Join The Debate!

ajhil writes:

In contrast, why do you and other conservatives feel that you can accuse liberals of being traitors for voicing opinions that differ from yours?
=====================================

Good point that deserves an answer. Treason is "claimed" not because they protest the war. I served during Viet Nam and disagreed with the political limits set. But, I didn't have a political office and the "authority" of the people and thus, was not an "item" on the nightly news.

Our elected officials in a time of war are to put forth a united front in public, even if they fight like dogs behind closed doors during the "military action" that puts our troops in harms way. It is not treason to protest but it is treason to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy and a divided public persona of our government where the "protestors" tell the eneny to get a few more weapons, get a few more bombs, get a few more terrorists, and you can defeat our "undermanned, demoralized, poorly led," military.

Whether those things are true or not, once the majority in Congress reach a conclusion or the military does a certian action whether based on the President, Congress or military leaders, the public presence should be united support because the decision was done under our Constitutional system of government and how decisions are reached.

Regarding the Commander in Chief. He has the right and the power to end all rights as Commander in Chief, but not as President. So what is the check. Our founders, who wanted virtually absolute power in a time of war to rest in one person who would thus avoid indecision by many, provied a very powerful check, impeachment. Remember they called Lincoln, "King Lincoln" for taking the right of "habeas corpus" away from the people and some were calling for impeachement. But, he did it, was empowered by the the Constitution to do it and didn't have a "majority" that felt he had overstepped what needed to be done even if some disagreed with him.

Now, what that has evolved into is another story and the U.S. Supreme Court hinting but failing to add any clarification hasn't helped. We could even say the will of the people has changed but we haven't amended the Constitution nor has the Court restricted it. But, it certainly is worthy of "protest" by liberals and even many Conservatives who feel the federal government is taking away rights we have been guaranteed. We weren't guaranteed those rights, however, if a time of war by the Constitution as much as by "peer pressure" on our elected officials.

Still, protesting is one thing for us as citizens. For our elected officals who are to represent all of us, it is different. They are no longer common citizens when they speak for the nation and not just their constituents. Behind closed doors, in secret away from the cameras and microphones, they should represent themselves, their constituents and the Constitution as they interpret it. But, once they step into the limelight, they can say "While I have some concerns," or while I disagree," we are going to so such and such. We support this action or some other such thing.

But to get on public TV and tell our enemies we are "undermanned, demoralized, poorly led, lack armor, etc." is treason even if true. You never, never, tell the enemy your weaknesses unless you are a traitor. Washington was undermanned, under armed, had troops that were often poorly led, but they remained united and defeated the best army in the world at that time because whether they agreed with him or not, one man, Washington, called the shots. It was that "position of absolute authority" that the "Commander in Chief" in the Constitution was based on. It was a special role only applicable
quote:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
=========================================

Where is the "fly in this ointment? Simple, when we ratified it we didn't have a military in constant military action in German, Japan, So. Korea, and other places where we had been at war and were now "on standby" but still in service of our nation.

This must change, whether we are conservative or liberal because it literally means the President is "Commander in Chief" at all times since we are never at "peace" technically. Perhaps this is why the Supreme Court has been so silent. Technically, since the Constitution doesn't say "at war," but only "in actual service" the Constitution is being upheld even if our "will" isn't being upheld. But, if that be the case, "we the people" have the power to amend the Constitution. Yet, we don't.

Instead, people with very good intentions that are in public office commit treason by giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy not only by the supplying the previous information but by leaking and publishing secret military operations to gain intelligence on the enemy.

Having called them traitors doesn't mean I don't believe they may have good intentions though for some, their only intent is to weaken this nation and hasten the day socialism completely takes over. Remember that key principle of Socialism, so many in the Government are promoting,
Quote:
We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects.
============================
For socialists, social programs come before defense. Not because they don't want to be free nor because they want to be helping an "enemy." It is because they sincerely believe there is enough good in all people that somehow, someway, negotiation can resolove differences much better than war. They are not traitors because they "hate" America but they do hate what it stands for when it uses force to solve problems.

They completely deny their isn't a peaceful way to resolve difference even when confronted with a Hitler, an Osama Bin Ladin, a Saddam Hussein, an Ahmadinejad, etc. Those are people who have only one goal and that is absolute power over all people they can possibly conquer. Whether is for power or the wealth of other nations or a genuine "faith" they are doing "Allah's will," they don't negotiate except to gain time to regroup and strike again and again and again.

It is that basic but huge difference between liberals who side with the likes of Murtha and Kerry and Reid's public treason and Cosnservatives who label them traitors that divide them. One views some people as so evil they can't be negotiated with while the others say, "all people have good in them that can be reasoned with" to at least "limit" their conquest to the area and/or people around them. They can be limited so they won't attack us or our allies. They can be "allowed" their own little tryanny and it will satisfy them and keep us safe at the same time.

Now, how do you get over that difference because it is based on core beliefs. One in inherent good and one in inherent evil as they believe the Bible states about some who reject God completely and follow the will of Satan in all that they do. Some may even say they are "of God" but really aren't.