Traitors in our midst!

[03_SHOOTER]

It is BEYOND THE PALE when a teacher in a public school, especially in the city that is the home of the 82nd Airborne Division and Special Forces, is so egregiously ignorant and hateful that she would INTENTIONALLY attempt to frighten her students into supporting the bastard son of a known Marxist by saying that his opponant would keep their fathers in Iraq for 100 years!

North Carolina Teacher Caught on Tape Teaching Pro-Obama Lessons (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/07/north-carolina-teacher-caught-tape-teaching-pro-obama-lessons/)
Video shows North Carolina elementary school teacher harshly questioning a student in class for supporting John McCain
By Maxim Lott

FOXNews.com

Friday, November 07, 2008

The election may be over, but more allegations of political bias in public schools are surfacing.

A North Carolina superintendent said Friday that he was "shocked" after viewing video footage of an elementary school teacher harshly questioning a student in class for supporting John McCain.

William Harrison, superintendent of Cumberland County Schools in Fayetteville, has launched an investigation of the teacher, Diatha Harris, and has promised to bring disciplinary action.

In a video produced by a Swedish production company and posted on YouTube, Harris is seen asking her elementary school students whom they support for president. She tells them that they can support whomever they want, but when one student says John McCain, Harris responds derisively, "Oh my, John McCain." When another student said she supports McCain, Harris replies, "Oh Jesus, John McCain."

kDEAYgm0Dv8
Click here to view the video.
(contrary to what the video title says, this is in a FAYETTEVILLE school)

Harris also asks a female student to explain why she supports Obama, to which the student replies that Obama meant change -- such as ending the war in Iraq.

"So in other words, Barack is going to end that war in Iraq," Harris said before turning to a girl who had announced her support for McCain. "Now talk to me, because your dad is in the military. Talk."

The student doesn't say anything, but Harris goes on.

"It's a senseless war. And by the way, the person that you're picking for president said that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to," Harris said. "So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years."

Public school teachers are allowed to discuss politics in the classroom but are required by law to present issues from all political sides and not press agendas.

Harrison said he found the military aspect of the interaction especially worrying and promised to take action.

"Most disconcerting was the military slant that made its way into this discussion. We are a military community, serving over 15,000 military students and their families. We value the sacrifices, not only of the military parents but also those of their families," he wrote Friday in a statement on the Cumberland County Schools' Web site.

He continued: "Please be assured that the actions exhibited in this video are not consistent with the vision of the CCS. Moreover, the actions of one teacher do not represent the 7000 employees in our organization."

Click here to read the full statement. (http://www.ccs.k12.nc.us/)

The video was part of "From Bill to Barack," a Swedish documentary that followed up with average Americans who had been thrown into the spotlight in the 1992 election. Harris was featured because her ex-husband, Roy Harris, had convinced former President Bush to come into his North Carolina living room and tell his children what he had done for them.

Harrison said that once the video was brought to his attention, he immediately launched an investigation. "Personnel laws prevent me from releasing information regarding individual employees and personnel action taken. I can assure you that upon completion of the investigation, I will take appropriate action," he said.

A receptionist at Mary McArthur Elementary School said that Harris did not want to comment on the case. Wanda McPhaul, Assistant Superintendent of Cumberland County Schools, said that she would not release the name of the student involved or pass a message on to the family.

This wasn't the first time the 2008 presidential election became fodder for an education controversy.

In October, an eighth-grade literature textbook used in public schools came under fire for including pages featuring Barack Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams on My Father."

And a video came out in October titled "Obama Youth --Junior Fraternity Regiment," in which African American students marched into a classroom and repeated a mantra about how Obama had inspired them. The display was organized by a teacher at the Urban Community Leadership Academy, a public charter school.

In September, a school came under fire for suspending an 11-year-old boy because he wore an anti-Obama shirt to school.

[Woody]

Being a politically biased idiot does not a traitor make .A very poor teacher
maybe but hardly grounds for a firing squad .
Definatly needs to explain herself to her bosses ,who probably need to explain to the parents what they doing about her .Not a career enhancing move .

[03_SHOOTER]

Being a politically biased idiot does not a traitor make .A very poor teacher
maybe but hardly grounds for a firing squad .
Definatly needs to explain herself to her bosses ,who probably need to explain to the parents what they doing about her .Not a career enhancing move .

Well Tim, we each have our own standards, and here, in Fayetteville, the term 'traitor' has been used quite a bit in reference to her, and not just by me.

[TheLegalShark]

Well Tim, we each have our own standards, and here, in Fayetteville, the term 'traitor' has been used quite a bit in reference to her, and not just by me.

I have to disagree with you on that. Somebody making a bad decision (yes this is a very stupid and a very wrong thing for a teacher to do) does not make them a traitor. Does it make them dumb? Yes it does. Should it make them unemployed? Hopefully it does as well. Does it make them a traitor? No. Just because somebody disagrees with you politically doesn't make them a traitor. It just means they have a different view on the direction this country should go. Part of the problem that we have in this country is that people on both sides see only black and white. For every single "conservative" calling "liberals" traitors, you have a "liberal" that calls "conservatives" fascists. With things being the way they are right now; we need people on both sides of the aisle to stop pointing and shouting at each other like a bunch of Neanderthals. Right now, we as a whole need to man up and fix things, and that means both sides have to sit down and compromise.

[El Supremo]

Teachers as "agents" (loose term) of the Board of Education, are not allowed to endorse political preference in their students education. I don't think the word "traitor" is quite the word for it, theres another term that could be used. But i do believe she should be fired as soon as possible.

[dukesix]

The checks that Bill Ayers and the NEA wrote 20-30 years ago...were 'paid in full' on Nov.4th, 2008. If you can afford it, put your kids in a private school. If not, home school them. Believe me, your kids will thank you later.

Dukesix

[03_SHOOTER]

I have to disagree with you on that. Somebody making a bad decision (yes this is a very stupid and a very wrong thing for a teacher to do) does not make them a traitor. Does it make them dumb? Yes it does. Should it make them unemployed? Hopefully it does as well. Does it make them a traitor? No. Just because somebody disagrees with you politically doesn't make them a traitor.

Are you even remotely familiar with the definition of traitor? Try looking it up some time, and then compare it with the words and activities of that Marxist Socialist/Communist Obama and his supporters! They are, knowingly or not, actively providing "aid and comfort" to our enemies, and are ACTIVELY seeking to destroy our nation by subverting the very clear meaning of the Constitution that many of us swore to support and defend, which makes them the "domestic enemies" we swore to defend it against.

It just means they have a different view on the direction this country should go. Part of the problem that we have in this country is that people on both sides see only black and white. For every single "conservative" calling "liberals" traitors, you have a "liberal" that calls "conservatives" fascists. With things being the way they are right now; we need people on both sides of the aisle to stop pointing and shouting at each other like a bunch of Neanderthals. Right now, we as a whole need to man up and fix things, and that means both sides have to sit down and compromise.

No, it does not mean that we have "a different view on the direction the country should go", it means that they are trying to DESTROY IT! As far as I'm concerned, the only "compromise" I'm willing to discuss with them is whether they get a blindfold or not.

[03_SHOOTER]

The checks that Bill Ayers and the NEA wrote 20-30 years ago...were 'paid in full' on Nov.4th, 2008. If you can afford it, put your kids in a private school. If not, home school them. Believe me, your kids will thank you later.

Dukesix

Right you are, and the two responses immediately above your post are a primary example of why one should do that. They've obviously been fully indoctrinated by the Socialists, and have not the first clue what the Constitution says or means.

[ang1sgt]

This past Friday I was part of a news conference to announce a new Race in my area. Afterwords, I talked with a City School Teacher and he voiced his concerns over some of the TEXT messages he had seen the kids passing around just in his school. One stated that If Obama Lost the election that you should punch a whitey the next day in school.

Now while I did NOT see this txt, I have known this teacher for a number of years. He is a good teacher in a terrible school. I have trusted him and he's never abused my trust so I believe him when he tells me something like this.

What does this say about our Young People, our Country, and where we are heading?

[SlightlyCatholic]

What does this say about our Young People, our Country, and where we are heading?

If Facebook is any indication, there will be a coup d'etat relatively soon. I saw one Facebook group today titled "Impeach Obama", and he hasn't even taken office yet! I think the problem lies in the fact that we put so much emphasis on support for a particular candidate (and the democratic system itself) that we forget to tell people that it really IS over once the fat lady sings (or the last polling place closes). It seems right now that we all have our own favorite Roman general and they're all fighting for Rome. I don't think it helps that Obama supporters continue to throw their candidate's victory in everyone's faces...we're all duly aware who won.

