But sometimes, it's happily ignored.
See, here's what I don't understand. It's been pointed out over and over again that the section of the country most likely to yell about "patriotism" also is the only one to have committed treason against the United States en masse. And now, the political party (not coincidentally based in that same region) which also was loudest about labeling activities, politicians, or speeches "anti-American" or "treasonous" is going around and putting secession on the table and implying "patriots" should shed the blood of the Obama administration. It's really hard for me to wrap my head around.
I want to say, incidentally, that I don't think any of these statements are "treason", since I don't believe that mere political advocacy alone is treasonous. In other words, there should be no prosecutions. It is true, though, that the advocacy if put into effect would be treasonous -- something, that incidentally, was not true of the instances where Democrats were accused of treason. It is not treason to successfully get the US to withdraw from Iraq (even "before the mission is done"); it is treason to attack a federal building to try and bring down the government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Keep in mind from some paleoconservative interpretations, secession is a power reserved to the states, so even the act of secession can't be treason (since after all, our first loyalty should be to individual states in the proud tradition of Robert E. Lee as we ride our horses past our stately manors).
I hadn't realized that hair product had withered Gov. Perry's brain so badly that he believed in the myth that Texas reserved a right to secession when it agreed to be annexed by the U.S. Split into 5 states, sure, but the Civil War ought to have made clear that secession wasn't an option.
Post a Comment