Sunday, January 08, 2006

Treason?

Is this treason?
"...President Bush has basically accused the New York Times of treason. In his remarks on how the paper disclosed the existence of a program to discover planned Al Qaeda terrorist operations on U.S. soil, Bush said this information was 'improperly provided to news organizations,' meaning the Times, and 'our enemies have learned information they should not have…' He said 'the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.'"
This is also worth considering:
"...Here in the United States since 9/11, the terrorists have done nothing -- that is, no violence on our homeland. That is the incident worth paying attention to. But is it curious? No.

"The terrorists’ lack of success is the result of a response that has been aggressive and single-minded -- at home, in Iraq and in places we know little about. The policy is working. It has kept us safe. We tamper with it at our own extreme peril."
In 1798, during the early days of our nation under John Adams's Federalist administration, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in response to Americans' fear that large numbers of European immigrants in flight from the radicalism of the French Revolution might bring with them ideas which threatened the newly formed United States. The Alien Acts gave the President power to imprison or deport any immigrants whom he deemed dangerous. The Sedition Act made it a crime to make or publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" statements against the government, Congress, or the President; and some twenty-five newsmen were prosecuted. All over the newly formed nation, people protested the acts. Two of the Founders, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, decried the Sedition Act; Jefferson in particular felt that it violated the First Amendment. John Adams did not win a second term as President, and the Federalist Party never again gained election to the White House.

133 Comments:

At 1/08/2006 8:24 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 1:13 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I have a feeling not many people are going to vote for George W. Bush in 2008.

 
At 1/09/2006 5:59 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I have a feeling not many people are going to vote for George W. Bush in 2008.

So you caught my little trick, huh? The reason I put in that last sentence is that a few months back, a fellow sit here in my living room and said, "I hope Bush doesn't win re-election." I kid you not!

After John Adams's administration, the Federalist Party waned. There were many causes, but I've always felt that the Alien and Sedition Acts played a part in that waning. Maybe others can add to that thought.

 
At 1/09/2006 6:04 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
I'm hoping for many comments to this posting. For one thing, my question "Is this treason?" is deliberately open to interpretation: Is it GWB who committed treason--or the NYT? Or neither, for that matter?

And I also have a selfish reason for hoping for the comments. I go back to work today. Christmas break is over.

 
At 1/09/2006 8:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

always,

I think you might wish to review some of Adam's reasons for instituting the Alien and Sedition acts... if one couples the actions of Aaron Burr (post revolution) with the story told in "original" Sons of St Tammany Association linked...starting in 1795 with the "War in the Wigwam" (near the bottom of the page) one might learn a slightly "different" story.

People should know that once you "start" a Revolutionary War, it's hard to know when it's "over". For the patriotic "factions" are sometimes hard to control.

The Democrat-Republican Newspapers were all over Adams. Ben Franklin's "network" was pretty powerful.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 8:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little more on Aaron Burr and the New York Tammany from Wikipedia

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and of course reaction to Adam's Alien & Sedition acts lead to the election of Jefferson/Madison. During their administration, the Federalists had their own little trist w/sedition... that culminated in the Hartford Convention.

Eventually the population started to take a strong dislike to all the shenanigans of the Federalist and Democrat-Republican Parties and formed the first "third" political party in the US... the Anti-Mason Party.

But the roots of all these sometimes "seditious" activities remain with us today (as evidenced by John Kerry's concession speech being broadcast from Faneuil Hall in Boston, seat of the "Boston Rebellion". The subliminal message... sedition lives and will continue.

You likin' those apples sammy?

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and I've left out most of the controversy created by the fact the the Revolutionary War didn't end in 1784, for the British kept pushing the "Native" Americans to harass and oppose America's dreams of westward and Canadian expansion. Vandalia beckoned the land-less and would be "Lords" to "go west".

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO DOCTOR THOMAS LEIB.

WASHINGTON, June 23, 1808.

SIR,-L have duly received your favor covering a copy of the talk to the Tammany society, for which I thank you, and particularly for the favorable sentiments expressed towards myself. Certainly, nothing Will so much sweeten the tranquillity and comfort of retirement, as the knowledge that I carry with me the good will and approbation of my republican fellow-citizens, and especially of the individuals in unison with whom I have so long acted. With respect to the federalists, I believe we think alike; for when speaking of them, we never mean to include a worthy portion of our fellow-citizens, who consider themselves as in duty bound to support the constituted authorities of every branch, and to reserve their opposition to the period of election. These having acquired the appellation of federalists, while a federal administration was in place, have not cared about throwing off their name, but adhering to their principle, are the supporters of the present order of things.

The other branch of the federalists, those who are so in principle as well as in name, disapprove of the republican principles and features of our Constitution, and would, I believe, welcome any public calamity (war with England excepted) which might lessen the confidence of our country in those principles and forms. I have generally considered them rather as subjects for a mad-house. But they are now playing a game of the most mischievous tendency, without perhaps being themselves aware of it. They are endeavoring to convince England that we suffer more by the embargo than they do, and if they will but hold out awhile, we must abandon it. It is true, the time will come when we must abandon it. But if this is before the repeal of the orders of council, we must abandon it only for a state of war. The day is not distant, when that will be preferable to a longer continuance of the embargo. But we can never remove that, and let our vessels go out and be taken under these orders, without making reprisal.

Yet this is the very state of things which these federal monarchists are endeavoring to bring about; and in this it is but too possible they may succeed. But the fact is, that if we have war with England, it will be solely produced by their maneuvers. I think that in two or three months we shall know what will be the issue.



I salute you with esteem and respect.

---

I guess some things never change.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 10:03 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Damn, there isn't enough popcorn on the whole continent for this show.

"This guy Abramoff is going to dynamite the outhouse." -- Pat Buchanan --

Bush is history and the entire neocon movement has been exposed. The crap from the explosion is going to land on some Dems but this is largely a far right production.

Payback for the eight year hate is gonna be a bitch.

 
At 1/09/2006 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From William Duane's "Aurora" upon the election of Jefferson...

THE gloomy night before us flies,
The reign of terror now is o'er;
Its gags, inquisitors, and spies,
Its herds of harpies are no more!

Rejoice! Columbia's Sons, rejoice!
To tyrants never bend the knee,
But join with heart and soul and voice,
For Jefferson and Liberty. . . .

No lordling here, with gorging jaws
Shall wring from industry the food;
Nor fiery bigot's holy laws
Lay waste our fields and streets in blood!
---

Some called it the "Revolution of 1800".

mr ducky would like to revive it and call it the "Revolution of 2008".

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...just one more "footnote". The French Revolution was a "continuation" of Franklin's (and the Enlightenment's) American Revolution and wasn't so much the "alien" threat to America as was the revival of the "seditious" and more "democratic" sentiments amongst American "revolutionary" patriots opposed to aristocracies and their more centralized authoritarian republican form - the Federalists and their bankers.

It took until the American Civil War to finally lay this issue to rest, although one might point to the nineteen-sixties and state that another "reversal" took place at that time (this one more closely approximating the form of the French Revolution...the leaders of the socialist "dregs" of society controlling vice the enlightened bourgouise.)

And mr. ducky performs his own unique impersonation of Madame DeFarge by knitting the names "DeLay", "Bush", "Chenney", and "assorted neocons" into a shawl he'll eventually give as gift to some Special Prosecutor in the future.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 11:44 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

FJ,
I think you might wish to review some of Adam's reasons for instituting the Alien and Sedition acts...

At the risk of not having read all the links you posted (I'll read everything later, as my schedule permits), I acknowledge that I simplified in the final paragraph of my blog posting. To explain the complexities of what happened some 300 years ago would have made my piece go on too long.

I was hoping that you'd come along with more information. Thanks!