[03_SHOOTER]

This past Friday I was part of a news conference to announce a new Race in my area. Afterwords, I talked with a City School Teacher and he voiced his concerns over some of the TEXT messages he had seen the kids passing around just in his school. One stated that If Obama Lost the election that you should punch a whitey the next day in school.

Now while I did NOT see this txt, I have known this teacher for a number of years. He is a good teacher in a terrible school. I have trusted him and he's never abused my trust so I believe him when he tells me something like this.

What does this say about our Young People, our Country, and where we are heading?

It says a LOT Top. First of all, it says that the parents of these children have CHUGGED the Kool-Aid by the 55 gallon drum full, and fed it via IV to their braindead offspring. It says that they've bought into the whole "you're a racist" if you oppose a Black man, even if that Black man is a Marxist Socialist/Communist. Most importantly though, it says that our modern Marxist Socialist/Communist Institutions of Indoctrination have accomplished their goal, to make an entire generation of what Lenin called "Useful Idiots" to hasten the downfall of America.

Face it bro, we HAVE to live forever, because the kids today are MORONS, and if they're ever allowed to be "in charge", we're totally hosed.

[03_SHOOTER]

If Facebook is any indication, there will be a coup d'etat relatively soon. I saw one Facebook group today titled "Impeach Obama", and he hasn't even taken office yet! I think the problem lies in the fact that we put so much emphasis on support for a particular candidate (and the democratic system itself) that we forget to tell people that it really IS over once the fat lady sings (or the last polling place closes). It seems right now that we all have our own favorite Roman general and they're all fighting for Rome.

Do you not understand WHY someone would call for Obama to be impeached? He has already vowed, to the entire American population, on many occasions, and on television, that he has absolutely NO intention of abiding by his Oath of Office!

Everything he espouses is in DIRECT contradiction to the Constitution that he is supposed to swear to "...protect and defend..." Anybody taking bets on whether he says "so help me God" like every other President since Washington has?

[Billyd]

Do you not understand WHY someone would call for Obama to be impeached? He has already vowed, to the entire American population, on many occasions, and on television, that he has absolutely NO intention of abiding by his Oath of Office!

Everything he espouses is in DIRECT contradiction to the Constitution that he is supposed to swear to "...protect and defend..." Anybody taking bets on whether he says "so help me God" like every other President since Washington has?

Not to add fuel to your fire (like that ever stopped me before), while the Jr. Senator from Il may have stated some wild things (BTW, he is NOT the President-Elect until Jan 6, 2009 when the votes of the Electoral College are opened and certified before a joint session of Congress), UNTIL he takes the oath of office at 1200 hrs on the 20th of January 2009, he has not violated that oath. The question should be (at least at this point in time) has he violated his oath of office as a United States Senator, and if so, why has he not been taken to task for that, along with any other sitting member of the House or Senate?

[SlightlyCatholic]

Do you not understand WHY someone would call for Obama to be impeached? He has already vowed, to the entire American population, on many occasions, and on television, that he has absolutely NO intention of abiding by his Oath of Office!

I understand why his impeachment is an attractive option, but I also think that to say that he SHOULD be impeached is premature. If he has no intention of abiding by the Oath of Office, then let him show it. Otherwise, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt just like every other president-elect. After all, he won the election.

Everything he espouses is in DIRECT contradiction to the Constitution that he is supposed to swear to "...protect and defend..." Anybody taking bets on whether he says "so help me God" like every other President since Washington has?

That's probably true, but unless he puts them into action, they're just sentiments and you can't impeach someone on sentiments. I personally think he will do some bad things for this country, but all we can do is operate in the future tense...at least until he's sworn in.

If I say "I hate black people", can I be charged with a hate crime or do I have to act on it? I think that's the sort of thing we're dealing with here...speech/thought vs. action.

[03_SHOOTER]

Not to add fuel to your fire (like that ever stopped me before), while the Jr. Senator from Il may have stated some wild things (BTW, he is NOT the President-Elect until Jan 6, 2009 when the votes of the Electoral College are opened and certified before a joint session of Congress), UNTIL he takes the oath of office at 1200 hrs on the 20th of January 2009, he has not violated that oath. The question should be (at least at this point in time) has he violated his oath of office as a United States Senator, and if so, why has he not been taken to task for that, along with any other sitting member of the House or Senate?

Yes, he HAS already violated his Oath, and he has clearly demonstrated that he has no intention of abiding by the one he is scheduled to take in January either. The reason that he hasn't been taken to task for it, or for that matter, the majority of Senators and Representatives in Congress, of BOTH parties for that matter, is that they are the only ones who decide who is and is not impeached, and if they were to impeach everyone for violating the Constitution, who would run the impeachment proceedings?

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

[03_SHOOTER]

I understand why his impeachment is an attractive option, but I also think that to say that he SHOULD be impeached is premature. If he has no intention of abiding by the Oath of Office, then let him show it. Otherwise, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt just like every other president-elect. After all, he won the election.

As Billy has already pointed out, he already HAS violated his Oath of Office, repeatedly, by his actions in the Senate that are directly contrary to the Constitution.

That's probably true, but unless he puts them into action, they're just sentiments and you can't impeach someone on sentiments. I personally think he will do some bad things for this country, but all we can do is operate in the future tense...at least until he's sworn in.

Again, he already HAS been sworn in, as a United States Senator, so it's not "sentiment", it's a FACT. Look at his record, look at his associations, look at his actions, look at his speeches, it's all there in plain sight for anyone who has the eyes to see it.

If I say "I hate black people", can I be charged with a hate crime or do I have to act on it? I think that's the sort of thing we're dealing with here...speech/thought vs. action.

YES, you can be charged with "hate speech", tried, convicted, and sentenced to a FEDERAL PRISON. And that is but one example of the totally un-Constitutional 'laws' that have been passed by the Congress, and as FREE American citizens, it is incumbent upon us to resist these un-Constitutional laws, with our very lives if needs be. The only question you have to ask yourself is exactly which hill in the mountain range of usurpations, abrogations, and despotic actions of our government you are willing to die on.

[SlightlyCatholic]

So what should we do? Grab our shovels and pitchforks and march on the capitol? What can we really do to prevent Obama from serving four years in office?

I, for example, live in part of the "blue" Northeast. I can't write my Representatives or Senators because they're hardcore liberals and really don't care about any of the things you and BillyD are mentioning. So what is the common citizen supposed to do?

[03_SHOOTER]

So what should we do? Grab our shovels and pitchforks and march on the capitol?

Nope. Shovels and pitchforks are a damned poor choice. Personally I'd like to see a few million people show up, armed to the teeth, and hold Drum Head Trials for all of them, including SCOTUS!

It's LONG past time we started over again, with people who REALLY understand what the Constitution means, and who WILL be held to account for their violations of it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Well...some French guys wrote this after they were pissed off with their king and revolted:

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

The document itself will have its 220th birthday next year...

[03_SHOOTER]

The document itself will have its 300th birthday next year...

You might want to check your math there Skippy, it's be 220 years old next year.

Our own Constitution was ratified 220 years ago this year, and has been folded, bent, spindled, stapled, and mutilated ever since by those who have steadfastly refused to abide by their Oaths to "...support and defend..." it, and in fact have been consistantly striving to do away with it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the correction on the date, I just looked it up again.

So what is the average citizen supposed to do about Obama?

[03_SHOOTER]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the correction on the date, I just looked it up again.

So what is the average citizen supposed to do about Obama?

The same thing that they're supposed to do about ALL of our elected "mis-representatives", watch 'em like a HAWK, and call 'em out every time they screw the pooch.

I'm adding a new link in the "Resources" thread that you should check out if you really care about what they're doing in your name.

[03_SHOOTER]

What does this say about our Young People, our Country, and where we are heading?

As a further offering about what is wrong with young people today, and the reasons behind it, I offer a new book by Larry Schweikart called 48 Liberal lies about American History (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Lies-About-American-History/dp/1595230513) in which he details 48 of the most common lies that are CURRENTLY being taught to our young people.

