war at home.

        • Let me get this straight…
          You do not believe that The Fed, which is up to its neck in collusion with the Central Bankers, is working against the citizens of the US in its/their push for global governance/control of all the money which I percieve to be in direct violation of our Constitution and thus promptly drops them into the categoty of “the enemy” in my book. The Fed is the enemy of my freedom, it is the enemy of my path to prosperity, it is the enemy of our entire nation.
          Sadly, JFK didn’t live long enough to take the Fed out completely. It is destroying us.

          • Given Perry’s refusal to repeat the term as respects Bernanke, he seems to undersatnd that the burden of proof lies on those that would apply the term, and not those that object by citing the actual, specific definition found in, of all documents, the Constitution of the United States. Remember that document? The one we conservatives hold up as The Law, the following of which as to its actual meaning we hold out as the way out of our slouch towards Gomorrah? Whether it be the limited and enumerated powers of Congress, the Tenth Amendment or the definition of treason, let us be consistent conservatives with vocabularies large enough to bridle our emotions. For proper application of the term see Bendict Arnold, Aaron Burr, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. And this gamecock is no fan of the Fed’s ruination of the Dollar, but until we find a memo from Ben to China re adhering, we will find better words for those executing bad monetary policy and for those republicans that voted for TARP etc…see my point gal? Haven’t our enemies been aided and comforted by bad policies that even Paul Ryan voted for? Yes, but he has not adhered to China. Keep it real and let your mind be the ruler of our emotions. Let the Dems exalt the Cindy Sheehans, not us.

  4. Well done, Vassar.

    Sometimes, when I look at polling data, there is information that indicates that we are beginning to see a trend in our country of people who are rejecting liberalism. I hope with everything in me that this trend continues.

    But I hadn’t really thought about from the perspective of absolutes vs. relative standards until I read what you have written here. For example, there was a poll not long ago indicating that the age group 20-29 is the strongest proponent for abiding by the law and respecting the law. If you really stop and think about it, this would indicate a group of people who respect and appreciate absolutes rather than relative standards, wouldn’t it?

  5. I’m preparing for both outcomes of 2012. And I think we all should. And frankly, it is hard to imagine that in the best case – that in which we electorally stomp the crap out of them and begin to install, for the first time since Jefferson, a serious, hard-core, liberty-minded, Constitution-revering governance model — it won’t also require the force of arms to keep what we take electorally.

  6. Perhaps my favorite quote of all time, I’ve referenced it often while blogging, is from Patrick Henry. It was made 9 days after he was sworn in as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1765, and he was a bit ahead of his time. By 1775 many more had picked up his “over the top” style but he was the first.

    Henry had introduced The Virginia Resolves to be voted on and published by the House. Most of the points were familiar to his peers…

    American colonists had transported British rights to North America at the time of their immigration.

    Those rights had twice been confirmed in Virginia’s royal charters.

    The right to be taxed by representatives of one’s own choosing was one of the most fundamental British liberties.

    He had included one point that many were not yet ready to accept…

    Only colonial assemblies had the right to impose taxes on their constituents and that right could not be assigned to any other body.

    While extorting his peers to approve the Resolves he said, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third…” Recognizing his references to assassinated Leaders several shouts of “Treason!” rang through the assembly. Henry calmly finished his sentence, “…may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”

    We are well past the 1765 levels of tyranny in America these days, the O-ministration’s regulators have been steadily hitting us with their Intolerable Acts and I believe “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” will be heard again soon. Which side will fire it remains to be seen.

    In the days when our Founders committed it, Treason was defined by Kings. Anything they did not like could become treason, at the King’s whim. Having survived their treasonous acts, the Founders placed a never before seen, restrictive legal definition to the crime of Treason. Governor Perry isn’t using that restrictive legal definition, he’s using our definition, Bernanke will never stand trial for his “treasonous acts” but I understand exactly what the Governor meant and Obama “may profit by their example.”