I also skipped over mentioning Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus(the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court), Wilson's allowing officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government, FDR's allowing for wiretapping and ordering Japanese-Americans to internment camps, and Nixon's authorizing bugging and wiretapping against domestic "subversives." [January 9, 2006 edition of Newsweek Magazine]

 
At 1/09/2006 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, if sammy did something useful like tracing the names through the female bloodlines of the fifty Royaneh families so as to identify the current Confederate Lords, his conspiracy theories about the Bushes and one-worlders might have more validity. But no, why research some ancient Indian treaty published by Franklin after he and the Junto had a few drinks in the old Indian King Tavern? I mean, how hard could it be to trace the names of those that used to own Deer Island? ;-)

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 12:04 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't mean to crticize, always. I just have a slightly different perspective than most historians on the subject... that the radical idea's of the French Revolution were already well established in America, and had been for quite some time (Articles of Confederation). Both Franklin and Jefferson were linked to the French and their "party" was not in power. Adams was more an anglophile and may have used the friction with France as a basis for quelling an ongoing anti-authoritarian "rebellion" that was still brewing in America. Americans were still gathering under "liberty poles" and "trash talkin'" Adam's government (perhaps they perceived "weakness").

...and so it will always be in a democracy whenever a real Cincinnatus like "George Washington" is not in power. Perhaps that is why so many US generals go on to become American presidents. We need someone in charge who has proven himself or believed to be "better or stronger than the rest of us".

Free men do not easily submit to a bridle.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 12:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

... and in a democracy its' sometimes hard to BOTH hate "aristocractic authority figures" and also have and accept a "strong president".

and sammy, I do have my own crazy ideas and delusions. Only its' just too easy to line up a set of axe handles from a million seperate and distinct facts and form a conspiracy theory by use of the straight arrows of logic to fill in the gaps and link them all together. I know what its' like to suffer from delusions, I've had plenty of them. You witness the paper trails of them near every day.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 12:37 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

FJ,
I didn't mean to crticize, always.

No offense taken!

And I happen to agree with you: a slightly different perspective than most historians on the subject... that the radical idea's of the French Revolution were already well established in America, and had been for quite some time (Articles of Confederation). Both Franklin and Jefferson were linked to the French...

 
At 1/09/2006 12:42 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Farmer, why must we "have and accept a strong president"?

Whenever this one speaks I smell the Reichstag burning so it may be worthwhile to reconsider your need for a strongman to keep the lefties in line.

 
At 1/09/2006 1:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just point to Rome for the answer ducky. Presidential powers in wartime NEED to be dictatorial.

And even a dictator is NOT immune from criticism. I give you the example of Quintus Fabius Maximus as example. He was ridiculed for the way he prosecuted his war against Hannibal. But he was "right" in fighting it the way he did (as Cannae was to later prove). Eventually Scipio was able to convince Hannibal to leave Italy and go defend his native Carthage.

-FJ

-ps How many generals did Lincoln go through before settling on Grant? And how close did Lincoln come to loosing re-election?

 
At 1/09/2006 1:00 PM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

I think many of you (S and FJ on the right, the Quack on the left) have an inherient distrust of the government, though from slightly different perspectives. S and FJ distrust all government, while Duck distrusts only Republican/Conservative government. I know there is a distinction in the two terms, but I submit that from the Duck's point of view, it is simply picking between demons.

Either way, there is a large portion of us that would agree that the motives and agendas of our elected leadership are slightly less than pure, but none-the-less, they are in the buisness of furthering America's intersts, and thus the American people's interests. If you get a better job or avoid a deadly attack because of Conservative or Liberal methods or tactics... did you not still benifit?

I think then the real debate is how to do it, not what is being done. The notion that a paper is commiting "treason" by printing a story that will land no one in jail is PR/Propaganda (depending on your perspective) meant to direct our attention away from the subject which is pretty touchy. Again though, if what the President did was treason, we wouldnt not hear of it until he was led away to prison, as it wouldn't have been leaked to the press for an attempt at conviction in the court of public opinion. Washington usually only goes that route when no real crime has been committed, but instead a crime in principle (or an affront to the pompus Washington elite).

 
At 1/09/2006 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

g,

I don't mistrust government to the extent that it fullfills its' Constitutional charter (defense, interstate commerce, foreign affairs). My problem is when they try and expand their charter and do things our government wasn't chartered to do.... like "save the world" and "provide a social safety net".

I recognize that they "mean well" and are trying to "do good", but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And we seldom need the "force" of government to do good. We do, however, frequently need it to overcome the "forces" of evil.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and ducky,

Tony Blair is a Fabian. Is that why you all attack him too?

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 1:32 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Well g, I'm not sure that I inherently distrust government as much as I believe it has let us down... but then that is our failure, not government's.

I certainly believe there are functions that must be performed by government (far beyond protection) in order to have a functional, fulfilling society.

I also do not believe in exceptionalism. The idea that America holds a complete answer is ludicrous but what we can contribute has been subverted by the current administration and we are in danger over the next couple of decades of becoming nothing more than an irrelevancy with a big army. That can all be avoided but, yes, this surrender of the country to corporate interests must be stopped.

 
At 1/09/2006 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also believe like mr. ducky that there are functions that must be performed by government far beyond protection. Where I disagree with him is at the "level" of government this be performed. I don't believe that it lies in the realm of the "federal". I believe it lies in the realm of regional/ local so as to provide "many" different options for living a "good life" as possble... and not any single vision of a "good life". These are the powers that I believe the feds have "usurped".

And unlike mr. ducky, I do believe in American exceptionalism. We may not have the "perfect answer", but we're damn close.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and as for the "corporate interest", I do believe a little reigning in may be in order. What I don't believe in is the "burning down" of the entire capitalist system. Me, I would simply put a few "boundaries" and "limits" upon the extent I would allow capitalism to dominate my society. Interstate commerce is all well and good... I just don't feel the need to "maximize" it and try and create a "single market" and bring into being mr. ducky's much feared "law of the one price".

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 1:52 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Let's be honest...when we voted to reelect George Bush we were casting a vote of confidence on his ability to fight terrorism both abroad and at home. Most of these leaks to the New York Times have come from CIA agents who are putting their differences with the president ahead of national security. If you voted for Bush, stop acting like domestic spying and East European prisons are a big surprise. He promised to do everything within his power to stop another attack on US soil and that's what he's doing.

 
At 1/09/2006 2:28 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

If government workers purposely leaked classified information to the New York Times than they are guilty of treason. I notice many people are claiming that Bush has committed treason but they seem to forget that the Patriot Act was passed 99-1. I can imagine the same people's reaction if a successful terrorist operation happened on American soil. Hypocrites

 
At 1/09/2006 2:34 PM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Now, check THIS out. How on earth did/COULD the NYT possibly breach national security?

Ah, there is a leak coming from somewhere. The Times merely paid off the informer.

But then again, this is expected of them to do so. Anything that comes against this nation, do it, just as the enemy would.

 
At 1/09/2006 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On treason and journalism...

I speak of rebellion, treason, saintship, martyrdom, &c. throughout this discourse, only in the scriptural and theological sense. I know not how the law defines them; the study of that not being my employment. ~ Jonathan Mayhew

America is a rebellious nation. Our whole history is treason; our blood was attained before we were born; our creeds were infidelity to the mother church; our constitution treason to our fatherland. ~ Theodore Parker

A state that suppresses ALL freedom of speech, and which by imposing the most terrible punishments, treats EACH and EVERY attempt at criticism, however morally justified, and EVERY suggestion for improvement as plotting to high treason, is a state that breaks an unwritten law. ~ Kurt Huber (something we are VERY VERY FAR from)

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. ~ Ovid

I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. ~W.T. Sherman

If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: "President Can't Swim." ~Lyndon B. Johnson

Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock. ~Ben Hecht

We live under a government of men and morning newspapers. ~ Wendell Phillips

The evening papers print what they do and get away with it because by afternoon the human mind is ruined anyhow. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists. ~Norman Mailer

Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation. ~George Bernard Shaw, 1931

Editor: A person employed on a newspaper whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed. ~Elbert Hubbard

If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. ~Malcolm X

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. ~Gandhi

 
At 1/09/2006 3:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

a few thoughts for sammy...