Among the Liberal lies are;
FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor beforehand

Harry Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to intimidate the Soviets

Joseph McCarthy concocted the whole "Red Scare" out of whole-cloth

Gorbachev was primarily responsible for ending the Cold War

Christopher Columbus is responsible for the murder of millions of Indians

President Nixon orchestrated the Watergate break-in

The FF's intended to create a "wall of separation" between church and state

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he needed soldiers


How can we expect our young people to be able to properly participate in the American process if what they're being taught are such egregious and blatant LIES, being force fed to them by an intentional and insidious Marxist Socialist/Communist system of indoctrination known as the Amerikun Skuul Sistum?

[Javelin66]

Are you even remotely familiar with the definition of traitor?

I thought I was, but I looked it up just to be safe.

First off, this lady was clearly out of bounds and deserves to be treated severely. I think that a public apology (and perhaps a private law suit) are in order, as well as whatever disciplinary action the school system takes.

However, she is not a traitor. Remember that this took place prior to the election, so what she was doing was unethically (if not illegally) influencing young minds to support her choice for president. She has the right to endorse a particular candidate; she cannot use her position as a teacher to campaign for that candidate.

In that the constitution guarantees our right to free speech, proving that someone is guilty of ‘providing aid and comfort to the enemy’ because of something they said is pretty tough.

On the other hand, advocating an armed march on the nation's capitol with the intent to stage illegal trials of government officials could be considered treason (see US Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government)

[03_SHOOTER]

I thought I was, but I looked it up just to be safe.

First off, this lady was clearly out of bounds and deserves to be treated severely. I think that a public apology (and perhaps a private law suit) are in order, as well as whatever disciplinary action the school system takes.

However, she is not a traitor. Remember that this took place prior to the election, so what she was doing was unethically (if not illegally) influencing young minds to support her choice for president. She has the right to endorse a particular candidate; she cannot use her position as a teacher to campaign for that candidate.

In that the constitution guarantees our right to free speech, proving that someone is guilty of ‘providing aid and comfort to the enemy’ because of something they said is pretty tough.

On the other hand, advocating an armed march on the nation's capitol with the intent to stage illegal trials of government officials could be considered treason (see US Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government)

So in your mind, it's freedom of speech for a teacher to TERRORIZE her students, but it's "treason" for someone to call for the TRAITORS in our own government to be held to account for their crimes? What would YOUR reaction have been if it had been YOUR daughter who was sitting in that classroom?

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Smith (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm), 1787

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Yates, at least I'm in DAMNED good company. Can you say the same?

[TheLegalShark]

Are you even remotely familiar with the definition of traitor? Try looking it up some time, and then compare it with the words and activities of that Marxist Socialist/Communist Obama and his supporters!

Yes I am well aware of the definition of the word traitor. Last time I looked Obama wasn't necessarily a Marxist/Communist.

They are, knowingly or not, actively providing "aid and comfort" to our enemies, and are ACTIVELY seeking to destroy our nation by subverting the very clear meaning of the Constitution that many of us swore to support and defend, which makes them the "domestic enemies" we swore to defend it against.

Again, this is your opinion and your interpretation and not the opinion of the country as a whole.


No, it does not mean that we have "a different view on the direction the country should go", it means that they are trying to DESTROY IT! As far as I'm concerned, the only "compromise" I'm willing to discuss with them is whether they get a blindfold or not.

I think the best thing I can say about that is to lay off the kool aid. This is just the standard cookie cutter argument from the far right.


Nope. Shovels and pitchforks are a damned poor choice. Personally I'd like to see a few million people show up, armed to the teeth, and hold Drum Head Trials for all of them, including SCOTUS!

Now this sounds like open insurrection against the government and murder. Wonderful. You asked about treason and here is a pretty good example in my book.

[Javelin66]

So in your mind, it's freedom of speech for a teacher to TERRORIZE her students, but it's "treason" for someone to call for the TRAITORS in our own government to be held to account for their crimes? What would YOUR reaction have been if it had been YOUR daughter who was sitting in that classroom?



Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Yates, at least I'm in DAMNED good company. Can you say the same?

Maybe you are the one who needs to refresh their memory on the definition of 'traitor'.

As I said, my reaction is that this woman should be disciplined to the fullest extent by the school system, issue a public apology, and be subjected to whatever civil action the families of the students in the class choose to pursue.

You have moved beyond calling for traitors to be held accountable for their actions, you are calling for an armed march on the capital.

The company I keep is 100% active duty military personnel and their families, who have all made great sacrifices for this nation and its defense in this and other wars.

Those words of Jefferson that you keep quoting are interesting insights into his thoughts, but the fact is that they were not included them in the Constitution itself, meaning they have no legal weight.

[03_SHOOTER]

Yes I am well aware of the definition of the word traitor. Last time I looked Obama wasn't necessarily a Marxist/Communist.

Then I would suggest that you pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto and read it, and then compare it to Obama's record.

Again, this is your opinion and your interpretation and not the opinion of the country as a whole.

I'm not arrogant enough to speak for the rest of the country, and from what I've seen over the nearly 5 decades of my lifetime, the country, especially when led by the Dim-O-Crap party, is going down the crapper, and ROWING.

I think the best thing I can say about that is to lay off the kool aid. This is just the standard cookie cutter argument from the far right.

Kool-Aid? Do you even know what the reference to "drinking the Kool-Aid" means? It's the Dims who have their "Messiah", who completely disregarded ALL of the facts of the last 8 years, and have blamed everything on the Bush, and now have voted for an untested, unproven NEOPHYTE Marxist to lead this country. Kool-Aid? It sounds to me like you've been chugging it by the keg full.

Now this sounds like open insurrection against the government and murder. Wonderful. You asked about treason and here is a pretty good example in my book.

Nope, it's only treason if you're providing aid and comfort to the ENEMY. It is NOT treason to advocate for holding those who misrepresent us accountable for the decades of usurpations, abrogations, mismanagement, and failure too abide by their oaths of office, and that includes by force IF NECESSARY.

Read your Jefferson.

[03_SHOOTER]

Maybe you are the one who needs to refresh their memory on the definition of 'traitor'.

I'm well aware of the Title 18 definition of Treason, and I consider her, and her ilk to be the same as the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. They are working to destroy this country from the inside, and doing so with the full knowledge of what they are doing, by polluting the minds of our youth with their Marxist teachings.

As I said, my reaction is that this woman should be disciplined to the fullest extent by the school system, issue a public apology, and be subjected to whatever civil action the families of the students in the class choose to pursue.

Tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail works for me.

You have moved beyond calling for traitors to be held accountable for their actions, you are calling for an armed march on the capital.

To be 100% correct, since you and "LegalShark" seem to have missed it, I said that I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING IT, that's a long way from "calling for it".

The company I keep is 100% active duty military personnel and their families, who have all made great sacrifices for this nation and its defense in this and other wars.

As have I, and the vast majority of the rest of the membership of this Forum, and one thing that has obviously been lost in the years since I got out is that our fealty is to the Constitution, and NOT to any of the temporary help that occupies the various seats in Washington D.C., and as such it is up to us to be the very first to hold them accountable for their utter and complete failures as our representatives.

Those words of Jefferson that you keep quoting are interesting insights into his thoughts, but the fact is that they were not included them in the Constitution itself, meaning they have no legal weight.

Your statement is a primary example of what I mean when I say that young people today have been ill taught by the modern institutions of indoctrination. The very first words of the Constitution are; "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is We The People who are the originating authority for the Constitution, it is We The People who decide what is and is not in our best interests, and it is We The People who are thereby responsible for ensuring that those that we elect to represent us in the Congress that WE formed, do in fact hold their offices during good behavior, and when they don't, it is We The People who must deal with them.

The argument, I'm sure, will be posited that we do this at the ballot box, but when our own government has become so perverted, and so over-bloated, with totally unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations, agencies, departments, and cabinet positions, that We The People have become subjugated not to those we allegedly appoint to represent us, but to the hidden organs those representatives have unconstitutionally invented to pacify us, then it IS our responsibility to use whatever means are necessary to ferret out all of them, to tear down their unconstitutional mechanisms, and start over with those who WILL abide by the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Go back and research your own history. Read the Debates of the Federal Convention, and you'll begin to have an understanding of exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by the words that they so carefully selected when they wrote the Constitution. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and you'll understand exactly what We The People meant and understood our Rights to be, and why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a condition of ratification.

Why do you think the very first words of the Bill of Rights are "Congress shall make no law..."? To put them on notice that our Rights are not to be trifled with.

