"So, our party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, we are building a Revolutionary Party with one idea in mind; that the same phenomenon that happened in Egypt, will actually happen in the United States."
"Now, we're going to be out on the streets in 2 weeks, in front of White House and around the coutnry demonstrating. Some people will be demonstrating with us because they're against any war. They're against violence. They're against bloodshed. They would consider themselves non-violent people and pacifists. And while we don't like violence, we are not pacifists. And in fact, we recognize that violence is not only sometimes necessary, but necessary for the liberation of human beings. "
"So we, unlike Pacifists, don't abhor violence so much that we could say that violence is never possible."
"Just to make it clear that our opposition to war is not based on an abstract opposition to all manifestations of violence. It is not. "
2) I like when radicals really clarify things for the people out there who are still in denial, living in the fog of what the media presents as current events. Here in this video clip, this radical, violent-advocating Communist explains that "Marxist Politics", "Socialist Politics", and "Progressive Politics", are all the same thing! Hey, all you people who call yourselves "Democrats" or "Liberals" and have a soft-spot for your politicians who use the word "Progressive", wake up! The "Progressive" movement has a name, and has a history. Learn it. The use of the word "Progressive" was started because the people pushing "Marxist" politics in America found that Americans didn't like Marxist politics! So they simply changed the name of what they were pushing to "Progressive". And the current day "Progressives" are indeed still pushing Marxist policies. But you think, since you're so "modern" and "hip" and "tolerant" and "smart", that anyone who calls himself a "Progressive" must be pushing the same things you would want. So you sign on as a "Progressive". They hook you on fashionable, trendy ideas that make you feel good about yourself, and then use you and your support to help them push oppressive and anti-freedom Marxist policies. "Progressive Politiics" is the American version of Marxism.
3) If you research Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Progressive politics, you will find that they use phrases in their propaganda that are normally associated with the polar opposite ideology, which is that of freedom and democracy. Freedom is the polar opposite of Marxism. Yet the Marxists constantly say they want people to be "free". What they don't tell you (at least not until you read the fine print) is that they view "freedom" as having a government that provides everything for you, and protects you from anyone trying to sell you something for a profit. And "Democracy", to a Marxist, is actually "Direct Democracy". "Direct Democracy", to the average American, is a pure nightmare. It means that the people who don't have money will simply vote to take money from those who do. Got some money? Tough. This is "Democracy" to a Marxist/Progressive/Socialist. That's why you always see them carrying signs (like they did in WI protests) touting "Democracy". Don't fall for this. As a "Democratic Republic", we are very different than a "Direct Democracy". We have a "Representative Democracy", which ensures protection of individual rights, and ensures minority rights. Marxists always refer to their revolutions as "Liberations". They are "liberating" people from Capitalism. That's how they see it. That's how they use the language of freedom and liberty to sell their Central Planning, freedom-less utopia to the masses.
Try reading some of the world's radical Socialist leaders' writings. Try, for example, Gadaffi's "Green Book", which is an owner's manual telling Libyan citizens how to live their lives, and about the greatness of their Socialist Revolution. He even talks about the need to "Organize" amongst the lower levels of society, much like Lenin did, and Alynski, and Obama. Oh, you didn't know Gadaffi is a raging Revolutionary Socialist? Media didn't explain that to you? Louis Farrakhan's, Reverend Wright's, and Obama's joint fascination with Gadaffi, and partnerships with Gadaffi, never made sense to you before? Ever heard of "Black Liberation Theology" (Obama's "religion")? There's that word again, "Liberation". Have you ever read their charter? No? So you didn't know that it was based on Marxism? Oh, then I'm sorry for raining on your happy-ignorance parade. Gadaffi's "Green Book" clearly explains that "Freedom" is when all of an individual's material needs are provided to that individual by the government. Is that also your understanding of "freedom"? I only use Gadaffi as an example of Socialist / Marxist / Progressive ideology, not as a way of commenting on current events there.
4) Here are a number of quotes from the video clip, proving the point that this man should probably be arrested for Treason, not in the future sometime, but right now, after he has already threatened violence, and has stated that he is planning to overthrow the U.S. government.