    • I respect the actual words of the Framers in our Constitution so much that I will continue to do so even when one of our own champions like Perry goes Cindy Sheehan just as if he had transgressed on the words of the Constitutiona as pertains to limited powers of Congress under Art 1, Sec 8. or the 2nd Amendment. People can be executed for treason. It is not a word to be lossly thrown about due to differences over monetary policy. We must insist on larger vocabularies that the moveon.org types.

  1. Vassar, your posts always “make me think.” Today I am thinking “Ends justify the means” is the constitution of the left and “to each according…” is their preamble.

    Also, today I am starting to realize why Perry sounds a deep note in my psyche. His “treason” remark applied to Bernanke exactly echoes my sentiment that Bernanke should be hanging in effigy in every neighborhood in America.

    Great piece.

  2. Perry will blow his chances unless he disciplines himself. The use of the word treason in this way bespeaks a recklessness not fit for the presidency. The term treason is quite specifically and narrowly defined, intentionally so by the Founders who committed same against Britain. It is to levy war or adhere to enemies and give aid and comfort. I have spoken of how Obama’s and Bernanke’s policies combine to destroy the economy and the currency but it is not levying war or adhering to enemies. It surely does give aid and comfort but the latter part of the definition only matters if one adheres to the enemy. I have debated long and hard against the reckless use of the term treason for many years at Redstate and other blogs with overly zealous conservatives. It does our cause no good to misuse the term. We can make substantive arguments against Obama and the Dems that will ring true and lead to a landslide for the GOP. We don’t need to overreach and in fact the only way we could lose is to overreach.

    • I sort of agree about Perry not sounding presidential. Not sure yet. But as I said, Obama has been very presidentially calling us traitors for some time.

      The problem with the law as currently written (or defined) is in defining “enemies of the United States.” Marxists are no longer considered that. Neither is the Muslim Brotherhood, nor Islamic radical radicals in general, except for Al Qaeda.

      Popular definition, for the purposes of carrying on politics, have over-written legal ones. I don’t like that, but that is a reality we will have to confront.

      • Treason is a legally defined crime for which the death penalty is prescribed in the Constitution. It is not just a word that has lost its meaning. Some overzealous, reckless conservative bloggers may wish it so now, but they certainly didn’t back when the word was hurled at Bush, Cheney and others fighting back after 911. There are all kinds of ways to describe certain political and other acts” patriotic, unpatriotic, neutral, reckless, bad judgment etc. And to say almost “treasonous” is no help either. It would be nice if the conservative/tea partier movement of which i am a part and have been for 11 years could act like adults. I wish for too much? Maybe. But I will be the adult and call out our own especially when it comes to the use of this word, which should be reserved for actual traitors.

        • Yeah, you wish for too much, GC. Your ideal of “treason”, which I share, by the way, is simply not a part of the current national conversation. Unless we can regain political power peacefully, we will have to settle that issue in the streets before we can restore it to its rightful position. That will be there call, not ours, but they will call it.

          • We are supposed to be the party that takes the owrds of the Constitution seriously. Your view seems to have ceded the current national conversation and proper use of the term to what Cindy Sheehan turned it into. And I don’t recall the Redstate/UP crowd that I am familiar with coming to the defense of her. Yes, I do hold this group at UP to a higher standard and don’t think that wishing that the term treason be quite restrictive is asking too much. Gamecock is also a part of the national conversation and if the Left goes to the streets, I will defend America. In the meantime, I will not misuse the word treason and traitor or variations thereof. Whatever the future holds, that is no excuse for lowering ourselves to the Sheehan level. It is our call what we say and do and whether what we say and do is proper for patriots.

  3. In the quote I read somewhere, Perry said *almost* treacherous, or treasonous. So there’s that important distinction. The other thing is that it is about time that a wannabe leader is taking a cue from the people. Whatever Perry said, and in whatever context, pales in comparison to the insufferable, miserable, faux-intellectual President of the United States telling people they need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh; telling people the police department of a US city “acted stupidly” when they arrested his personal friend, telling people they need to “get out of the way and not do too much talkin'”. Did I mention that the President of the United States, on live television, at the White House health summit, said Lamar Alexander wasn’t telling the truth? There is a growing list of things that a President of the United States does not do or say, much of which has been published on these pages.
    For those wanting our candidates to heed the White House directive to “watch their mouth”, I say “This ain’t John McCain’s party anymore.”