Why do you think that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly are specifically enumerated in the First Amendment? To ensure that We The People have the means by which to tell our government, and each other, of the dangers our own government poses to us should it do so, and yes, even to call for the complete overthrow of that government when it becomes despotic.

Why do you think James Madison wrote the Second Amendment? To ensure that We The People were guaranteed the means by which to OVERTHROW our own government should they become despotic and attempt to usurp our Rights.

Why do you think one of the very first Acts of our new Congress was to enact the Militia Act of 1789? To ensure that We The People were not only armed, but organized and trained to defend this nation, against it's own government if necessary!

Why do you think that the 3rd Amendment even exists? To ensure that we may not be forcibly mollified by our government!

Why do you think that the Constitution does not authorize a standing Army? Because the FF's KNEW that standing Armies were a threat to Liberty! Sound a bit crazy? Look at how many times our own military has been used against We The People here in America! Do you really think that Waco was done by BATFEIEIO, FBI and the Texas National Guard? WRONG! They used active duty military personnel at Waco, including Delta operators in direct violation of Posse Comitatus! Our own military has been used as part of the wire tapping of public communications as part of the USAPATRIOT Act, and that's not even scratching the surface.

Why do you think that half of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to telling the government what they cannot do to us as it relates to the Judiciary? To ensure that We The People cannot be stymied by our legal system to silence us, or prevent us from being the masters of our own government!

Why do you think the 9th and 10th Amendments were written in such vague language? To ensure that anything not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the government by We The People in Article 1 Section 8 was in fact retained by We The People, and could not be seized by the government that had just been formed.

Why do you think that Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerates ALL of the powers that We The People have delegated to Congress? Because that's ALL that We The People have authorized them to do on our behalf, and nothing more.

Not included in the Constitution? It's all OVER the Constitution! Interesting insight into his thoughts? Try "an insight" into the thoughts of all of the Founding Fathers! Don't forget that the Constitution was the child of men who had just fought an 8 year war against the King, and they wanted to make damned sure that what they had just sacrificed "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to defeat would not be replicated here. Well, wake up, it IS being replicated, and worse.

[Javelin66]

There is quite a lot to address in your last post, so rather than insert mutually quoted snippets here and there, let's just refer back when we need to, shall we?

If I may get us back on point, I do not support this woman or anything she says. I think she abused her office to make a political statement, and she should be subject to the full penalty of law-pending the appropriate legal proceedings, of course. My assertion is simply that she is not a traitor.

However, if you are not advocating an armed rebellion, why do you insist on using language that suggests that you do? Don't be coy, say what you mean. Your choice of words is incindiary and not a bit misleading- there's a big difference between marching on Washington armed to the teeth in order to stage drumhead trials, which was your original exortation, and writing our elected representatives, which seems to be what you are saying now.

I have to admit that I agree with much of what you are saying. It is only when you resort to such extreme language that I have to draw the line. Because, as you say, I owe a fealty to the Constitution, it worries me when I hear threats against the nation's legally elected leaders.

I have had the opportunity to travel the globe quite a bit in the last eight or so years. Unfortunately very little of this travel was to the garden spots, although I did get to spend 2 weeks in Oberammergau -but I digress. I saw a lot of different things, but one common thread that I noticed in all of the failed states of the world is that the veneer of civilization is very thin. It does not take much to scratch it, and it is very difficult to repair- sometimes impossible. I am sure you have travelled the world as well, and therefore you also have to know that the rule of law is actually the exception. We only have it here because We The People agree to it.

[03_SHOOTER]

As you say, we have traveled a bit, here and there, and as you say we are a nation of laws, and to address your point directly, what are we to do when those we have elected to represent us have used the 'rule of law', and their highly dubious 'interpretations' of the Constitution against us? Are we in fact to be bound by those 'laws' that each of us instinctively knows to be totally unconstitutional on their face? Look around you today and tell me how the "rule of law" that is spoken of so reverently actually strips us of our "unalienable Rights" that Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently of in the Declaration of Independence, and renders them into nothing but mere privilege to be given and taken at whim by our Masters?

Before you draw your line too deeply, consider the following, and then tell me how your fealty to the Constitution in any way precludes you from opposing, including in the strongest possible way, those domestic enemies that many of us swore to defend our Constitution against, that are within our own government, and who have abused their privilege, impinged, infringed, abrogated, and in fact nullified the very Rights guaranteed to us in that Constitution.

Given the recent financial crisis that we're all facing let's start with the body of the Constitution shall we? A little bit of background first for proper context will be in order. In 1929, there were 121,767,000 people in the United States, and the budget was (in inflation adjusted dollars) $309 per capita. Last year, there were 301,621,157 people in the United States, and the budget was $2.732 Trillion, or $9,051 for every man, woman, and child in America. That's a 3,000% increase in per capita spending, and for what? Well, at least 60% of it goes directly to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, AFDC, Head Start, and every other give-away program that Congress has devised.

Now to the point, perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me exactly where in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution it gives Congress the authority to spend their confiscatory taxes on those programs?

In 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed into law, along with many of his other "New Deal" programs (that should have come with a HUGE jug of K-Y Jelly) the transfer of the Federal National Mortgage Association, or as you probably better know it, Fannie Mae, to Federal control, which meant that We The People began picking up the tab for other peoples mortgages at the height of the Great Depression. In 1968 as part of LBJ's "Great Society" (which should have also come with another HUGE jug of K-Y Jelly), Fannie Mae became a "private" share-holder company in order to get it off of the Federal books lest We The People discover how much of an Albatross it was around our necks, and hang those responsible. But LBJ (D) and the Democrat Congress weren't done, they then created Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, two other organs of government created to "help" the people, by foisting the bill on We The People to cover the tab for our "fellow Americans". Under Mr. Peanut (D) and his Democrat Congress, the practice of "Redlining", the refusal to, or increasing the cost of conducting business in "less advantaged" neighborhoods (primarily because they knew that they didn't have the money to honor their debts) was outlawed, which meant that in order for a bank or lending institution to maintain it's licenses, they were compelled to lend money and write mortgages to people that they knew couldn't afford them at the same rates as they would to people who were more than able to afford them. When Slick Willie got into office, he and his Democrat Congress (before the "Republican Revolution") all but totally deregulated Fannie, and Freddie, and continued to impose unrealistic demands on lending institutions, and even after the Republicans took control of Congress, they steadfastly refused to re-regulate them. As little as 5 years ago, John McCain and many Republican members of Congress went before the House Financial Services Committee, yet Barney Frank (D), along with all of the other Democrats on the Committee, most of whom are/were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, not only refused to introduce any regulation, but in fact intimated that the call to regulate Fannie and Freddy was "racist", and it was this inaction which led directly to our current financial crisis (see video posted immediatly after this post) . To add insult to grievous injury, they than elected to take even more of our money and to use it to bail out the very organs that got us into this mess in the first place, to the tune of more than a trillion dollars, and that number keeps rising every day!

Again, perhaps you can show me anywhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where it gives the Congress of the United States the authority to guarantee mortgages, or compel financial institutions to lend money to people that they do not believe can repay those loans? For that matter, perhaps you can show me where it give Congress the authority to bail out any private company regardless of how "vital" it may be to our economy?

Financial matters not enough to get your blood boiling? Perhaps the following will;

The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", yet today our freedom of religion is routinely assailed when the government tells us that we may not have an invocation at a High School football game, that children may not pray over their lunch, that they may not hold private Bible study with their friends at school, and the list goes on. The First Amendment also clearly says that We The People shall enjoy freedom of speech, yet today doing so in a manner that isn't "PC" can result in "Hate Speech" charges being filed against you, and your ending up in a Federal cell! Now I am aware of the rather dubious ruling of Justice Oliver Holmes in the Schenck case where he stated that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic", but where is the support for this "logic" in the Constitution? Allow me to save you some time looking for it, it isn't there. Even later in Brandenburg v Ohio where his ruling was modified to include only that speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.", the court failed to comprehend that when the First Amendment was written, it was done so with the specific intention of protecting that very type of speech!

What of our "freedom to peaceably assemble"? Do we in fact still possess that Right when we are obliged to obtain a permit from some local branch of government, and inform them of the nature of the gathering whereby they will determine if they will, or will not issue such a permit?

What of our Second Amendment Rights? How is it that we are guaranteed the Right to "...keep and bear arms.", yet we are required to obtain permits, fill out Federal registration papers, and only "...keep and bear arms." in compliance with local, State, and Federal guidelines, laws, rules, and regulations, or subject ourselves to severe prison sentences?

