Treason doth never prosper...
..what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Sir John Harington
One word I hear bandied about more and more these days is the word "treason." Mostly it's been put forward by the political right, levied against some of the more radical anti-American types. They argue that some, such as Jane Fonda, are guilty of treason against the Republic because they produced propaganda for enemy nations (in Fonda's case, North Viet Nam).
More recently, a more creative interpretation of the crime of treason has come from Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who proclaimed that two op-ed writers in the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece that was ""treasonous for the state of Michigan." The article criticised the governor's plan to increase taxes on businesses, insurance companies, and banks. They pointed out that these type of organisations tend to move away from higher-tax areas or pass on their increased costs to the hapless customer. The authors estimated more than twenty thousand jobs could be lost, and the proposal was defeated.
Understandably miffed, the governor let loose with the curious remark. According to the article, the governor has recently made a habit of using the term in reference to her enemies.
Some spoil-sports are inclined to point out the legal definition of treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States. This definition lies in Article III, Section three, clause one of this document. Here is the clause in question-
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 appropriate section of the US Code (Title 18, § 2381) says more or less the same thing, but also outlines the punishments for the offence of treason-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Some less visionary types might think that thegovernorr has "flipped her lid" and is, as the British are inclined to say, "throwing her toys out of her pram." They think that the limited concepts of tradition- the idea treason applies only to federal cases, as states do not have the independent ability to wage war and/or have enemies. They furthermore note, with a hint of sadness, that this is the sort of super-heated political rhetoric that inevitably results when a public official with a Napoleon complex loses to the process of democracy.
Of course, these silly people are quite wrong. We must remember that our constitution, like our law and custom, is a living document that can be altered by our loving andbeneficentt betters in government. That definition of "treason" is based on fear and misunderstanding. Back in the time the constitution was written, "treason" meant doing anything that displeased the administration. This meant that the constitution's stricter definition was based on fear. In modern times, we have perfected an intellectual utopia under the leadership of our loving governments. There is no longer any need for anyone to worry about the government abusing their power or stomping on the rights of citizens. Such thoughts are truly reactionary fears that must not be heeded. Government is here to look out for you, and they want to work in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Remember, the word "treason" means whatever you want it to mean. If Michigan'sgovernorr has a true, heartfelt desire to include criticism of her administration's efforts in the definition, we shouldn't stop her. She's worked very hard to rid the state of worms and trash like those banks who sit out-of-state and ruin her people's revolution. She knows that "they are unwilling to adapt to the spirit of our revolution...We don't want them! We don't need them!" Since thegovernorr obviously knows what is best for her state, we shouldn't question her decision, because that would be judgmental of us, and mean.
As for the political right questioning the patriotism of people like Jane Fonda, it is typical of theirtemperamentt. Progressive pioneers like Jane have been trying for many years to increase understanding between differing nations and prevent war. Listen to the words of the brave poet D.S. Savage, writing during the festival of intolerance known as the Second World War, said that he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.". He furthermore cautioned "who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" In a final and touchingly modern statement, he ended with a plea for the universal solvent, tolerance. "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."
As an example of government officials working in our interest, the ATF has banned the importation of foreign gun parts such as barrels, frames, and receivers. This, of course, makes repair of many types of popular and legal firearms impossible. Some might view this as unconstitutional, or at least something that should be passed in the legislature. Of course, these silly people don't see the visionary path of bureaucratic management. As we all know, people with weapons can be a barrier to the aims of the state. Some have noted that they moved only after the response to the visionary Kelo decision seemed to be "time to buy a gun."
We must move forward, not backward. We must emulate the crime-free utopia of Europe rather than the US model.
On a final note, after an examination of the fine message boards at Above Top Secret, I see that our erstwhile UFO channeler Prophet Yahweh has delayed his promised UFO appearance until this time next year. It seems he couldn't make the UFO appear by his 15 July deadline. What a shame.