"We are not a party that just analyzes what's going on. We're a party of activism. We believe that without action, without struggle, the idea of Marxist Politics, or Socialist Politics, or Progressive Politics, is in fact, very empty and meaningless. "
"We're not a discussion group. We're not discussing issues because they're interesting. We are discussing things b/c we want to go into struggle against oppression. For the party for Socialism and Liberation, which operates out of a Marxist framework, a Revolutionary Socialist Framework, to answer the larger question; if it wasn't just for oil, what made this war happen?"
"The best thing we can do for the people of Cuba and Venezuela, and the people everywhere who want to be free, is build a Revolutionary Party, and organization, and movement in the United States that can fight and defeat U.S. imperialism."
WC: I followed the link to your page from JDA... where you were a bit rude to me.
As to your blog regarding treason, you should research the "Clear and Present Danger" test developed by OLiver Wendell Holmes and adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court almost 50 years later in Brandenburg.
You want to make a difference w/out any depth of knowledge of our law and government and constitution??? If you really want meaningful change, you need to study and learn. Cheers, Pete
Sorry you felt I was rude.
You have a fair point about treason, but this isn't my post. It's my co-blogger Sic Ibid.
As a leftist, Becker has no idea of how ironic it is to begin a speech with, "The most important thing we can do for the people of Venezuela, the people of Cuba...".
(sigh) Just more violent tea party rhetoric
*starts the slow clap*...
I posted this. Not WC. I thank him for allowing me to post it here.
If Obama can take us to war against a nation that clearly presented no "imminent threat of attack", when he, as a candidate, expressed outrage over the then current President Bush taking us to war with a nation that clearly posed no threat of "imminent attack", then we can surely revisit and reconsider the previous Supreme Court rulings, opinions, and precedents regarding the Constitution's law on Treason.
Here is the Constitution on Treason:
Section 3 - Treason Note
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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
now...(continued in next comment)
...I am no legal expert, true. But if you take even a simple glance at previous Treason cases in U.S. History, you will notice that the subject matter of the video in this post, and the stated goals of the speaker (overthrow of the current form of U.S. government), and the the efforts he's already gone through to make those stated goals happen, and the "enemy" he is aiding and abetting (those organized factions and individuals, located both inside the U.S. and internationally) who would overthrow our government in a heartbeat if they could) do not by any means fall outside the realm of what has been considered "Treason" in U.S. history. And just because one Supreme Court came up with the phrase "clear and present danger" (whether that's a good definition / clarification by the Court or not) that phrase does not hold any more weight as precedent than any other Supreme Court precedents and phrases (like "separate but equal") that were eventually overturned. See the Jim Crow and Dred Scott decisions, etc.
In fact, one case in which Treason charges were brought, seems particularly relevant here. In 1794, Thomas Hardy was charged with Sedition and Treason for organizing a working-class convention with parliamentary reform as its agenda. Hardy was acquitted, but that doesn't mean the speaker in the video in this post shouldn't have charges brought against him.
"Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States." -Barrack Obama, 12/20/07 to the Boston Globe.
A little off topic her, but...One might even ask, is starting a war with a nation without Congressional approval an act of "Treason"? I won't go that far, per se. But I can see how one could easily make that argument. It's not so far fetched, really.
When I suggest the author of "This Treason?" take a look at the Clear and Present Danger test, it doesn't mean I'm a Leftie--I'm actually way to the right...
But I'm a trained attorney and a retired military officer who spends time teaching counter-terrorism law and procedure to prosecutors and judges and police in countries experiencing problems in this arena...
The Clear and Present Danger test has nothing to do w/international military operations, so the term, imminent danger in this regard is wholly irrelevant.
The Clear and Present Danger test is actually about the protection of political speech. It arose around the time of WWI when socialists, anarchists, and various other misfits advocated against the war, and were arrested and prosecuted for their speech.
The Clear and Present Danger test has evolved over the years. I believe it is now referred to as imminent lawlessness. See Brandenburg, et al... But it protects speech that advocates the overthrow... and even the violent overthrow of government... in an academic manner... provided it does not directly and immediately lead to violence against authorities...