I could go on and on, and clearly demonstrate that nearly each and every one of our Rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and even those that are not specifically enumerated, but are still guaranteed to us by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, have in fact been completely abrogated, abridged, infringed, and in fact nullified, to the point that they are in fact no longer "Rights", but merely privileges that our Masters permit us in order to foment the illusion of "freedom" while we are in fact slowly being turned into domestic cattle, ready for the slaughter houses.

Perhaps you can explain to me why I should offer any loyalty to a government that has so blatantly violated our God given Rights? Perhaps you can explain to me why I should not take joy in the thought of several million of my fellow citizens exercising their Constitutional Right to "...keep and bear arms...", and to "...peaceably assemble..." in Washington D.C., with the purpose of holding our elected mis-representatives to account for their unconstitutional seizures, abrogations, and violations of all of our God given Rights.

[03_SHOOTER]

_MGT_cSi7Rs

[03_SHOOTER]

More ties between the Democrats, Barack Obama, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

9nU3fNh-PRk

usvG-s_Ssb0

ivmL-lXNy64

3EyKiOE78yU

[Javelin66]

You failed to mention Barney Franks' real motivation for defending Fannie Mae:
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/09/barney-frank-sleeping-with-enemy-why.html

I can only humbly offer that this is the best we can do, and it is a lot better than any of the alternatives.

I maintain that this is a particularly delicate time in our history, and we have to chose our course carefully. Emotions are running high on all sides, and we have all the ingredients for a catastrophic situation, not just in terms of the economy. It will probably get worse before it gets better.

Starting with inaugeration day one lofty expectation after another will not be met, and there will be accusations all around. Whether it is the withdrawal from Iraq, the realization that despite his very nice letter Ahmadinijad is really a bad guy and his boss (the Ayatollah) is even worse, or the reality that we will all still have to pay our mortgages and medical bills, a lot of people will be very disapointed very soon.

[03_SHOOTER]

You failed to mention Barney Franks' real motivation for defending Fannie Mae:
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/09/barney-frank-sleeping-with-enemy-why.html

You mean his "wife"? I didn't want to get into that for fear of being called a "homophobe", when I'm already being called a "racist" for not supporting Obama, and an "insurrectionist" for calling for Americans to stand up and hold our "leaders" accountable for stealing our Rights and taking a huge steaming dump all over the Constitution.

I can only humbly offer that this is the best we can do, and it is a lot better than any of the alternatives.

I maintain that this is a particularly delicate time in our history, and we have to chose our course carefully. Emotions are running high on all sides, and we have all the ingredients for a catastrophic situation, not just in terms of the economy. It will probably get worse before it gets better.

Starting with inaugeration day one lofty expectation after another will not be met, and there will be accusations all around. Whether it is the withdrawal from Iraq, the realization that despite his very nice letter Ahmadinijad is really a bad guy and his boss (the Ayatollah) is even worse, or the reality that we will all still have to pay our mortgages and medical bills, a lot of people will be very disapointed very soon.

Well, hold onto your socks, because the fun is just beginning, and we'll all be lucky if we get out of this one with our hides intact.

[HairyEyeball]

So there are people with their knickers in a knot over whether the 'teacher' in question is technically a 'traitor'? Perhaps an alternative perspective might help clarify:

A case may well be made - flimsier ones have - for denying the student his 'civil rights' (and every such right enumerated in the first ten Amendments is a 'civil right') under the color of authority. In and of itself, this is not a 'treasonous' act. What such fails to take into account, however, is that by such action, she is advocating the installation of a socialist whose speeches and actions have already proven him an enemy of, and determined to undermine or overthrow, the Constitutional Republic (nominally) in place. If not an actual 'act of treason', it certainly qualifies as suborning treason...which, in a rational world, would, indeed, be treason.

Further, since such felonies as murder are no longer simple felonies such as 'murder', but 'degrees' of murder or 'manslaughter' (to what 'degree' must a victim be 'murdered' or 'slaughtered' to warrant such hairsplitting?), legal (or at least prosecutorial) 'discretion' might be invoked as to a 'degree' of treason: Since the would-be commissar has not (to our knowledge) herself performed any acts of violence in her campaign of subversion, it might be reasonable to remove the traditional penalty - "That she be hanged by the neck until dead, and G-d have mercy on her soul". This would leave the option to 'the court' - and since the media has, by publicizing the incident, brought it before 'the court of public opinion', a simple solution presents itself.

When 'justice' was the intent of punishment, before a plague of attorneys obfuscated morality with arbitrary codification, the populace itself dealt with miscreants, meting out punishment proportionate to the offense while providing their own 'entertainment' as a function of the process. A bucket of tar, adequate plumage, and a substansive length of split log fencing - and documentation of the offense for any potential future employer - would appear adequate.

[Javelin66]

What such fails to take into account, however, is that by such action, she is advocating the installation of a socialist whose speeches and actions have already proven him an enemy of, and determined to undermine or overthrow, the Constitutional Republic (nominally) in place. If not an actual 'act of treason', it certainly qualifies as suborning treason...which, in a rational world, would, indeed, be treason.

(Emphasis added)

So, then, did those that voted or (worse yet) campaign for Obama commit treason?

[HairyEyeball]

In short, yes. Since it is no longer 'officially' punishable (see john kerry, jane fonda, wet willie clinton), and it 'felt good', they could do so without fear of reprisal.

[03_SHOOTER]

Follow up.

Teacher says talk violated school rules (http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=312592)

A staff report

Fayetteville teacher Diatha Harris is now acknowledging that she was found to have violated a Cumberland County school policy in connection with a controversial YouTube video.

Last month, Harris said she was reprimanded after a Swedish film crew taped her leading a classroom discussion about the 2008 presidential election with fifth-graders at Mary McArthur Elementary School.

During the discussion, Harris called the Iraq war “senseless” and told pupils that U.S. troops could stay in Iraq for 100 years if John McCain was president.

“So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years,” Harris told a pupil in the classroom footage.

An administrative investigation cleared her of violating state law, according to Harris.

But Harris said Monday the probe did find she broke school board policy, contrary to what she said after getting a reprimand letter in November.

School officials consider the letter private under state law.

Harris, 53, said the policy she is accused of violating addresses political activity in schools.

So not only is she a Commie sympathizer, she's also a LIAR.

Yup, our children are in such wonderful hands while they're in our Instutooshuns of Publik Indocktrunashun.

Listen up people, if you have children in school, you really do need to make sure that you know what they're being taught, because it's entirely possible that the Schools are NOT promoting YOUR values.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So... just as a question...

What would you say about this issue if she completely bashed Obama, telling the children that he was a "Liberal-Pig", and/or "The Antichrist"?

In my opinion, it shouldn't really matter what she said and about who, except for that she was lording her views over those of the students, saying that they were wrong for disagreeing with her.

----

*deviating from original question*

I know for a fact that most of my teachers preferred Obama over McCain (They told us), but they didn't go off the deep end like this. Many of them understood why we supported McCain (Many of us have Parents in the military, and we wish to see them protected/supported while they're in and out of service.) However, I find it almost hilarious how she admits to violating school policy, then says that she never violated it.

So... the question still stands... what would your stance be if she said demeaning remarks about Obama?

[03_SHOOTER]

So... just as a question...

<snip>

So... the question still stands... what would your stance be if she said demeaning remarks about Obama?

Since the crux of my objection went straight over your head like an SR-71, I'll keep it simple; I don't care WHAT she said about EITHER of the candidates, my objection is that she was intentionally trying to scare the crap out of the daughter of a SERVING MEMBER OF THE 82nd AIRBORNE DIVISION, by saying that if she was supporting McCain that it would result in her father going back to Iraq, and that is BULLSH*T!!!

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Ah.

Thank you for the clarification, sir. I'll make sure the next critical point doesn't fly over my head.

[wukong]

I'm not arrogant

I'm not arrogant


I'm not arrogant

Well said. ROTFLMAO

[03_SHOOTER]

Cute wukong, cherry pick two words out of a sentence, and use them completely out of context to try to make a dig. Who are you, Kieth Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rosie O'Fatass, or one of the other loony-tunes Libtards in the LSM, or have you been hanging out at the DailyKooks and Dim-O-Crap Underground and picking up "debating points" from them?