It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world. Aristotle

There are no original ideas. There are only original people. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

I do not 'get' ideas; ideas get me. Robertson Davies

Wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to have any relation. Mark Twain

God screens us evermore from premature ideas. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. John F. Kennedy

Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is "bold, exciting, innovative, and new." There are many ideas that are "bold, exciting, innovative and new," but also foolish. Donald Rumsfeld

There are well-dressed foolish ideas just as there are well-dressed fools. Nicolas de Chamfort

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. Karl Marx

One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas. Victor Hugo

Great ideas originate in the muscles. Thomas A. Edison

Walk thinking just thoughts - Hipparchus

 
At 1/09/2006 3:45 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

AOW,
The person who leaked the information to the paper committed an act of treason.
The president cannot accuse journalist of treason unless there is an official censorship which provides daily guidelines for them what can and what cannot be released to the public.
All government departments, (public service, army, federal police and security) in the West are filled with people who either do not understand their role or get to these positions to propagate their agendas because they found out it is a better way than being elected.
They also select other employees and set policies and procedures, which create a culture of "treason" (sold as dissent).
And so in my opinion a "purge" of your public service is more required than "huffing" and puffing" about “seditions” committed by daily newspapers.
I would worry about my security when an FBI agent refuses to spy on "brother Muslims" because of his religious beliefs.
I wouldn't if the papers wrote about it.

 
At 1/09/2006 3:47 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

BTW,
I always though the US presidential wannabies can only be elected twice. ;-)

 
At 1/09/2006 4:30 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

You need a chill down, AOW. Most of the people being tapped (including myself at the Catholic Worker house) were well aware that the Bush administration had revived Cointelpro. You can also accept that the people who took down the World Trade Towers are smart enough to know that phone communication isn't safe.

So the leaking of the activity did nothing to endanger anyone but it did make the American people aware that the Bush administration had bypassed all checks and balances in they're typical abuse of do process.

Now it's a fact that everytime Bush speaks people should be able to smell the Reichstag burning but in Falwell land it doesn't seem to matter. That's why you catch some flak AOW...some of us just can't approve of you "good Germans".

 
At 1/09/2006 5:14 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 5:41 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sammy,

Title 22 USC 2551 does indeed point to a goal of achieving whirled peas and world disarmament. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting for the law's implementation. Somebody's got to peel the guns out of the hands of the entire world before they can achieve it. And last time I checked, possession is still 9/10ths the law.

Besides, I didn't actually see signup by the rest of the world towards achieving that lofty goal. And without that, the law is rather moot.

-FJ

 
At 1/09/2006 7:12 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 8:07 PM, Blogger Mike's America said...

AOW: I'm impressed by the quality of debate and only one moonbat, the Defarge Ducky! Speaks volumes not only about the quality of your audience but also the quality of the blog to attract such reasoned commenters.

Even though the word "treason" gets thrown around all over the place, and not without good reason in the case of the NY Al Queda Times, the legal definition is set out in the Constitution, Article III 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."

Certainly the Times story does provide aid and comfort to our enemy. But wouldn't it be the person who leaked it that was committing treason and not the paper? Legal scholars can no doubt argue the point.

I found your source material interesting too. The connection between Bush and Lincoln is one that Bush welcomes. In his end of year interview with Brit Hume he described his thoughts on Lincoln, saying that his job and the problems we face today are so much less dire by comparison.

But we ARE in a state of civil war. A COLD civil war if you will. We have debated the issues of war and peace now during two elections and both times the voters returned increasing numbers of representatives and re-elected a President on the basis of those discussions. However, we have a very vocal minority who are not content to accept and support the democratically arrived decision and who have knowingly and willfully acted to obstruct and undermine the national will at a time of war.

The actions of these unrepentant obstructionists have been shown by the terrorists themselves in letters by both Zawahiri (Al Q #2) and Zarqawi (Butcher of Iraq) to encourage their efforts and have doubtlessly added to the death toll of both innocent Iraqis and American troops.

I liked the other reference ("The dog that did not bark in the night")from the Arthur Conan-Doyle Sherlock Holmes "Silver Blaze" story. But I do hear the dog barking in the night except it's the terror enabling left Yorkies.

Glassman's other point about Munich is well taken too. If Spielberg wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, he might have illuminated the lessons we learned at Munich in 1938 with Chamberlains "Peace in our time."

"Peace in our time" grew out of the "Peace at any price" crowd before World War II. The only "peace" that resulted from their mindless refusal to recognize the nature of their enemy was the peace of the graves filled by nearly 60 million people, several continents scarred forever and two atomic bombs dropped.

Sadly, the "peace at any price" crowd learned no lesson from that horror and the adherents to that dangerous philosophy are actively attempting to place us again in a situation where we would have only two choices: A. Accept domination by radical Islam or B. Wage real war on a vast scale.

President Bush and sensible persons of goodwill are seeking peace, but peace with justice and are anxiously working to keep alive a third option: defeat the Islamic evil before it we are faced with a choice between just the two above.

I'm sorry if I seem to be diverging from the subject, but it seems to me that the greater question is the seriousness with which we face the current problem. Are we truly at war? If so, then we SHOULD treat such matter as the Times leak seriously.

 
At 1/09/2006 8:48 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Ducky

Marxist should be the second group put under scrutiny. Are you going to deny the Marxist history of treason in America ? How many fake martyrd do we have Hiss , Rosenburg ?

You could just turn yourself in and wait it out in Gitmo. We can do a nice reality TV series with you and the jihadis.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, now don't be an arse. The question here is due process. Were sufficient measures available to the president to ensure the safety of American citizens or was this a matter of the little AWOL clown getting annoyed because he would have to deal with the espionage court and who the hell are the courts to tell these stinking Nazis what they can or cannot do.

Now why don't you run along and play in the sandbox with Mike while he explains how radical Islam will dominate us. It can't even dominate muslim countries like Egypt and Algeria but Mikey the f***ktard will explain all.

Beak, you really need to stop throwing in with these 'tards.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

Gentlemen I am awed by the depth of your debate it is quite humbling.

The person who leaked to the NY Times is a Traitor the NY Times is guilty of collusion.

I will say no more as I was told Better to be thought a fool than to opens one's mouth and remove all doubt!!!!

 
At 1/09/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger jakejacobsen said...

Gentlefolk,

The Nazi analogies grow wearisome. Do you have a fact or two to leaven the accusations with or are you content with merely flinging mud against GWB, because of course he be de debil.

Also, I would be more worried if our President hadn't broached this with the opposition party, but he did. As far as I'm concerned that's close enough to dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:16 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:28 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

S
The Mad Mullahs state openly that they will wipe Israel off the map and turn the US into a Caliphate or kill us all in trying. The Russians play chess the Chicoms aren't ready, but the TERRORISTS are HERE!

 
At 1/09/2006 9:38 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Quick announcement here...My email notification for comments is down. At some point (not for a few days, though), I'll change templates to try to bring the notification back up. If you make a comment, copy it before previewing or posting so that your comment won't get lost in case there's a Blogger foul-up.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:39 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Did GWB's comment about treason spark any debate among the members of Congress or among the media? I haven't seen a national-news broadcast in a few days.

 
At 1/09/2006 9:47 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

some in the press
none in the congress

I just linked to you great debate and a quality blog

 
At 1/09/2006 10:49 PM, Blogger Mike's America said...

AOW: SO I guess we can put Ducky Defarge in the "ostrich with head in the sand" category.

I'm sure you already shared with him Islam's 20 year plan to dominate the world. And perhaps he's already seen the Mark Steyn article describing the low birth rates of Christian Europe and the high birth rate of Moslems.

But he's probably immune to any reasoning from the 21st Century.

How about some reasoning from the 19th?

In my previous comment I alluded to the fact that many were willfully ignorant of the danger posed by Nazism before it was too late.

One man knew the danger: Winston Churchill. Alone and derided as a warmonger before war broke out, he proved right on the mark, just as he was in his warning about the Iron curtain.

Long before he offered those prescient warnings, he wrote the following Islam, or Mohammedanism as it was then called, in "The River War" (1899): No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science . . . the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Don't worry Ducky... I'm sure the Jihadists will kill you last.

 
At 1/10/2006 2:21 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:06 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

We do not prosecute treason or sedition in the USA. However the people at Code Pink who gave money to our enemies in Falujah should be procecuted. Did I mention that Code Pink is a Commie front group ?

When you see a Commie put on the metaphorical steel toed boots and kick em in the back side.

 
At 1/10/2006 7:21 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

In his first comment here, FJ mentioned three links. The first relates to Aaron Burr. I'm familiar with that portion of American history; others might want to review that material.