The Clear and Present Danger test has become pretty well established as part of our First Amendment doctrine which enables bloggers to identify the many failings of Reid, Pelosi, Barnie Franks, President Obama, and so many federal morons and idiots...
If you have evidence that the video-taped speaker's words has directly and immediately led to violence or lawlessness, you should report to the FBI.
In the alternative, you could always attend his next speech w/some buddies and heckle him. A good heckling can be lots of fun. Cheers, Pete
Thanks for your expertise, Pete. That's a helpful clarification. I have to wonder if I should even be surprised that the "Clear and Present Danger" test even protects the violent overthrow of our government, so long as the actual politicians aren't physically hurt. I mean, as long as they are still around to take bribes and dirty money from banks, why should the politicians care what the government they work for is called? A rose by any other name still feathers their pockets and gives them power.
But you bolster my point, because there has indeed been violence at some of these rallies. Perhaps you were unaware of the low-level violence in the WI protests, which were organized and stoked by various factions of the Marxist Left. Perhaps you haven't heard of the SEIU attacking fellow citizens over political differences. It might not qualify as "Treason", per se, but physical violence is actually going on. Thankfully, it's not happening at a high-enough threshold to warrant large scale concern. But with the FBI run by political appointees, if these low-level violent clashes ever do get worse, the FBI won't even bother looking into it (see the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case). And I still submit that just because a precedent is firmly established, it does not mean that it is impossible to imagine another view on the same law being just as valid, or even being enforced. Precedents are to be taken into context, perhaps. And if the context changes, and we do see some efforts towards violent overthrow, I would bet that the precedent of "imminent lawlessness" would be less of an influence on the authorities than it is in peaceful times. We saw such violent efforts in the 1960's (Weather Underground, SDS), though. And I suppose the "imminent lawlessness" threshold was crossed in those cases, since both groups actually set off bombs, and the Weather Underground even killed someone. But neither group was ever charged with "Treason", as far as I know. I could be wrong. But if they weren't charged with Treason after advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, after actually setting off bombs as they tried to start that violent overthrow, and after they killed at least one person, and that person was actually a police Sergeant (named Brian McDonnell), who certainly qualifies as one of "the authorities", then I have to ask; why were "Treason" charges not brought against the Weather Underground, in addition to the obvious charges of murder, etc? Didn't they clearly cross the threshold of "imminent lawlessness" into "actual lawlessness"?
Sic Ibid: I do not think we have prosecuted a treason case in more than fifty years... (remember Tokyo Rose?), although I've read the American spokesman for al qaeda is under indictment for treason.
Why? Treason is the only crime detailed in the constitution. But the framers were wary of providing the federal government too much authority... and they were wary the charging of treason might be misused to silence political disagreement. So the framers specified the elements of treason and established some prerequisites such as the requirement for two eye witnesses...
Treason is a relatively rare offense to begin with. And over the years, the charging of treason has fallen into misuse for several reasons. First, because it is easier to charge the underlying offense. Simply charge the fellow w/murder or assault, or aiding and abetting murder, or incitement to riot, etc...
We also have an Anglo-American history of misusing the charge of treason eg the Alien and Sedition Act, and some of the charging at the time of the Civil War and WWI...
All in all, we have balanced the charging of treason w/the protection of political speech, and the courts have repeatedly made clear they will not support the charge of treason against persons for making political speech.
The net result is a fellow can espouse the violent overthrow of the government, but unless this speech directly and immediately leads to some violent act, the speech is protected...
And if the speech directly and immediately leads to violence, it is easier to charge incitement to riot...
Ultimately, if you want to charge a fellow w/treason, you need something more than speech. Cheers...
Well the balance you've explained is certainly worth preserving. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who's curious about this whole issue. Perhaps comparing the Al-Qaeda spokesman's words and actions, and the charges against him, to those of the speaker in this post, one would be even more enlightened about what it takes to be charged with Treason. As long as people are charged for crimes committed whenever there have actually been crimes committed, I'm ok.
I agree it's not treason, but then making your own silver coins isn't terrorism, either.
Post a Comment