My exact quote, in context was;
I'm not arrogant enough to speak for the rest of the country,..., but then you knew that, and couldn't come up with anything, so you resort to intentional obfuscation and prevarication. You and I may strongly disagree on some of the issues, but when you resort to these tactics, all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Keep up the good work.

[wukong]

Captain Killer countered:
but then you knew that

Allow me to complement you on your grasp of the obvious. There is a theory that a person's personality traits can be deduced from words they use, how they use them and their reaction to words they hear/see/read. Given the breadth of your scholarship and keen intellect, I will assume that you realize that this theory forms the basis of Operations Research and Psychological Warfare. You are a perfect candidate for a case study.

I know, that you know, that I know, that you are not so "arrogant" to speak for me. I just wonder for whom do you speak arrogantly. On that score I sincerely offer my most humble apology.

Rest assured that I soon grow tired of playing with toys. That does not mean that I cannot derive vicarious pleasure from watching others deliberately or unwittingly "bounce" the ball.:D

BTW: it was three words. I'm curious of your Pavlovian reaction to the mere mention of Rosie, did she turn you down or merely turned you down?

[wukong]

As to the subject matter of the teacher in question, can anyone clearly distinguish the First Amendment rights of this "educator" from that of Gunny Neito? Consider that the teacher could have legally accomplished her objective by simply proposing rhetorical questions.

[03_SHOOTER]

Allow me to complement you on your grasp of the obvious. There is a theory that a person's personality traits can be deduced from words they use, how they use them and their reaction to words they hear/see/read. Given the breadth of your scholarship and keen intellect, I will assume that you realize that this theory forms the basis of Operations Research and Psychological Warfare. You are a perfect candidate for a case study.

Then you should also realize that, using your Psyops model, using an extreme example to clarify a point that the less keen seem to be missing is an oft used, and highly respected method of instruction.

I know, that you know, that I know, that you are not so "arrogant" to speak for me. I just wonder for whom do you speak arrogantly. On that score I sincerely offer my most humble apology.

Apology accepted. As for whom I do speak, I speak for myself, and no one else which is what makes me audacious, not arrogant. To quote Gen. George S. Patton Jr. "L'audace, L'audace, Toujours L'audace" , and it is one of the qualities that was the hallmark of a good SAC troop. But then again, there has always been a place for the meek and mild in the Air Force, and if I recall correctly, that place was called...MAC, and it's predecessor MATS. :p

Rest assured that I soon grow tired of playing with toys. That does not mean that I cannot derive vicarious pleasure from watching others deliberately or unwittingly "bounce" the ball.:D

Yes, well, the simple minded are easily distracted. :D

BTW: it was three words. I'm curious of your Pavlovian reaction to the mere mention of Rosie, did she turn you down or merely turned you down?

Mea Culpa, I had intended to say "a few words", but a lack of sufficient caffeine and nicotine conspired to interfere with the transmission of the appropriate signals from my mind to my fingers.

As for Rosie, I find it interesting that you would select her out of the myriad of examples I cited. Perhaps it is you who finds her somewhat...intriguing? :sick:

[03_SHOOTER]

As to the subject matter of the teacher in question, can anyone clearly distinguish the First Amendment rights of this "educator" from that of Gunny Neito? Consider that the teacher could have legally accomplished her objective by simply proposing rhetorical questions.

Quite easily. The good Gunny, being retired, is no longer subject to the UCMJ (as he cannot be recalled to active duty for Article 15 action, nor to stand Court-Martial, for other than an offense he may have committed while on AD, or as otherwise specifically cited in the JAG-MAN), so he is free to speak his mind on any issue he chooses, in any manner he wishes to express it. The teacher in question, on the other hand, violated the Cumberland County School Policy by "campaigning" for a specific candidate rather than keeping her commentary "fair and balanced". She also engaged in what some (including myself) consider "uttering terrorist threats" (which is a felony in the State of North Carolina) by implying that by supported McCain that the child would be ensuring that he father would be sent back to Iraq time and time again, with the clear implication that he could be killed there. Now I ask you, what kind of low-life scum-bag would resort to that type of tactic in order to 'support' her candidate? Actually, that was a rhetorical question, the answer to which I will supply at the end of this offering.

I, and a great majority of the members of our community consider the fact that a blatantly Liberal teacher would resort to such tactics to be clear grounds for removal (preferably covered in hot, highly viscous, petroleum based products, heavily adorned in the plumage of a large avian species, while riding atop a rather stout beam). Unfortunately, the School System and the Teachers Union have ensured that doing so is all but impossible (although it has been rumored that her contract will not be renewed), therefore several parents have insisting that their children not be instructed by that teacher, and some have even resorted to removing their children from that school, and placing them in private schools instead.

Now, to answer my previous question, it is the general consensus here, and elsewhere around the country, that such tactics are the "stock and trade" of liberals, since they obviously cannot honestly compete in the "arena of ideas" using logic and reason, so they resort to lies and intimidation to achieve their goals, the most important one being the indoctrination of our children, rendering them into yet another generation of what Karl Marx called "useful idiots".

[Armed Drill Addict]

I am not trying to start an issue with a moderator here but the description of the political forum is
this is an area for political discussion. Please keep all posts civil and constructive

I believe this argument has gone past the point of being constructive or civil. Wukong and Shooter, you are now having a one on one argument that really holds no place in the public forum.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Silly cadet, opinions are for adults!

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/cardboardbox5/trix2.jpg

Drill, in all seriousness, you are correct. The big boys shouldn't be letting the kiddies see this thread, either...:dontgetit:

[03_SHOOTER]

I am not trying to start an issue with a moderator here but the description of the political forum is

this is an area for political discussion. Please keep all posts civil and constructive

I believe this argument has gone past the point of being constructive or civil. Wukong and Shooter, you are now having a one on one argument that really holds no place in the public forum.

A.D.A., while I appreciate your thoughts, you need to understand that wukong and I really have no "issue", much less one that can't be held in a public forum. First of all, the thread had lain dormant for nearly a month before I posted an update, to which buffalo expressed a concern about the reasons for my objections, which I attempted to clarify. It was after the tread had remained dormant for another 3 days that wukong threw a couple of his "good natured" jabs at me, and I responded in that spirit, as well as answering his relevant, and serious question in that spirit as well.

The fact is that wukong and I have this "love/hate" relationship, in that we love to hate each other. This has been going on for quite some time as anyone from the previous iteration of the Forum will remember, primarily because we are all but polar opposites on many of the issues. When either of us makes a statement, or asks a question in a "serious" tenor, we both respond accordingly. By the same token, when either of us decides to throw a little good natured dig in at the other, we also respond accordingly.

Frankly I have nothing but the utmost respect for him, if for no other reason, than the fact that he is willing to stand on his own two feet and defend his opinions and positions (regardless of how completely wrong he may be :p), because that's one of the things that makes America so great. It doesn't matter if we agree with each other or not, what does matter is that we are free to express our beliefs and opinions. I have repeatedly said that I took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...", and that includes defending the Right of someone I strongly disagree with to express his beliefs and opinions, even if that means doing so with my very life. Frankly, IMNSHO, anyone here who isn't willing to do that really needs to sit down and do some soul searching about whether or not they understand what the Constitution really means. The fact that we ARE 'talking' to each other instead of SHOOTING at each other simply proves, at least to some extent, that America does still work, and who knows, some day we may actually find something that we actually agree about! :nervous:

As to whether or not you believe it should be held in a public forum or not, that is precisely what public forums are all about, the open and free exchange of ideas and opinions, because when the day comes that we cannot avail ourselves of public discourse, on any subject, THAT is the day that we can officially turn off the lights on America. This country is already rife with "Political Correctness", or as it should properly be called "Personal Cowardice", where the Right of We The People to openly and freely express our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights are slowly and steadily being eroded in the name of "not offending anyone". I suppose it never dawned on anyone that it was just that stifling of free and open exchange was one of the primary factors that led to the American Revolution in the first place! Look at history, what is one of the first things that despotic dictators attempt to do? They regulate the freedom of speech. They harass, arrest, and imprison anyone who doesn't preach the party line. They take over, or destroy the press and only allow those things to be disseminated that suit their agenda. Do you think for one moment that King George III allowed any of 'his' subjects to print articles, essays, or pamphlets that were critical of him? Do you think that Adolph Hitler allowed the Jews to print anything that was critical of his policies? What about Saddam Hussein? To be honest, if this current "PC" agenda is allowed to continue, that is exactly where we are headed, because those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Oh, and one last thing for those who may have any doubts, if wukong and I ever were to meet, I would be more than happy to buy him a drink of his choice, as well as to sit in the bar and discuss for hours how he is wrong on almost every issue. :D

(And no, I wouldn't throw the drink in his face either, mainly because that would be alcohol abuse, and we all know that alcohol abuse is a BAD thing).