From the second link which FJ provided:

...In ‘94, the members of the Democratic Society were forced to dissolve that body, from a certainty that their every movement was watched, and that the most trivial step savoring of opposition to the administration, whether such as granted by the great charter of the constitution, or as usurped by them, would be made as a handle for persecution and destruction. Such was the temper of the times, that an open expression of private sentiment was frequently considered as bordering upon treason—these times have passed—may they never again recur.

The election of ‘99, the memorable victory which placed our patriot M'Kean in the first station in this commonwealth, fixed the friends of equal political rights on vantage ground. After that important era, alas now forgotten by men who owe their present prosperity to the victory, no danger was to be apprehended as to personal safety from British intrigue, for the grand promoters of it were irrevocably defeated in this state. The Society of Cincinnati now no longer excited emotions of fear in the republican breast; for though not arrived at the age of puberty, she was already paralised by second childhood.

"The Society of Tamminy was now only to be feared. From the necessity of self preservation, the members had resorted to secrecy; and in the progress of the association, the Society had embraced at least 500 members—all bound together by the same ties—all engaged to support the same cause—the avowed cause of republicanism. What a dereliction from their professions, what a contrast have their late proceedings evinced? The republicans have become victorious, no dangers remain to their cause but in the misapplied energies of that very association which had added certainty to their united efforts. The Tammany Society alone, having no external enemy to overturn, and aided by its secret forms, was destined to become a scourge of the people....

We have already stated, that many of the founders of this association had discontinued to meet their brethren. These were men of tried republicanism, prominent in the democratic cause, and who having attained the re-establishment of civil liberty, became disgusted with the puerile forms of the institution....


From the third link which FJ provided, and this is an excerpt from the Sedition Act:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided. That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

So there was no official repeal; the Sedition Act expired.

As I understand 18th Century American history, the Adams administration felt that both the internal and the external threat to the United States was significant. Maybe I'm wrong, but Adams seems to have deliberately circumvented the Constitution in the interest of national security, and Congress went along with that idea as the Acts were ratified, though with the same caveat of expiration of the Patriot Act. Adams's circumvention was not well received; but many today admire John Adams, especially since that huge bio came out.

Are there parallels with today's situation with the NSA? How far can those parallels be drawn? Will the 2006 elections reflect any parallels?

 
At 1/10/2006 7:40 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pursuant to Mike's mention of The Twenty Year Plan, though I doubt Duck puts much credence in it:

The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020! Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?

1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with hate crime bills state-wide and nation-wide.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion while Christianity is for the whites! Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, “Abed.”

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office for favorable legislation to Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – the black gold. America’s economy depends on oil, (1000 products are derived from oil), so does its personal and industrial transportation and manufacturing -41% comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell, “foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un-American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
No birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one cannot have the Muslim legal permission to marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2000 released inmates have joined Al Qaida world-wide). Only a few have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil. So far – sleeping cells!

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are 300 exclusively Muslim schools with loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have high-jacked Islam, not the truth, which is Islam high-jacked the terrorists. Furthermore in January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4500 packets of the Quran, videos, promoting Islam to America’s high schools--free. They would never allow us to reciprocate.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards the Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls. (We have experienced this too often since 9-11.)

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not American’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting that freshman take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the writer is a bonafide American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran and express the peaceful, spiritual and religious aspect only.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media of their visibility.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.


Tony Blair has also mentioned that terrorists will use our freedoms against us.

 
At 1/10/2006 8:08 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Again, from the January 9, 2006 edition of Newsweek Magazine:

A White House official who decined to be identified discussing internal deliberations says that the administration feared a congressional debate would have tipped off the terrorists to secret "sources and methods" used by the NSA and other spy services.

A more subtle factor is also at work. The executive branch is always reluctant to ask Congress for permission if, by the very asking, that means conceding that the legislative branch has the power to say no. Presidents prefer to keep warmaking powers general--and unquestioned. By the same token, congressmen often do not wish to know exactly what the spooks are up to in the name of national security. Allen Dulles, the legendary CIA director in the 1950's, once said that he always "told the truth" to Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Richard Russell: "that is," Dulles added with a wink, "if Dick wants to know!"

..."You're so disadvantaged," Daschle says. "They know so much more than you do. You don't even know what questions to ask."

...Lincoln was accused of dictatorship and his Republican Party lost seats in the congressional electons of 1862 and 1864. Wilsonian excesses during and after World War I helped provoke the modern civil-liberties movement, and Nixon's abuses of power spawned a host of Watergate reforms--including FISA.


This pattern seems to emerge: a President will circumvent the Constitution rather than risk losing a war. A broad interpretation of the powers of the executive branch might indicate that national-security interests come first. But interestingly enough, when it comes to Senate hearings on SCOTUS appointments, GWB's nominees appear to be of the strict- constructionist type. So the Senators who oppose the SCOTUS nominees want broad-interpretation justices, but also oppose broad interpretion of executive powers while at the same time using a broad-interpretation of how to conduct the hearings. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I detect some contradiction.

But maybe consistency from politicians is too much to ask!

 
At 1/10/2006 8:12 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

City Troll,
the TERRORISTS are HERE!

No doubt in my mind about that, but some are stuck in the 9/10 mindset.

 
At 1/10/2006 8:14 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
We do not prosecute treason or sedition in the USA.

And why is that? Exigencies of prosecuting such cases--or something else?

 
At 1/10/2006 8:25 AM, Anonymous Old Soldier said...

AOW, in response to your question, the leakers, journalists and the NYT should all be investigated for treasonous acts and espionage.

IAW statutes and departmental regulations we have a security classification system intended to enhance and provide for the security and defense of our country. There are many classifications; the three most commonly known being, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. There are processes and procedures established for the handling and safeguarding of classified material. Operations and programs are classified to protect the forces and deny an enemy information that may benefit them. There is even an established procedure for whistle blowing which involves a special Congressional committee. (The Whistle Blower Act does not cover people working on classified programs; that’s why the special Congressional committee is established – to ensure continued safeguarding of classified material and programs.)

I worked with classified material and programs during my tenure in the U.S. Army. Predicated upon my experience, I would expect the NSA (and other agencies) monitoring program was classified at least to the Secret level with the intelligence information gathered probably classified to the Top Secret level. Given the disciplined structure of operating within a classified program and handling classified information, I surmise all people involved knew the protocol to report irregularities or what may have been perceived as a constitutional violation. That protocol certainly did not involve the New York Times or their journalists.

The journalists writing the article in the NYT specifically stated that contact had been made with the White House and that the White House had asked that the article not be printed. That was from the journalist’s perspective. From the perspective of the White House; the position may have been presented that what was possessed by the journalists was classified information pertinent to national security and that they were not to print it. By the journalists own comment, they sat on the story for about a year. To me that suggests they were informed of the nature of the program classification and a connection to national security.

In my simple mind, the deliberate leaking of classified program information is treasonous. Too, the printing of the same in a newspaper after having been warned off the story is also treasonous. I recognize our inherent freedom of speech under the First Amendment and do not advocate censorship. By the same token, with that freedom adjoins inseparable consequences and related responsibilities. Part of the responsibilities is prudence, especially for news organizations. Rather than exercising punitive measures, the NYT would have been much more a national hero had they chose a different course of action more in line with the security of the nation.

Constitutional and legal scholars support both sides of the argument centered on whether or not the president has the power to do what has been done. I find it very interesting, though, that there is not one documented case of an average American citizen having been harmed or actually spied upon unjustifiably (without warrant).

 
At 1/10/2006 8:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

...and I forget who said it but to paraphrase - "In war, vice is a virtue and virtue a vice". Hence the need to "broadly" interpret Presidential powers in "war-time" and "narrowly" interpret them in time of peace. Henceforth, let every wartime president a tyrant be! Consistency be damned!

-FJ

 
At 1/10/2006 8:58 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Old Soldier,
Thank you so much for stopping by and making your comment. To my recollection, this is your first visit here. I hope that you'll visit here again as I've seen your comments on other sites.

there is not one documented case of an average American citizen having been harmed or actually spied upon unjustifiably (without warrant).

I didn't know this! But I came late to watching politics (9/12/01).

I recognize our inherent freedom of speech under the First Amendment and do not advocate censorship. By the same token, with that freedom adjoins inseparable consequences and related responsibilities. Part of the responsibilities is prudence, especially for news organizations.

Journalists, if I can take the liberty of give them such an esteemed label, don't have much sense of responsibility--except for trying to get a scoop.

My aunt, who turns 90 today and still has all her marbles, worked as the confidential secretary to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She is the most talkative member of the extended family, but when it came to her job, which gave her access to all sorts of classified information, kept her mouth zipped about all information with which she came into contact. For many years, she has declared herself "aghast" (her word) at the blabbing of classified material.

Just a bit additional info about my aunt...She is not a political animal. For example, she has never voted in any election, primarily because she has never felt herself informed enough to cast a ballot. Having been widowed at the age of 33, she spent her years rearing her only son, tending to ill and dying family members, enjoying her grandchildren, etc. The irony to me is that my aunt, an avid news hound (though distrustful of politics in general), is probably more informed than many who gleefully exercise their right to vote. The rest of my family always goes to the voting booth, and we've never quite understood my aunt's reluctance.

 
At 1/10/2006 9:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and I love Maryland's state song, "Maryland, my Maryland" (to the tune of Oh Christmas Tree). I wonder if it was considered treason to sing it during the Civil war...
---
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!

II
Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
Maryland!
My Mother State! to thee I kneel,
Maryland!
For life or death, for woe or weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird they beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!

III
Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
Maryland!
Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Maryland!
Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!

IV
Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,
Maryland!
Come with thy panoplied array,
Maryland!
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland!

V
Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,
Maryland!
Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
Maryland!
Come to thine own anointed throng,
Stalking with Liberty along,
And sing thy dauntless slogan song,
Maryland! My Maryland!

VI
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland!
She meets her sisters on the plain-
Sic semper! 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Maryland!
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!

VII
I see the blush upon thy cheek,
Maryland!
For thou wast ever bravely meek,
Maryland!
But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
From hill to hill, from creek to creek,
Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
Maryland! My Maryland!

VIII
Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
Maryland!
Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Maryland!
Better the fire upon thee roll, Better the shot, the blade, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the Soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!

IX
I hear the distant thunder-hum,
Maryland!
The Old Line bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland!
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! She spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! She burns! She'll come! She'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!

-FJ

 
At 1/10/2006 9:20 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Bush is a Trotskyite? Let's all thank Samwich for some food for thought.

Perpetual war for perpetual change (or profit?)

I'd have to amend it somewhat. Bush is just some AWOL schmuck. The power behind the throne is certainly not concerned by a few scattered wars or a couple of scyscrapers coming down when there is a buck to be made.

Are the neocons in fact Trotskyites. Case can be made.

 
At 1/10/2006 9:45 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

A bit of info about Trotsky from
this source:

...Stalin and his regime represented the interests of this bureaucracy. But in order to consolidate their control over society this bureaucracy had to eliminate the genuine traditions of Bolshevism. Thus the struggle between Stalin's faction and the Left Opposition, led by Trotsky, was a struggle between the genuine representatives of the working class and the up-and-coming bureaucratic elite.

Trotsky led an implacable struggle against the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union. The Stalinist regime's response was to expel him from the Soviet Communist Party and then exile him from the Soviet Union itself. Huge numbers of his supporters inside the Soviet Union ended up in Stalin's camps from which they were never to return. From exile Trotsky gathered supporters inside the Communist Parties with which he built the International Left Opposition.

Trotsky alone defended the genuine traditions, ideas and methods of Marxism....


Additional information is available at the above link.

Of course, Trotsky died in exile.

I'll check back later to see if the case can be made, as Duck indicated.

 
At 1/10/2006 10:15 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

S.

So Reagan, the country western actor was part of the grand conspiracy as well? The strings are stretched pretty far now.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:02 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I've go to dash off to work, but I'll leave this for consideration:

According to the Democratic Party's leaders, we all have been betrayed by the Bush administration's Big Brother intelligence tactics as evil government operatives invaded the privacy of innocent Americans. Stop lying. Show us the victims. Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed. Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one. Can't do it? OK. Let's dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach for the facts.

Read more here.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:56 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:58 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Neocons are Trotskyites?

Switch to Crack Lite, Ducky. The real stuff is fuggin you up.

 
At 1/10/2006 12:42 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

So you don't care much for due process, AOW. As long as it doesn't effect those on your approved list then everything's fine.

Let's go back to the days of McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO ... by definition, if they were considered targets of interest then they deserved it.

Now as for the right... the good people, the ones who have never eaten anything for lunch but a tuna sandwich in their entire lifes are going to sit it out.

You'd sell out your birthright for a bowl of pottage, wouldn't you, AOL. All you good Germans.

 
At 1/10/2006 1:00 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Ducky says "All you good Germans"
doesn't take long for racism to raise its ugly head does it? Pretty sad.

 
At 1/10/2006 1:15 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

Why all the anti-German sentiments?
1..grandson of Adolf Hitler's US Banker, George Bush
2..Whenever this one speaks I smell the Reichstag burning
3..Now it's a fact that everytime Bush speaks people should be able to smell the Reichstag burning but in Falwell land it doesn't seem to matter. That's why you catch some flak AOW...some of us just can't approve of you "good Germans".
4.. Who the hell are the courts to tell these stinking Nazis what they can or cannot do.
5..You'd sell out your birthright for a bowl of pottage, wouldn't you, AOL. All you good Germans.
Seems like we have a new enemy, time to let go the past.

 
At 1/10/2006 1:56 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Until the Bush administration starts pushing to nationalize industry, starts up an anti-tobacco campaign, starts campaigning against guns and for abortions, starts pushes socialist economic programs over free market solutions, celebrates homosexuality, equates animals with humans and humans with animals, and plugging for euthanasia, I'd lay off calling Bush a Nazi.

 
At 1/10/2006 2:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

 
At 1/10/2006 2:04 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Great quote Mr. Beamish. I find some of it relevant today. This country is guilty of evaluating people by their social status instead of their contributions. This is probably true of most societies.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:03 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:07 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

The point is that if you don't believe people should be enslaved by a strong totalitarian government committed to spreading genocide for fun, you really don't have a reason to vote for Democrats.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:12 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Samwich,

Are you and Mr. Ducky in a contest to see who can make a statement that is the most detached from reality?

 
At 1/10/2006 4:22 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

samwich...after re-reading your post, I should not have included your statement as 'anti-german'.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:35 PM, Blogger Mark said...

People today seem to have forgotten that, in times of war, certain liberties we take for granted in peace time have to be temporarily suspended.

Whether or not it was treason depends on the laws of the US which, I as a Brit, am far too little informed about to decide. However, it strikes me that the leak was in very bad taste,and certainly not helpful to the war effort.

 
At 1/10/2006 4:53 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

That's quite a list Beamish, "equates animals with humans" -- are you insane?

Plugs for euthanasia? No, we did plug to uphold decades of case law in the Schiavo case rather substituting a neurological examination from a three year old video tape for sound scientific knowledge (you thumpers don't like science, do you?).

Celebrates homosexuality? Explain. Supporting equal protection is a "campaign for homsexuality"? Never mind, you'll come to grips with your fears some day. If the big bad gays would just go back in the closet and stop scaring the thumpers.

Campaign against guns? Dems haven't mentioned guns for years. I have a .50 rifle and frankly Beamish whatever firearm you have is boring by comparison. Now we generally want point of sales laws that help keep the damn things away from gang bangers but that makes too much sense for a real he man like yourself.

I do not support aborton nor would I counsel someone to have an abortion. I do support programs that limit unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately that goes beyond "abstinence only". Thumpers would have us believe that condoms fail more often than the human will. Are you liars or idiots or both?

Of course I favor democratic socialism. Much of the problem of production has been solved but the problems of equitable distribution are unyielding to market ideas. No civilized person support laissez-faire capitalism.

What the hell does anti-smoking have to do with anything?

Well, you have your enemies list. it's nonsense now go back to hating like a good german.

 
At 1/10/2006 5:08 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 5:49 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

" No civilized person support laissez-faire capitalism."

I never knew that Adam Smith was considered a barbarian.
The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve the common good. It is true that capitalism does-if that catch phrase has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principal is: justice-Ayn Rand

 
At 1/10/2006 5:53 PM, Anonymous Old Soldier said...

