October 6, 2007


Captain Ed has an excellant post up right now about patriotism and how it differs from treason. He writes in part:

Over the last two days, the question of patriotism has been debated over the blogosphere. It started with Barack Obama's tortured explanation of why he stopped wearing a lapel pin representing the American flag. He told reporters that he took it off because unnamed others had used it to cover unpatriotic behavior and that the flag had become a "substitute for true patriotism," an explanation that annoyed many more people than did the absence of the lapel pin itself.

Today on Heading Right Radio, we debated another dimension of the same question. One of our callers, clearly frustrated with some Democratic Congressmen and specifically Robert Byrd, called them "traitors". Duane Patterson and I argued that being wrong does not make someone a traitor or unpatriotic. It goes to intent, as both of us argued. If one honestly believes in a set of policies, even if wrong, it does not make them unpatriotic -- and one does not commit treason by dissenting from the current administration, regardless of party. Unless they intend harm to come to America, they're not traitors, and unless they wish us to fail, they're not unpatriotic.

Mr. Morrissey is more than willing to allow that our Democratic leaders in Congress are patriotic because they don't actually want the US to fail in its mission, or see harm come to our country - I'm not so sure I'd agree.

As I've stated before, I believe that our Democratic leaders aren't the least bit concerned with America as an institution, but rather as an experiement. The front runners for the Democratic nomination have proposed one socialist agenda item after another all in the effort to drive our country into a Neo-Socialist Union. It is not Democracy that our Democratic leaders love and wish to preserve, it is Socialism that is their goal: the dependancy on the government by its people in all matters.

They are willing to appease our enemies in the hopes that our enemies will kill them last and they can rule, whats left of the country, in the meantime. Mr. Morrissey is correct when he states that opposing the policies of the administration does not in itself make you anti-patriotic or a traitor, but when your opposition supports and assists the enemies of our country, then I'd say your are treading on thin ice. You may not be actively assisting the enemey on the battleground but you sure are making it harder for our troops to gain the upper hand, and you sure do muddle the message to the rest of the world.

Mr. Morrissey's message to "hold the hyperbole, and assume the best motives whenever possible" is a noble sentiment and goal, but at this stage in the game, I'd say that his good faith has been exploited and dismissed by those upon which it is extended. Robert Byrd and Barack Obama may be fools and Morrissey's assertion that being a fool is not synonymous with being a traitor is spot on, however I would suggest again, that it is not our Country that they love and wish to protect, it is their power that they love and wish to protect. That in and of itself does not make them traitors, but it does make them unpatriotic, and their actions against the adminstration are very close to pushing them over the line.

As a commentor on Mr. Morrissey's blog noted it takes action and intent to count as treason, when sitting members of Congress actively subvert the mission, and seek to politicize the war in an effort to gain power, regardless of their intent they are bordering on the traitorous. Their policies and positions while "noble" in their eyes are not undertaken to protect America but to protect their own power and to project that power upon a dependant populace.

Neville Chamberlain it is noted by Mr. Morrissey did not intend to harm his country by seeking to appease their enemies...can we say the same without question about our Democratic Leaders today?

No comments: