Treason: It’s Not an Outdated Concept

Spiegel Online International posted an interview with Left-Wing icon Daniel Ellsberg.  Spiegel asked Ellsberg:

“You were the ultimate whistleblower. In 1971, you leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, revealing that the government was well aware the Vietnam War couldn’t be won. You changed history but were vilified and prosecuted for it. Would you still do it today.” 

Ellsberg’s response was:

“I wouldn’t wait that long. I would get a scanner and put them on the Internet.”

The Vietnam War was not won because the Left sabotaged it; just like they are doing now in regards to the War on Terror.  And let’s not forget:  members of both parties said this was a conflict about which we needed to remain vigilant.  Members of both parties voted for it. 

Just for the record, what Daniel Ellsberg did is called…treason.  This is a word I would like to bring back with the full force of it’s meaning.  This notion the Left has put forward that there is no such thing as treason to one’s country is just like everything else they put forward:  muddled, unethical, unprincipled, civilization detroying, clap-trap.  It is the constant drum-beat that there is no such thing as right and wrong.  Yes, there is such a thing as right and wrong.  I can personally testify to that reality.  I’ve studied enough philosophy to know that right and wrong do indeed exist as verifiable, objective concepts.  If right and wrong didn’t exist we would live in anarchy and would be killing each other in the streets.  Pretty simple. 

From The Lectric Law Library Lexicon:

“The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The act of speaking out against war is the very essence of free speech.  In today’s media outlet, however, where words are broadcast instantly across the globe, you are, as far as I’m concerned, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. 

The world is perishing not only from “an orgy self-sacrifice” as Ayn Rand would say in regards to economics–but also of intellectual retardation put forth by the inability to think critically.  We have the liberal-elite controlled schools to thank for that little gift where there is no such thing as an “F”.  I digress.    

In addition to a clarification on the definition of  the word “treason” we also need to discuss the difference between self-defense and murder.  This is how the Left gets away with muddying up the concepts.  The Left has promoted the idea that self-defense and murder are the same thing.  They are not. 

As an Objectivist I hate using religion to defend political positions.  When the Left, however, uses religion to defend their positions then you need to defeat them with their own words.  From Bible-Study.org:

“According to the Bible not all killing is murder.”

You can read the rest of the link for more religious clarification.

As an Objectivist, I simply say it is the intent that matters.  If you are defending yourself you are justified.  If you are murdering, in other words committing the act for the sake of committing the act or to prevent yourself from being discovered in the act of some other immoral act you have performed such as breaking and entering where the homeowner has arrived home, you are not justified.  It is the intent behind the act that determines whether it is justifiable or not.

How long will we wait to declare war?  The extremists have declared it on us numerous times.  They’ve made their intentions clear about wanting to make Westerners submit to their religion.  Their grievance is not just about “leaving their land” as Ron Paul seems to believe.   And will waiting produce a horror even more vivid than 9/11?  Perhaps we will wait until a dirty bomb goes off in one of our cities to find out?  Hey…why not?  We have Somali terrorists crossing our southern border disguised as Mexicans.  If I’m not mistaken one of the things we supposedly “learned” from 9/11 was the degree to which the terrorists who flew planes into our buildings were here illegally?  I’m bi-partisanly pissed off in regards to this issue because the Republicans were no better at enforcing border security when they had the chance.  In fact, McCain tried to push for amnesty for illegals.  There is nothing like a little intellectual inconsistency to make the world…not go ’round. 

The politician says, “We have terrorists who mean to do harm and we should fight them…, but, hey…let’s leave the borders in complete chaos!”

Give me a break. 

It is even worse now with a party in power, who for all intents and purposes, believe there should be no borders because we’re all one big happy global family!  That…and the fact that since Americans typically reject Leftism they need the votes of people who do not understand our culture and constitution to keep putting them in power.

If I had members of my family who were as violently disfunctional as the socialist, communist, fascistic and theocratic countries which are still in existence–I’d be looking for legal separation with restraining orders attached.

Treason.  Yes–it’s still a viable concept.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Treason: It’s Not an Outdated Concept

  1. “I’ve studied enough philosophy to know that right and wrong do indeed exist as verifiable, objective concepts. ”

    I’ve read We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.