[Billyd]

(And no, I wouldn't throw the drink in his face either, mainly because that would be alcohol abuse, and we all know that alcohol abuse is a BAD thing).

And would earn you a trip to Social Actions :p.

[03_SHOOTER]

Silly cadet, opinions are for adults!

Drill, in all seriousness, you are correct. The big boys shouldn't be letting the kiddies see this thread, either...:dontgetit:

Why? Are you afraid that the 'children' might actually learn how valuable open and public discourse can be, even when that discourse is between two people who disagree most vehemently on a subject, especially when the subject concerns one of our most basic bfundamental Rights?

OH MY GOD, we can't let the children see people disagreeing, or defending their positions passionately, because they might not grow up to be good mindless little automatons who simply regurgitate the party line, and instead actually learn to think for themselves, and even dare to express their disagreements, and that just simply will not do! HORROR OF HORRORS, they're not being nice about it!!! Try reading some of the newspapers that were printed in the time before, during, and immediately following the Revolution, and then tell me about "being nice".

Tim, you and some of the others may see it as a pointless "pissing contest", but I consider it to be a shining example of what the Founding Fathers intended for us to have...FREEDOM!

[03_SHOOTER]

And would earn you a trip to Social Actions :p.

NO DOUBT!!!! I remember the first time they sent some of us to an "alcohol abuse" class, that was FUNNY! When he asked the class to define "alcohol abuse" one of our guys raised his hand and said "SPILLING YOUR DRINK"! We were most assuredly not his favorite students. :D

[SlightlyCatholic]

As to whether or not you believe it should be held in a public forum or not, that is precisely what public forums are all about, the open and free exchange of ideas and opinions, because when the day comes that we cannot avail ourselves of public discourse, on any subject, THAT is the day that we can officially turn off the lights on America. This country is already rife with "Political Correctness", or as it should properly be called "Personal Cowardice", where the Right of We The People to openly and freely express our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights are slowly and steadily being eroded in the name of "not offending anyone". I suppose it never dawned on anyone that it was just that stifling of free and open exchange was one of the primary factors that led to the American Revolution in the first place! Look at history, what is one of the first things that despotic dictators attempt to do? They regulate the freedom of speech. They harass, arrest, and imprison anyone who doesn't preach the party line. They take over, or destroy the press and only allow those things to be disseminated that suit their agenda. Do you think for one moment that King George III allowed any of 'his' subjects to print articles, essays, or pamphlets that were critical of him? Do you think that Adolph Hitler allowed the Jews to print anything that was critical of his policies? What about Saddam Hussein? To be honest, if this current "PC" agenda is allowed to continue, that is exactly where we are headed, because those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Since we're all about not being PC, I have a question.

Do you support statements like the one below made by one member to another member in a thread?

...if you intend on staying on this forum, NEVER and I repeat NEVER call out another Senior Member such as HairyEyeBall, one whom is well respected on this forum.

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn as far as what is considered to be "public discourse" and what is considered to be public disrespect. It seems to me that you're saying that disagreement isn't necessarily disrespect and I agree with you if that's what you're saying. It also seems to me that you think that no person or subject is beyond discourse. So where, on this forum, is the line drawn?

[03_SHOOTER]

Since we're all about not being PC, I have a question.

Do you support statements like the one below made by one member to another member in a thread?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn as far as what is considered to be "public discourse" and what is considered to be public disrespect. It seems to me that you're saying that disagreement isn't necessarily disrespect and I agree with you if that's what you're saying. It also seems to me that you think that no person or subject is beyond discourse. So where, on this forum, is the line drawn?

Please provide a link to the aforementioned thread so that I can see it in it's complete context. I will NOT attempt to posit on any issue until such time as I am at least fairly certain that I am sufficiently cognoscente of the context in which a statement was made.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Why? Are you afraid that the 'children' might actually learn how valuable open and public discourse can be, even when that discourse is between two people who disagree most vehemently on a subject, especially when the subject concerns one of our most basic bfundamental Rights?

OH MY GOD, we can't let the children see people disagreeing, or defending their positions passionately, because they might not grow up to be good mindless little automatons who simply regurgitate the party line, and instead actually learn to think for themselves, and even dare to express their disagreements, and that just simply will not do! HORROR OF HORRORS, they're not being nice about it!!! Try reading some of the newspapers that were printed in the time before, during, and immediately following the Revolution, and then tell me about "being nice".

Tim, you and some of the others may see it as a pointless "pissing contest", but I consider it to be a shining example of what the Founding Fathers intended for us to have...FREEDOM!

First of all, I was employing sarcasm. I really don't care what you talk about or how you talk about it.

What I'm worried about is that certain people here get a wee bit hot around the collar when their "party line" isn't regurgitated by the children and I just want to make sure that your assertion regarding the children thinking for themselves finds its way to the cadets should one of them disagree with our more senior individuals.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Please provide a link to the aforementioned thread so that I can see it in it's complete context. I will NOT attempt to posit on any issue until such time as I am at least fairly certain that I am sufficiently cognoscente of the context in which a statement was made.

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=782

Last post of the first page. Read it and let me know what you think.

[03_SHOOTER]

First of all, I was employing sarcasm. I really don't care what you talk about or how you talk about it.

What I'm worried about is that certain people here get a wee bit hot around the collar when their "party line" isn't regurgitated by the children and I just want to make sure that your assertion regarding the children thinking for themselves finds its way to the cadets should one of them disagree with our more senior individuals.

I have absolutely no problem with the youngsters thinking for themselves, as long as that's what they really are doing (thinking), and not simply parroting the DNC/Teachers Union "party line" without having given the other side of the debate proper and thoughtful consideration.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I have absolutely no problem with the youngsters thinking for themselves, as long as that's what they really are doing (thinking), and not simply parroting the DNC/Teachers Union "party line" without having given the other side of the debate proper and thoughtful consideration.

Fair enough. Thanks for giving your view on the matter.

[03_SHOOTER]

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=782

Last post of the first page. Read it and let me know what you think.

Since it was from a Cadet to another Cadet, and neither has the authority to initiate any sanctions against the other, I would consider that to be along the lines of "a friendly kick in the ribs" so to speak, but in no way could it be considered an infringement.

As an aside, haven't they covered that whole "a lie of omission is still a lie" thing yet? When quoting someone like that, it would have shown a bit more integrity if you had included the last part of the statement where MP Girl stated that she was merely offering her $.02, you know, that whole "context" thing I mentioned earlier. :mad:

That's three Hail Mary's, three Our Fathers, and an act of contrition, for you young man, in Latin.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Since it was from a Cadet to another Cadet, and neither has the authority to initiate any sanctions against the other, I would consider that to be along the lines of "a friendly kick in the ribs" so to speak, but in no way could it be considered an infringement.

As an aside, haven't they covered that whole "a lie of omission is still a lie" thing yet? When quoting someone like that, it would have shown a bit more integrity if you had included the last part of the statement where MP Girl stated that she was merely offering her $.02, you know, that whole "context" thing I mentioned earlier. :mad:

That's three Hail Mary's, three Our Fathers, and an act of contrition, for you young man, in Latin.

Well, that didn't really answer my question, but that's okay.

In regards to the quote, MP Girl's use of all capital letters when stating "NEVER" seems more like an exhortation than giving two cents. While it may have been beneficial to quote the entire thing, what I wanted you to focus on is that a member was telling another member that someone here (under no circumstances) was to be called out. Sounds like a Tory defending King George...curious.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but acts of penance need to be within the valid sacrament of Reconciliation. You know, that whole "context" thing. ;)

[03_SHOOTER]

Well, that didn't really answer my question, but that's okay.

My apologies, do you wish to rephrase the question?

In regards to the quote, MP Girl's use of all capital letters when stating "NEVER" seems more like an exhortation than giving two cents. While it may have been beneficial to quote the entire thing, what I wanted you to focus on is that a member was telling another member that someone here (under no circumstances) was to be ridiculed. Sounds like a Torie talking about King George...curious.