    • GC, words are ‘funny’ entities, which have all kinds of attributes and associations. I understand your legal definition, narrowly defined as in law, (which I would expect from you counselor, 🙂 but two things:

      Obama’s and Bernanke’s policies combine to destroy the economy and the currency but it is not levying war or adhering to enemies. It surely does give aid and comfort but the latter part of the definition only matters if one adheres to the enemy.

      You said they had the latter (aid and comfort) but not the former (the enemy), I think there is an enemy, the Left. Their efforts to subvert the Constitution, the brink at which they’ve brought the country to the edge, well, at least to a lay person, it brings it into the realm of treasonous, as bob says above.

      When Vassar says this:

      alternate universe where Light is Dark, where fighting Evil is fighting Good, where Love is Hate, where Virtue is Weakness and Envy is Virtue.

      Then we have a battle, even if viewed as an “unseen enemy,” it is still an enemy.
      For example,George Soros hates America and has done everything he can to take her down, I consider him, then, an enemy of the United States. Going against King George was considered treason, and treasonous; seeking to destroy the economy of a country, or destroy the very foundation of a nation, is treasonous in its own way.
      Perhaps the Founding Fathers had too narrow a definition in mind, as they could not have foreseen the last 100 years of progressive/liberalism.

      • Nothing Obama and the Left says should cause us to go down to their level and misuse the term treason. The Founders had too narrow a definition? We are talking about a crime define din the Constitution that carries the death penalty! There are plenty of accurate ways to describe the evil of Obama and the left without becoming Cindy Sheehan. Our movement needs to be the adults. That may be too much to ask for but insist upon it I will. I now lean to Mitt if Perry insists on acting this way.

        Other word beside treason for Soros: unpatriotic

        Bernanke: Reckless and wrong

        Its easy to be a non-thinking hurler of hyperbole. Like John F Kennedy, I do things because they are hard! smile

        • I agree with you GC about the misuse of a term. I also think Perry has not repeated the statement of Bernanke being “almost treasonous” when reporters have tried to bait him into saying it again. An analogy for me is if someone said I do not like what that woman is doing and she is “almost pregnant”. It just shows a moment when you do not use the right words. Someone is either pregnant or they are not. Someone is either a traitor or they are not. I still lean to Perry, but I do not defend the original statement that he made, and I am glad that he has not repeated it.

          • Pil’, you made my day, and let me be clear that while I lean to Mitt, I very much want to support a candidate that is more reliably conservative than Mitt and who can also be elected and maintain the character and credibility at least to a mimimal degree so that I can be comfortable. I suspect that Perry will easily meet that standard and more and am glad that he has not repeated the term as applied to Bernanke et al.

      • There are two defined ways to commit treason:

        1) Levying war

        or

        2) Adhering to the enemy AND giving aid and comfort.

        None apply to Bernanke in any way. Of course any act that hurts America could be called giving aid and comfort, which is why it only constitutes treason if one is also an ally of the enemy that has taken action to adhere to the enemy.

        None apply to Bernanke.

        Now, I would say that Ted Kennedy did commit treason when he secretly contacted USSR’s leader in the early 80s and pushed for the nuclear freeze.

        John Kerry did so when he met with N Viet leader in Paris and opposed US action to win the war at home.

        • Let me get this straight…
          You do not believe that The Fed, which is up to its neck in collusion with the Central Bankers, is working against the citizens of the US in its/their push for global governance/control of all the money which I percieve to be in direct violation of our Constitution and thus promptly drops them into the categoty of “the enemy” in my book. The Fed is the enemy of my freedom, it is the enemy of my path to prosperity, it is the enemy of our entire nation.
          Sadly, JFK didn’t live long enough to take the Fed out completely. It is destroying us.