    Right and wrong do exist and through Reason we can determine Right from Wrong. But, what about the occasional flux between Right and Wrong.

    At one time, it was thought of as morally, mentally, and criminally wrong for two men or women to be in love with each other. There were laws against such things. But things changed.

    So did a Wrong (same sex love) turn into a Right or was the reasoning that classified same sex love as Wrong incorrect? If 100 years ago one person among everyone else advocated same sex love as an acceptable thing, then was that person always right? Society back then would have deemed that person as wrong.

    Although I love Ayn Rand and I do admire many of the aspects of Objectivism, I’ve never totally embraced it because Right vs. Wrong isn’t always set in stone. Ten thousand or ten million people calling something Wrong or Right does not make it so. One person calling something right or wrong doesn’t make it so.

  2. What I am about to attempt to explain next is from my position as an Objectivist. I just wanted to add that disclaimer.

    Most “fluxes” between right and wrong stem from previous irrational dependences on “mystical institutions” to tell mankind what is right and wrong. By “mystical institutions” I mean religion in the case of the political Right and emotions in the case of the political Left.

    Most religions are humanity’s attempt at clarifying what man intuitively knows is true and necessary for an ordered, rational existence among his fellow human beings. The problem with religion is that many times most religions also include cultural norms from the time in which they sprung. Those cultural norms can be expressions of irrationality as well. Emotions as a basis on which to rely on knowledge are equally shaky.

    Since Ayn did not reject science as a mean’s to knowledge but instead embraced it–I would say that due to much of the scientific progress in regards to the nature of homosexuality would be a valid basis on which to justify moral and ethical support for the validity our relationships.

    Ayn had issues with homosexuality. Again, I believe it was due to the cultural norms she was surrounded by. She’s no longer with us to know how her view might have changed with scientific evidence to back up biological evidence for homosexuality.

    For myself, as an Objectivist, I would sooner rely on justifications as to how to treat gay relationships based on science rather than based on what either “religions” or “emotions” would tell me is “true.”

    In a way, you have described above what Ayn called “The Cult of Moral Grayness”.

    In the “Virtue of Selfishness” she states:

    “One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today’s culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: ‘There are no blacks and whites, there are only grays.’

    This is asserted in regard to persons, actions, principles of conduct, and morality in general. ‘Black and white,’ in this context, means ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ (The reverse order used in that catch phrase is interesting psychologically.)

    In any respect one cares to examine, that notion is full of contradictions (foremost among them is the fallacy of the ‘stolen concept’). If there is no black and white, there can be no gray–since gray is merely a mixture of the two.

    Before one can identify anything as ‘gray,’ one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil. In morality, ‘black’ is predominantly the result of attempting to pretend to oneself that one is merely ‘gray.’

    I highly recommend reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” to help clear up your idea of “fluxes”. It’s not a long book but it is heavy on philosophy–but easy to understand. It’s very readable.

  3. John above:

    I just reread your post and you did say you had read The Virtue of Selfishness. I apologize–I missed that.

    Since you did read it…I’m hoping the first part of my answer to you (before I started discussing The Virtue of Selfishness) helped clarify how I see “fluxes” as you called them and why they are not necessarily “fluxes”–but instead–results of other irrationalities brought on by dependencies on other “not so reliable” means of so-called “knowledge.”

  4. Chris…I am beating myself in the head. Of course science is the key to explaining many things.

    People used to think evil spirts made them ill and killed them. That was the Truth at one time. Science proved that Truth incorrect. The same goes for the change in views on homosexuality. Science proved it is not a mental illness.

  5. LOL! Why are you beating yourself in the head?

    I understand what you are trying to say. My only point as an Objectivist is…is that if something can be verified through objective means (usually by science or observation of objective reality)…then people should avail themselves of that proof in regards to their reason…OR…at least until something else verifiable comes along to disprove the first.

    I just watched a YouTube video this morning where the author tried to claim that Ayn Rand did not solve Hume’s “is-ought” problem and therefore Objectivism is illegitimate–but, there were so many contradictions in the video–my own thought is that–it proved her defeat of the “is-ought” problem even more so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s