I do not understand the attempt to cast doubt upon President Bush based upon the actions of his grandfather (or his linage). Isn't that an attempt to establish guilt by association? Is the grandson of a slave owner obliged to own slaves? Is the grandson of a convicted murder also a criminal? Is the grandson of a president going to be a president? If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree; all of those examples should be true if we are to give credence to the association of the president and his grandfather.

I thought the extreme right was fraught with conspiracy theorists; but they have nothing on the left conspiracy theorists commenting here. I also find it extremely ironic that those who ideologically espouse tolerance and compassion have absolutely none when it comes to conservatives or worst yet, conservative Christians. Some of the comments are laden with phobia and vitriol.

there is not one documented case of an average American citizen having been harmed or actually spied upon unjustifiably (without warrant).

AOW, that statement is in relation to the current allegations of wire tapping US citizens. Under prior administrations there were cases of US citizens being spied upon unlawfully; but that is not part of the current issue.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:00 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
So you don't care much for due process, AOW. As long as it doesn't effect those on your approved list then everything's fine.

I don't have such a list, and you're wrong that I don't care about the Constitution. With the citations I provided, I was attempting to point out that during times of war, Constitutional guarantees have a way of getting circumvented. That circumvention dates back a long way, and most times I think that the circumvention has been condemned and has resulted in political fallout. Is that circumvention ever justified? Mark mentioned this: in times of war, certain liberties we take for granted in peace time have to be temporarily suspended.


All you good Germans.

I get the innuendo there. My response to name-calling is "Sticks and stones..." You know the rest.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:19 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
You've made mention of this several times: The grandson of Adolf Hitler's US Banker

Does ancestry determine the character or the ideology of the descendants?

Of course, many were the Nazi sympathizers. Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy, Sr., come to mind.

Now, an individual's actions are a different matter altogether and testify to adherence to or fondness of any particular ideology.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:23 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Beamish if you are looking to defend a libel suit keep it up.

Samwich, if you don't stop threatening to sue me for "libel" and go through with attempting it I'm going to sue you for boring the piss out of me.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:38 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

That's quite a list Beamish, "equates animals with humans" -- are you insane?

The Nazis were animal rights activists.

Plugs for euthanasia? No, we did plug to uphold decades of case law in the Schiavo case rather substituting a neurological examination from a three year old video tape for sound scientific knowledge (you thumpers don't like science, do you?).

You leftists made a point to starve a woman to death for 14 days, in a sickening bid to outdo your eugenicist ideological forefathers at Tiergartenstrasse 4.

Celebrates homosexuality? Explain. Supporting equal protection is a "campaign for homsexuality"? Never mind, you'll come to grips with your fears some day. If the big bad gays would just go back in the closet and stop scaring the thumpers.

Hitler and many in the inner circle of the Nazi leadership were practicing homosexuals. All those leather-bound supermen singing about being macho.

Campaign against guns? Dems haven't mentioned guns for years. I have a .50 rifle and frankly Beamish whatever firearm you have is boring by comparison. Now we generally want point of sales laws that help keep the damn things away from gang bangers but that makes too much sense for a real he man like yourself.

The son of Hitler's main man in the US government, Ted Kennedy, based his 1968 Gun Control Act entirely on an English translation of the Nazi Weapons Law.

I do not support aborton nor would I counsel someone to have an abortion. I do support programs that limit unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately that goes beyond "abstinence only". Thumpers would have us believe that condoms fail more often than the human will. Are you liars or idiots or both?

Abortion policy has always been directed at racial minorities, who in Nazi eugenicists' terms are the only people capable of "unwanted pregnancies."

Of course I favor democratic socialism. Much of the problem of production has been solved but the problems of equitable distribution are unyielding to market ideas. No civilized person support laissez-faire capitalism.

"Democratic socialism" is an oxymoron that has failed to produce anything resembling "civilization" whenever machine gun wielding racists get it in their heads to "build a Kingdom."

What the hell does anti-smoking have to do with anything?

Hitler hated the way his boyfriend Roehm's tongue tasted in his mouth. The junk science of Passivrauchen followed.

Well, you have your enemies list. it's nonsense now go back to hating like a good german.

I only hate Nazis, Commies, Democrats, and other kinds of leftists.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:56 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

well said old soldier.

 
At 1/10/2006 6:58 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Is Democratic Socialism the same as National Socialism?

 
At 1/10/2006 7:09 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 8:04 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 8:28 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
I believe your parents tried to raise you with their values and teach you their values.

Yes. But if every child blindly adhered to his parents values, we'd all be living in the Age of Chivalry. I admit this example is hyperbole, but I think you get my point. Other ideas come along, education comes along, other experiences come along, etc.; and people change--not to mention religious conversion.

For example, I am more open to friendships with those of other races than my parents ever were, and I think that holds true for many members of my generation.

The wealthy have a different perspective of themselves. By and large they feel that their wealth is their supiority and qualifies them to lead, govern and control the masses. In their minds they are better than "the commoners".

I don't come from wealthy ancestors (hard-scrabble on my mother's side and working class on my father's side). Nevertheless, I recognize what your point is. The aristocracy enjoys a type of insulation.

And this is often true: "The Apple Does Not Fall Far From The Tree". Home training has more to do with it than "ancestry". Home training is a two-edged sword, IMO.

 
At 1/10/2006 9:02 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish: Samwich, if you don't stop threatening to sue me for "libel" and go through with attempting it I'm going to sue you for boring the piss out of me.

Couldn't help myself--I chuckled at this retort.

Very rarely am I bored by comments here. I admit it: I enjoy reading different points of view.

 
At 1/10/2006 10:38 PM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:10 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Sheh... I jumped in on this way too late.

Looks like Mr Beamish covered everything I would have said. Nazis were socialists, and very, very left wing, as shown by their economic domestic policies.

Bush has my scorn for lacking the balls to name Islam as the enemy, but he's no nazi. Name-calling for the sake of name-calling is idiotic. As far as his family's ties to nazis in the past - every idiot politician has his hand in the evil that makes him money. Think Clinton and Enron. Every political whore does it.

Of more outrage to me is Bush's insistence on looking the other way concerning Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

We should arm and support the Israelis and Indians in a war that would bring instant peace lasting decades...

The politically correct hand-wringing sickens me.

 
At 1/11/2006 3:14 AM, Blogger samwich said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1/11/2006 6:55 AM, Anonymous Old Soldier said...

”The wealthy have a different perspective of themselves. By and large they feel that their wealth is their supiority and qualifies them to lead, govern and control the masses. In their minds they are better than "the commoners".”

Certainly there are some wealthy who feel superior to “commoners”; but to over characterize or stereotype the wealthy as self-worthy leaders based primarily upon their wealth IMHO is poppycock. In more recent times, of those who have actually achieved, to a certain degree, their aspiration of leadership, there seems to be a disproportional number of non-wealthy in the number; e.g., Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, and many more. The great leaders of the free world having been elected by a democratic or parliamentary process with limits on total service have not been driven to concur and rule the world. I just do not see the conspiratorial correlation as premised.

 
At 1/11/2006 7:19 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
What an interesting topic you've brought up! As I don't live anywhere near Milwaukee, I heard little about this tire-slashing case.

A recent article by Michelle Malkin is
here.

A little background on Supreme Solar Allah, dated October 2002, from
from this source, "Cream City Mentors Embrace City Youth":

...The Cream City mentors have three main goals: Citizenship, Exposure, and Empowerment. "The goal of citizenship is to get young individuals to recognize they are citizens and they have rights and responsibilities, Supreme Solar said. "We want to teach them they can utilize the government because that's the way it was set up for them."...

 
At 1/11/2006 8:10 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I think linking Bush to Hitler via his grandfather's employer is rather thin and weak, considering Harriman was the one more involved. France was invaded by German tanks fueled by Russian oil and built with US steel. More to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany than anyone else in the US government was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Had Germany never turned their guns on his fellow international communists in the Soviet Union, Roosevelt would have been content to cart his wheelchair up to the podium and wag his finger at Germany for violating US neutrality in sinking American commercial ships, as he had done for 2 years prior to the autumn of 1941.

Yes, you read correctly. Roosevelt, in typical Democrat fashion, masturbated at the prospect that he could come up with a policy that would ensure the deaths of Americans, and was content to allow it to continue, until the Soviet Union needed help.