          • Given Perry’s refusal to repeat the term as respects Bernanke, he seems to undersatnd that the burden of proof lies on those that would apply the term, and not those that object by citing the actual, specific definition found in, of all documents, the Constitution of the United States. Remember that document? The one we conservatives hold up as The Law, the following of which as to its actual meaning we hold out as the way out of our slouch towards Gomorrah? Whether it be the limited and enumerated powers of Congress, the Tenth Amendment or the definition of treason, let us be consistent conservatives with vocabularies large enough to bridle our emotions. For proper application of the term see Bendict Arnold, Aaron Burr, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. And this gamecock is no fan of the Fed’s ruination of the Dollar, but until we find a memo from Ben to China re adhering, we will find better words for those executing bad monetary policy and for those republicans that voted for TARP etc…see my point gal? Haven’t our enemies been aided and comforted by bad policies that even Paul Ryan voted for? Yes, but he has not adhered to China. Keep it real and let your mind be the ruler of our emotions. Let the Dems exalt the Cindy Sheehans, not us.

  4. Well done, Vassar.

    Sometimes, when I look at polling data, there is information that indicates that we are beginning to see a trend in our country of people who are rejecting liberalism. I hope with everything in me that this trend continues.

    But I hadn’t really thought about from the perspective of absolutes vs. relative standards until I read what you have written here. For example, there was a poll not long ago indicating that the age group 20-29 is the strongest proponent for abiding by the law and respecting the law. If you really stop and think about it, this would indicate a group of people who respect and appreciate absolutes rather than relative standards, wouldn’t it?

  5. I’m preparing for both outcomes of 2012. And I think we all should. And frankly, it is hard to imagine that in the best case – that in which we electorally stomp the crap out of them and begin to install, for the first time since Jefferson, a serious, hard-core, liberty-minded, Constitution-revering governance model — it won’t also require the force of arms to keep what we take electorally.

  6. Perhaps my favorite quote of all time, I’ve referenced it often while blogging, is from Patrick Henry. It was made 9 days after he was sworn in as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1765, and he was a bit ahead of his time. By 1775 many more had picked up his “over the top” style but he was the first.

    Henry had introduced The Virginia Resolves to be voted on and published by the House. Most of the points were familiar to his peers…

    American colonists had transported British rights to North America at the time of their immigration.

    Those rights had twice been confirmed in Virginia’s royal charters.

    The right to be taxed by representatives of one’s own choosing was one of the most fundamental British liberties.

    He had included one point that many were not yet ready to accept…

    Only colonial assemblies had the right to impose taxes on their constituents and that right could not be assigned to any other body.

    While extorting his peers to approve the Resolves he said, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third…” Recognizing his references to assassinated Leaders several shouts of “Treason!” rang through the assembly. Henry calmly finished his sentence, “…may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”

    We are well past the 1765 levels of tyranny in America these days, the O-ministration’s regulators have been steadily hitting us with their Intolerable Acts and I believe “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” will be heard again soon. Which side will fire it remains to be seen.

    In the days when our Founders committed it, Treason was defined by Kings. Anything they did not like could become treason, at the King’s whim. Having survived their treasonous acts, the Founders placed a never before seen, restrictive legal definition to the crime of Treason. Governor Perry isn’t using that restrictive legal definition, he’s using our definition, Bernanke will never stand trial for his “treasonous acts” but I understand exactly what the Governor meant and Obama “may profit by their example.”

    • I respect the actual words of the Framers in our Constitution so much that I will continue to do so even when one of our own champions like Perry goes Cindy Sheehan just as if he had transgressed on the words of the Constitutiona as pertains to limited powers of Congress under Art 1, Sec 8. or the 2nd Amendment. People can be executed for treason. It is not a word to be lossly thrown about due to differences over monetary policy. We must insist on larger vocabularies that the moveon.org types.

Must Read