My impression was that she was informing the other Cadet in question that being a "smart-a$$" toward a Senior Moderator could result in one having one's fourth point of contact ripped off and handed to them, without a platter. Apparently MP Girl had seen what HairyEyeball is capable of doing with the English language when he elects to really use it to "dress down" a willful youngster, and didn't want to see a fellow cadet verbally flailed to within an inch of her life for being an impertinent twit.

It's also important to remember that Cadets "ridiculing" their elders, and betters, is generally an unwise course of action to take. Whether it be directed at a Moderator, or even one of the other Veteran members, youngsters who are barely old enough to shave engaging in ridicule of the aforementioned individuals is highly discouraged, and they do so at their own peril. If the kids choose to ridicule each other, I really don't care, and if the adults choose to ridicule each other, again I really don't care, but when the kiddies decide to go swimming in the shark infested "deep end" of the pool, they need to bear in mind that our teeth are both larger and sharper than theirs, and we can do a lot more damage to them than they can ever dream of doing to us.

One other thing that I need to make perfectly clear, what I have just said is my OWN opinon, and not an Official Policy of Grunts Military Forum, and may or may not reflect the opinions of any other Moderator of the Forum as I do not speak for anyone other than myself, so take it for what it's worth.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but acts of penance need to be within the valid sacrament of Reconciliation. You know, that whole "context" thing. ;)

REALLY? Then make it two Rosaries, and all 14 Stations of the Cross, in Latin, Mr. Smarty Pants!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I see that you missed my sarcasm as well, so I guess that makes us about even. :D

[Billyd]

In regards to the quote, MP Girl's use of all capital letters when stating "NEVER" seems more like an exhortation than giving two cents.

Something else to consider is some members of our little community forget that they are not moderators and feel the "need" to as the expression goes "bow up."

Some of them also forget that we are one big happy family now and not two separate entities we once were. In the old iteration of the Cadet Forum, we didn't distinguish between JROTC and ROTC/Academies, whereas here, we do. If one is still in high school, one is bound by the Cadet Protection Policy. If one is at a institute of higher learning to include the Academies, one is not so encumbered.

However, that being said, it is usually in good taste to include the entire quote and not cherry pick it.

Note, I am not saying I condone the statement made in the referenced link, just my opinion on topic at hand.

[SlightlyCatholic]

My impression was that she was informing the other Cadet in question that being a "smart-a$$" toward a Senior Moderator could result in one having one's fourth point of contact ripped off and handed to them, without a platter. Apparently MP Girl had seen what HairyEyeball is capable of doing with the English language when he elects to really use it to "dress down" a willful youngster, and didn't want to see a fellow cadet verbally flailed to within an inch of her life for being an impertinent twit.

It's also important to remember that Cadets "ridiculing" their elders, and betters, is generally an unwise course of action to take. Whether it be directed at a Moderator, or even one of the other Veteran members, youngsters who are barely old enough to shave engaging in ridicule of the aforementioned individuals is highly discouraged, and they do so at their own peril. If the kids choose to ridicule each other, I really don't care, and if the adults choose to ridicule each other, again I really don't care, but when the kiddies decide to go swimming in the shark infested "deep end" of the pool, they need to bear in mind that our teeth are both larger and sharper than theirs, and we can do a lot more damage to them than they can ever dream of doing to us.

One other thing that I need to make perfectly clear, what I have just said is my OWN opinon, and not an Official Policy of Grunts Military Forum, and may or may not reflect the opinions of any other Moderator of the Forum as I do not speak for anyone other than myself, so take it for what it's worth.

So basically it's okay to go into the heavyweight division if you're well aware of what you're getting into and you have a legitimate reason for doing so. I can live with that. That's better than saying that certain people here are unconditionally exempt from criticism of their arguments or personal conduct.

Something else to consider is some members of our little community forget that they are not moderators and feel the "need" to as the expression goes "bow up."

That's a good point. However, from what I've seen here so far, excrement seems to get thrown from the balconies of the upper membership much more frequently than it gets thrown up into them. In any case, I want to thank both BillyD and Shooter for their input and viewpoints.

Shooter- Yes, I believe we are even.:satisfied:

[03_SHOOTER]

So basically it's okay to go into the heavyweight division if you're well aware of what you're getting into and you have a legitimate reason for doing so. I can live with that. That's better than saying that certain people here are unconditionally exempt from criticism of their arguments or personal conduct.

As I said earlier, wukong and I are an "exception" to the rule, we're almost like an old married couple, we love each other, but we just can't stand each other. :D

Having said that, the general rule is that personal issues should be restricted to PM's.

As for "criticism" of an argument, by all means, if you disagree with an argument, and believe that you can sufficiently support your own, then have at it!

That's a good point. However, from what I've seen here so far, excrement seems to get thrown from the balconies of the upper membership much more frequently than it gets thrown up into them. In any case, I want to thank both BillyD and Shooter for their input and viewpoints.

Consider it good training for the military, because in the military, like it or not, sh*t, like water, only flows DOWNSTREAM.

Having said that, if you have a differing opinion, by all means feel free to express it, but don't expect someone who disagrees with you to do otherwise.

What I've been trying to get across here is a full appreciation of the First Amendment, and why it's so important. We all have our freedom of speech, and contrary to the current popular myth, it does not come from the government, and neither the government, nor anyone else can take that freedom away from you, and that is why wukong and I have been going around and around on that very subject.

When you are in the military, your freedom of speech is necessarily curtailed in the interest of national security and good order and discipline, but today the "powers that be" have begun to take it too far, and are now attempting to limit free speech on matters that have no bearing on national security or good order and discipline, and are now even attempting to extend that usurpation to people who are not even subject to military authority, which means that the government is in fact violating the First Amendment Rights of an American citizen, and that's just plain WRONG. It doesn't matter if what someone says "offends" you, as there is no Right to no be "offended" anywhere in the Constitution, and the mental and verbal gymnastics that some of those who only wish to support freedom of speech when they agree with it smacks of TYRANNY, and I for one will oppose that with every fiber of my being!

[Javelin66]

Why? Are you afraid that the 'children' might actually learn how valuable open and public discourse can be, even when that discourse is between two people who disagree most vehemently on a subject, especially when the subject concerns one of our most basic bfundamental Rights?

OH MY GOD, we can't let the children see people disagreeing, or defending their positions passionately, because they might not grow up to be good mindless little automatons who simply regurgitate the party line, and instead actually learn to think for themselves, and even dare to express their disagreements, and that just simply will not do! HORROR OF HORRORS, they're not being nice about it!!! Try reading some of the newspapers that were printed in the time before, during, and immediately following the Revolution, and then tell me about "being nice".

Tim, you and some of the others may see it as a pointless "pissing contest", but I consider it to be a shining example of what the Founding Fathers intended for us to have...FREEDOM!

Shooter, you really should do some research on various forms of humor, particularly sarcasm. It's quite common these days.

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, you really should do some research on various forms of humor, particularly sarcasm. It's quite common these days.

True enough, but sarcasm is usually indicated by verbal or facial features, something that is unavailable to someone simply relying on the written word, which is why we have a plethora of "Smilies" on the right side of the posting window.

Mayhaps if those using sarcasm were to avail themselves of the appropriate Smilie, misinterpretations wouldn't occur as frequently. :p

[Javelin66]

If you were anyone else, I would have thought that was a sarcastic response (even without a Smilie).

I had a colleague that would deconctruct every joke that he heard: 'Oh, I see, you used an ironic construct to juxtapose an innacurrate comment about the weather with the fact that we can all observe the actual weather conditions, thereby highliting that its a pretty bad day for us to be doing this live fire. That's funny.'

Some may find these helpful:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/sarcasm.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_2247268_detect-sarcasm-writing.html

[JohnP]

If you were anyone else, I would have thought that was a sarcastic response (even without a Smilie).

I had a colleague that would deconctruct every joke that he heard: 'Oh, I see, you used an ironic construct to juxtapose an innacurrate comment about the weather with the fact that we can all observe the actual weather conditions, thereby highliting that its a pretty bad day for us to be doing this live fire. That's funny.'

Some may find these helpful:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/sarcasm.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_2247268_detect-sarcasm-writing.html

Thanks, I went to those sites, quite informative. I did read something on it I thought was interesting:

Words Can Never Hurt Me?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "sarcasm" derives from ancient Greek for "to tear flesh, gnash the teeth, speak bitterly." Its first definition is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt." Although sarcasts may just intend to be funny, their words can also be very hurtful to the intended target.

Learning has taken place.