 
At 1/11/2006 8:25 AM, Blogger Storm said...

These responses ranged far and wide on this one and as always the liberals failed to address the central question.

Is the media guilty of treason for revealing an ongoing anti-terrorist operation and thereby endangering those in the operation and Americans in general?
The answer is Yes

This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of liberals when the media released the name of some back office Cia operative that had not seen the field in years there were cries of treason and impeachment but when a real leak takes place it's all about Bush being Hilter.

I also find it odd that you liberals condemn a man because of what his grandfather may have done and yet expect me to forgive a serial killer--

 
At 1/11/2006 9:33 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Let it be noted that we did have a couple of right wingers check in and say that Adam Smith defended laissez-faire.

What astounds me is that the right consistently misreads Smith when they could easily determine that he was very supportive of regulations and unions.

Smith was looking for (and found) a way out of mercantilism. If right wingers could demonstrate an understanding of his work it might be worth trying to discuss economics with them but as a rule they are just too shallow to make that possible.

 
At 1/11/2006 10:45 AM, Blogger Jonathan said...

I think I need another repetitive moonbat reference to "Reichstag burning", please. That sure was a really convincing metaphor...

 
At 1/11/2006 10:54 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Bah, I must have previewed my comment and then X'd out as I don't see it here.

The media and treason is like dog crap and stink.

Even try-to-be-centrist Fox News wouldn't pass up a story that would be treasonous in its presentation.

The world has turned upside down. Che is promoted as "cool." Treason is "patriotic." The Western Christian culture that brought us the Enlightenment is really, really bad. Washington was evil and gay. Lincoln was gay. Jefferson was a racist, black-loving homosexual (figure that stupidity out and you must be psychotic).

On that point... the left loves to point out that all the American heroes are "tarnished" because they were really homosexual. But I thought the left thought gays were great... of course it doesn't fit; only in a psychotic mind.

Yes, the media is guilty of treason. So is Bush.

Has he not followed the example of every president since the 70s of kissing Saudi ass? Does not Saudi fund, harbor, and spread terrorism?

If it were up to me, I'd run every single politician out of office for the treasonous political whores they are and start all over.

I really hate our current political climate. I'd rather jump into an outhouse hole than play politics.

 
At 1/11/2006 11:58 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Hey Benito, your homophobia is showing. Was Washington really gay? I didn't know that.

Christianity brought us the Enlightenment? Must be part of Intelligent Design.

Hard for a Fascist to find a country he can call his own, eh Benito.

Faux News trying to be centrist. Sorry brother, but you've been over the high side once too often.

 
At 1/11/2006 11:59 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mussolini,

Like your historical namesake, all leftists are physically incapable of rational thought.

Hence the current Democrat standing that Martin Luther King Jr. was a greater threat to national security that we needed to monitor than Osama Bin Laden.

 
At 1/11/2006 12:01 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Physically incapable? You a neurosurgeon, Beamish.

You must have been fascinated when Frist performed that examination of Schiavo from the Senate floor.

Now J. Edgar Hoover was a leftist? Your last sentence doesn't scan easily. Could you rewrite it?

 
At 1/11/2006 12:54 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

I'm going to stand by my assertion that leftists are physically incapable of rational thought until a better explanation for why they do not engage in it comes along.

The fact remains that Democrats, who as the political left in America follow in their fascist and racist ideological traditions, would have us all believe tapping Martin Luther King Jr's phone calls were vital to national security, but tapping Osama Bin Laden's is a violation of the freedom to terrorize.

This isn't all that surprising. The Democratic Party, the racist organization ever vigilant to champion and enact policies that have a higher probability of either subverting the US Constitution or killing American citizens, wouldn't have it any other way.

 
At 1/11/2006 1:37 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Good lord, Beamish. You were born in Alabama weren't you? So was I (Huntsville).

We left when it became clear that being a liberal Catholic among the knuckledraggers wasn't going to work, but I must say that you bring back fond memories.

 
At 1/11/2006 2:01 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

In his own words..leaving nothing to interpret:
A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers who should be obliged to buy from the shops of our different producers, all the goods with which these could supply them.
—Book IV, Chapter VIII.
Adam Smith
hmmm

 
At 1/11/2006 4:18 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Good lord, Beamish. You were born in Alabama weren't you? So was I (Huntsville).

We left when it became clear that being a liberal Catholic among the knuckledraggers wasn't going to work, but I must say that you bring back fond memories.


Well, for your sake, I hope you and your fellow treasonous totalitarian leftists found a nice little flop house for your meth and anal sex binges somewhere else.

 
At 1/11/2006 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So mr ducky... what make you think Smith would be supportive of unions? He argues pretty strongly against the guilds and the guild crafts of the day (ie - artificially long apprenticeships, and entry barriers for workers as regulated by the local guilds). And as a matter of fact, he opposes just about every kind of incorporation not related to banking, insurance, public facilities or public utilities.

-FJ

 
At 1/11/2006 4:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam Smith...in his own words

“The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is ... that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.”

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

“To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation that is governed by shopkeepers.”

“Resentment seems to have been given us by nature for a defense, and for a defense only! It is the safeguard of justice and the security of innocence.”

“The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations”

“The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."

"The uniform, constant and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the principle from which public and national, as well as private opulence is originally derived, is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government, and of the greatest errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor."

"The statesman who would attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himeslf with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safetly be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

"A gardener who cultivates his own garden with his own hands, united in his own person the three different characters, of landlord, farmer, and labourer. His produce, therefore, should pay him the rent of the first, the profit of the second, and the wages of the third."


-FJ

 
At 1/11/2006 5:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay... a few more "Smithisms"

Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

There is, however, another virtue, of which the observance is not left to the freedom of our own wills, which may be extorted by force, and of which the violation exposes to resentment, and consequently to punishment. This virtue is justice: the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons, from motives which are naturally disapproved of. It is, therefore, the proper object of resentment, and of punishment, which is the natural consequence of resentment...We must always, however, carefully distinguish what is only blamable, or the proper object of disapprobation, from what force may be employed either to punish or to prevent...Even the most ordinary degree of kindness or beneficence, however, cannot, among equals, be extorted by force...justice is, upon most occasions, but a negative virtue, and only hinders us from hurting our neighbour. The man who barely abstains from violating either the person, or the estate, or the reputation of his neighbours, has surely very little positive merit. He fulfils, however, all the rules of what is peculiarly called justice, and does every thing which his equals can with propriety force him to do, or which they can punish him for not doing. We may often fulfil all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing.

THE first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force...THE second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it...THE third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.


-FJ

 
At 1/11/2006 5:17 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

This has gone a long way...from treason to Adam Smith.

 
At 1/11/2006 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for teachers... from Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations)

Those parts of education, it is to be observed, for the teaching of which there are no public institutions, are generally the best taught. When a young man goes to a fencing or a dancing school, he does not indeed always learn to fence or to dance very well; but he seldom fails of learning to fence or to dance...In modern times, the diligence of public teachers is more or less corrupted by the circumstances which render them more or less independent of their success and reputation in their particular professions... Were there no public institutions for education, a gentleman, after going through with application and abilities the most complete course of education which the circumstances of the times were supposed to afford, could not come into the world completely ignorant of everything which is the common subject of conversation among gentlemen and men of the world.

---

In other universities the teacher is prohibited from receiving any honorary or fee from his pupils, and his salary constitutes the whole of the revenue which he derives from his office. His interest is, in this case, set as directly in opposition to his duty as it is possible to set it. It is the interest of every man to live as much at his ease as he can; and if his emoluments are to be precisely the same, whether he does or does not perform some very laborious duty, it is certainly his interest, at least as interest is vulgarly understood, either to neglect it altogether, or, if he is subject to some authority which will not suffer him to do this, to perform it in as careless and slovenly a manner as that authority will permit. If he is naturally active and a lover of labour, it is his interest to employ that activity in any way from which he can derive some advantage, rather than in the performance of his duty, from which he can derive none...The discipline of colleges and universities is in general contrived, not for the benefit of the students, but for the interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters. Its object is, in all cases, to maintain the authority of the master, and whether he neglects or performs his duty, to oblige the students in all cases to behave to him, as if he performed it with the greatest diligence and ability.