-Sir John Harington
One word I hear bandied about more and more these days is the word "treason." Mostly it's been put forward by the political right, levied against some of the more radical anti-American types. They argue that some, such as Jane Fonda, are guilty of treason against the Republic because they produced propaganda for enemy nations (in Fonda's case, North Viet Nam).
More recently, a more creative interpretation of the crime of treason has come from Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who proclaimed that two op-ed writers in the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece that was ""treasonous for the state of Michigan." The article criticised the governor's plan to increase taxes on businesses, insurance companies, and banks. They pointed out that these type of organisations tend to move away from higher-tax areas or pass on their increased costs to the hapless customer. The authors estimated more than twenty thousand jobs could be lost, and the proposal was defeated.
Understandably miffed, the governor let loose with the curious remark. According to the article, the governor has recently made a habit of using the term in reference to her enemies.
Some spoil-sports are inclined to point out the legal definition of treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States. This definition lies in Article III, Section three, clause one of this document. Here is the clause in question-
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 appropriate section of the US Code (Title 18, § 2381) says more or less the same thing, but also outlines the punishments for the offence of treason-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Some less visionary types might think that thegovernorr has "flipped her lid" and is, as the British are inclined to say, "throwing her toys out of her pram." They think that the limited concepts of tradition- the idea treason applies only to federal cases, as states do not have the independent ability to wage war and/or have enemies. They furthermore note, with a hint of sadness, that this is the sort of super-heated political rhetoric that inevitably results when a public official with a Napoleon complex loses to the process of democracy.
Of course, these silly people are quite wrong. We must remember that our constitution, like our law and custom, is a living document that can be altered by our loving andbeneficentt betters in government. That definition of "treason" is based on fear and misunderstanding. Back in the time the constitution was written, "treason" meant doing anything that displeased the administration. This meant that the constitution's stricter definition was based on fear. In modern times, we have perfected an intellectual utopia under the leadership of our loving governments. There is no longer any need for anyone to worry about the government abusing their power or stomping on the rights of citizens. Such thoughts are truly reactionary fears that must not be heeded. Government is here to look out for you, and they want to work in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Remember, the word "treason" means whatever you want it to mean. If Michigan'sgovernorr has a true, heartfelt desire to include criticism of her administration's efforts in the definition, we shouldn't stop her. She's worked very hard to rid the state of worms and trash like those banks who sit out-of-state and ruin her people's revolution. She knows that "they are unwilling to adapt to the spirit of our revolution...We don't want them! We don't need them!" Since thegovernorr obviously knows what is best for her state, we shouldn't question her decision, because that would be judgmental of us, and mean.
As for the political right questioning the patriotism of people like Jane Fonda, it is typical of theirtemperamentt. Progressive pioneers like Jane have been trying for many years to increase understanding between differing nations and prevent war. Listen to the words of the brave poet D.S. Savage, writing during the festival of intolerance known as the Second World War, said that he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.". He furthermore cautioned "who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" In a final and touchingly modern statement, he ended with a plea for the universal solvent, tolerance. "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."
As an example of government officials working in our interest, the ATF has banned the importation of foreign gun parts such as barrels, frames, and receivers. This, of course, makes repair of many types of popular and legal firearms impossible. Some might view this as unconstitutional, or at least something that should be passed in the legislature. Of course, these silly people don't see the visionary path of bureaucratic management. As we all know, people with weapons can be a barrier to the aims of the state. Some have noted that they moved only after the response to the visionary Kelo decision seemed to be "time to buy a gun."
We must move forward, not backward. We must emulate the crime-free utopia of Europe rather than the US model.
On a final note, after an examination of the fine message boards at Above Top Secret, I see that our erstwhile UFO channeler Prophet Yahweh has delayed his promised UFO appearance until this time next year. It seems he couldn't make the UFO appear by his 15 July deadline. What a shame.
posted by The Admiral at 7:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home