-FJ

 
At 1/11/2006 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

iran,

mr. ducky likes to put words in Mr. Smith's mouth. I prefer to let him speak for himself.

-FJ

 
At 1/11/2006 5:53 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Iran Watch,
This has gone a long way...from treason to Adam Smith.

LOL. But tangents are okay with me.

This time, at least, commenters started out on topic.

Now that I'm back to work, I won't be posting as often.

Looks as though I have some comments to read.

 
At 1/11/2006 5:54 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Response to Mr Ducky:

"Hey Benito, your homophobia is showing. Was Washington really gay? I didn't know that."

I've read US News and World Report for the last 21 years, with a pause between mid-84 and late 85. All of the names I quoted were "outed" over those years. My homophobia? Are you projecting again? I have no problem with gays and can live just fine with them. But tell me why the left thinks I should be so shocked when they "out" yet another American icon? Smells to me like all the rank homophobia is rising from the pile on the left.

"Christianity brought us the Enlightenment? Must be part of Intelligent Design."

Theo-phobia, huh? Got some deep-seated issues there, Ducky? I have no problem with atheists, how come you have such a problem with me? When the church embraced their philosophical nemesis, Aristotle, and his view that the truth was immutable and that man could know (as an individual) the truth, then curious believers began discovering that which brought us out of the Dark Ages. I'm not making this crap up - look at the time period and the participants involved in the emergence of the Enlightenment. They did it all for the glory of God. It wasn't a bunch of atheists smoking pot.

"Hard for a Fascist to find a country he can call his own, eh Benito."

You pegged me. I admire Mussolini for his centrist fascism. He got things done.

"Faux News trying to be centrist. Sorry brother, but you've been over the high side once too often."

That statement pegs you for the liberal you are. Fox presents the news without forcing an editorial opinion on the viewer - and I'm not talking O'Reilly, I'm talking the reporting of the news. The left hates any avenue of truth that is not accompanied by nanny hand-holding on how the viewer is supposed to think about it. That is why the left hates Fox so much, yet Fox is by no means a "right wing" mouthpiece. They still couldn't seem to find the balls to report on the muslim riots in France for a full EIGHT days.

I don't want to be told how to think by some blow-dried hair-sprayed talking head who thinks he's the only repository of intelligence. If you find entertainment and value in that kind of reporting, then you've dropped several points in my estimation.

Perhaps that doesn't bother you. Well, why should it?

 
At 1/11/2006 9:00 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Sorry AOW, but if yu believe Adam Smith did not favor regulation of business then you really should (re)read Wealth of Nations.

I'm afraid it is a truism that the right reveres him but has generally not read him. He's much closer to moderate liberals. He went so far as to say that any regulation that favors the worker is probably desirable.

 
At 1/11/2006 9:46 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Sorry AOW, but if yu believe Adam Smith did not favor regulation of business then you really should (re)read Wealth of Nations.

I don't recall having made any comment about Adam Smith. Check who said what you're referring to.

 
At 1/11/2006 11:33 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Good post, AOW.

There are two sides to this, aren't there? But, the difference between now, and 1798 is we are now at war.

 
At 1/12/2006 6:28 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

So once again, Ducky has been conclusively shown to not know a damn thing about his subject matter (re: Adam Smith).

Is this at all surprising? Ducky has repeatedly informed us that he is a leftist, a political position not known for coherency.

 
At 1/12/2006 8:05 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pastorius,
It seems to me that leaking top-security-clearance information to a newspaper is treason. Also, I question the motives of the NYT in its publication of the information about the NSA.

Traditionally, American Presidents have been given great latitude in the exercise of their power during war time. Nevertheless, a danger of abuse of power exists when the system of checks and balances is not in force.

I don't feel that communication with a foreign enemy is protected by the Consitution.

 
At 1/12/2006 8:06 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Typo alert! "Constitution"

 
At 1/13/2006 10:39 AM, Blogger Storm said...

If it were not for the fact that we are talking about the security of this nation, this would be a great comedy routine.

Thankfully we have conservatives that can remind organizations like the New York Times of their hypocrisy and obstruct their attempts to brainwash America.

It appears that the New York Times was not concerned when Clinton was engaged in spying on Americans during his term. Several folks have discovered an article from James Risen in an article from December 5, 1999 in which he defended the widespread use of wiretapping without warrants by the Clinton Administration in general and NSA specifically under a program called Echelon.

But wait there is more; former President Carter signed Executive Order #12139 on May 23, 1979 declaring that “the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

So during Democrats widespread use of wiretapping OK even to find person merely engaged in criminal activity.

But selective use by Republicans to discover terrorist cells bad.

BTW

The reason the NY Times should be investigated and the person tried with treason, because terrorists are paying attention to the debate and they have changed their tactics. Now they are buying phones in the US in bulk so they have domestic numbers.

We may experience some day in the future when the NY Times will ask how come we did not stop some future terrorist attack. I wonder who the NY Times will blame.


Sources
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B16F83E5A0C768CDDAB0994D1494D81 If you want to pay feel free but many others already have.

http://newsbusters.org/node/3322 I had to use this because I am not paying the NY Times to get a copy.

www.google.com If you do not like news busters there are many more in here

Phone source
Surge in sale of disposable cell phones may have terror link

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=3807425


So the answer is Yes

 
At 1/13/2006 12:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
I read those last two links you provided. I'm still picking up my jaw from the floor!

 
At 1/13/2006 1:32 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
You really know your stuff (Not that I ever had any doubts)! Just now, on DaySide on FNC, Peter Bergen was talking about those disposable cell phones. He mentioned that disposable cell phones were used in the Madrid attacks.

 
At 1/13/2006 2:07 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Always thanks for your praise but really I just take things I hear and put them together.

What I find amazing is that the so called media which employees thousands and has infinitely more hours to work on a story can not do even a fraction of the research I manage to sneak in while I engage in making a living.

 
At 1/13/2006 3:21 PM, Blogger Storm said...

I am trying to figure out the whole Nazi thing as related to Republicans. Let's see the Nazis wanted a strong central government with no religion and devotion to the State and in particular devotion to Hitler. Republicans want State's to have more power, we are always associated with religion, and we have no slave like devotion to Bush (hint to liberals he can not run for reelection even if you want him to)

hmmm....now liberals want a strong central government, they want every mention of religion gone, and they have slave like devotion to Clinton. So tell me again who are the Nazis?

 
At 1/13/2006 10:31 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
now liberals want a strong central government, they want every mention of religion gone, and they have slave like devotion to Clinton.

That's how I see it, too.

 
At 1/14/2006 10:50 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

You have to understand that the sainted racist Democrat John F. Kennedy tapped Martin Luther King's phone because MLK was spreading dangerous ideas like "black people are humans" and "racial harmony will make a better society." This seems a little distant now, but in 1963, it had only been 100 years since it looked like Democrats might be successful in dividing America in the Civil War, and only 130 or so since Anti-Federalists chaffing under the imposed ban on importing black slave labor formed the Democratic Party.

The question for today is why Democrats feel Martin Luther King Jr's right to privacy was less important than Osama Bin Laden's.

The answer, quite clearly, is the same as 1831. The Democratic Party stands only for policies that will destroy America.

 
At 1/16/2006 2:21 PM, Blogger Storm said...

I am still waiting for an explanation of the Nazi thing.

Ok how about explaining the KKK association and/or the attendance of a prominent member in a subversive meeting to discuss killing members of Congress?

 
At 1/16/2006 9:30 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
The Nazi thing is often an ad hominem attack of sorts. Expecting a response is probably futile. Hehehe.

And the KKK connection with a prominent member of Congress is often glossed over as part of the application of the double standard. I'm guessing that you're familiar with the double-standard phenomenon.

 
At 1/20/2006 10:01 AM, Blogger Storm said...

Talk about double standard

How about Nagin's chocolate city

and Hillary plantation comment about the Congress

Yet strangely the media is silent

or maybe the Kennedy efforts to stop wind mills from being built

or Ted's membership to the Owl club that discriminates against women

 
At 1/22/2006 10:16 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
My comment notification isn't working out too well, so I'm late getting here. Sorry.

Plenty of double standard stuff, and most of it is from the Dems, aided and abetted by the media.

Kennedy efforts to stop wind mills from being built

Bwahahahaha!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home