Subliminal or below the surface
In the past, before we became such a huge industrialized nation, advertising was just as important as it is today for selling products and services to consumers. But if you try to imagine back to the days gone by, you would go to the local country store or one of maybe two stores in some small town and buy what you needed. There were also traveling salesman then and signs put up in these stores to encourage you to buy a particular brand. But there was also word of mouth. Consumers generally knew the store owner in a more personal, intimate way. Often times there were friendships between the owner and their customers. The shop or store owners looked out for their customers.
But nothing stays the same. Towns grow. Industries rise up. Everything gets bigger. Consumers begin to feel distant from everything. They travel further to get to work every day. They travel further to visit friends, go to the doctor, and do their shopping. Time has become a premium thing. As one drives down the road, thoughts of the events of the day and all that is left to be done, make it hard to really pay attention to those roadside advertisements.
There doesn’t seem to be enough time to sit down and read a magazine, newspaper, or watch TV. But, as our day winds down we all do what we can to stay informed. After all isn’t that what we have evolved into. We are a society that has basic needs. But we have also become attached to our creature comforts. We want these comforts to be bought at the best price for our money. We want to make sure when we buy groceries, we get the most value for our hard earned dollar while providing the nutritional needs our family deserves. We want our cars to be economical and safe.
So how do advertisers convince you that their product is the best product? They use catchy jingles and slogans. Some ads use colorful images or appeal to our vanity. Smoke Camal and you can be cool like Joe Cool. Wear Charlie and men will be drawn to you like a magnet. Use AXE spray or body wash and the girls will mob you! This is a type of suggestive advertising. But there is another more subtle type of advertising that we aren’t even aware of that makes us look closer or think more about a product. It’s called Subliminal Advertising.
Merriam-Webster Online defines subliminal as:
Etymology: sub- + Latin limin-, limen threshold
1 : inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception
2 : existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness
In the world of advertising, subliminal messages or techniques have been used for quite a while to draw the interests of consumers toward a particular product. Initially the advertisement presents a very obvious message. The message tells us about a product or service. It is intended to make us want to buy a particular product or use a particular service.
In subliminal advertising, you look at an advertisement. The image you see at first glance will be obvious. It will present what the advertiser hopes you will buy. But a second step is taken to imprint that advertisement on your subconscious mind. There is a hidden image or phrase in the advertisement that makes us keep this ad in our minds. That additional step is a subliminal message by way of a slogan, image, color, or lack of color that tells your subconscious mind, “Hey pay attention, something is not quite right here!” But you and I don’t realize that this process is even occurring. We just feel the need for a closer look. Or, we find ourselves sub conscientiously thinking about the ad. The next time we see the ad we take a closer look. We don’t really know why or that we are even doing this. Here’s an example, THE OFFICIAL STORY of a subliminal message. Go take a look at it. Follow the hints. See how quickly you can figure it out. Here’s another, DISTRACTERS & DISTURBERS IN ADS. This one took me a while to get. See if you can figure it out before the prompts tell you the answer.
So, what does subliminal advertising have to do with Iraq, the War on Terror, Our Troops? Probably nothing! Or does it? Do the newspaper stories or TV News broadcasts we see every day employ any of these techniques to make us see what they want us to see? Do our politicians? What about “big business”? Do they use these techniques on us or our elected officials to sway our opinions or get lucrative contracts? I can see that it is possible, maybe even true. But, I can also see where some might think that these are also the ranting of a paranoid or delusional individual!
You tell me! Let’s propose another idea, another question? How do our politicians get us to vote for a candidate? How do they convince us to not vote for a candidate? In this last election, the new campaign laws put a limit on donations to the parties and the candidates. These are the “hard cash donations” that can’t be over $2,000.00. What a smart move that turned out to be. A loophole in that law allows the “527’s” to collect as much money as they can and they have no limitation except they can’t give it directly to either party’s campaign. So now what?
These “527’s” go out and buy media time, make short movies, posters, booklets, or whatever and they flood the air ways and the public with these “campaign” tools. Rich people like George Sorros, Jane Fonda, the Clintons, especially Hillary, movie stars, and others set up their own “527’s” and “527″ networks that pour in millions of hidden money into our elections for the Presidency and our other elected officials. Many of the media outlets are controlled by one party primarily, but there are still politicians in the other party who have access of their own to their corporate cronies or media outlets. However there is one main difference.
The Democratic Party is being overtaken by a “Socialist” element that hides behind a front called “progressivism.” They are also using a technique to sway public opinion and support from the President and those elected officials they want to defeat in their respective elections. They hope to use this technique to sway our support right now for this president and hope to keep his administration tied up and ineffective. To a point it is working. The jury is still out as to whether or not they will succeed in their objectives. I’d like to think Americans are smarter than these politicians give us credit.
Any way, what is this tool? Well before we get into that let’s look at one other thing first. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman to rise through the halls of Congress and become the leader of a party. She is the current Democratic Party Minority leader. She is also a member and a former leader of the Progressive Caucus. The Democratic Socialists of America hosted the Caucus until 1999 when their affiliation was exposed by newspaper article. After becoming party leader, one of the first things Pelosi did was ensuring that all Democrats voted the party line by having a rules change implemented:
Nancy Pelosi’s school for hardball was in session one morning in late March, when the Democratic caucus convened to consider her proposal to require chairs on leading subcommittees to observe party discipline — a term not previously invoked very often on the Democratic side of the aisle. With her members unable to offer amendments to Republican bills, Pelosi places a premium on the Democrats’ sticking together on floor votes.Pelosi had been particularly rankled when 16 Democrats crossed over to give the Republicans a 220-to-215 victory on Bush’s Medicare “reform” bill just before Thanksgiving. “Medicare was her biggest disappointment,” says Murtha, “though she may not tell you that.” Rather than whine, though, Pelosi proposed a party rule change to give the caucus’ Steering and Policy Committee — a body the leader almost invariably controls — the power to select subcommittee chairs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, a juice committee with regulatory powers so vast that members are able to raise large sums of money they can contribute to embattled fellow members or challengers. Having a subcommittee chair, in short, is one way to become a power in the House or to run for higher office. Pelosi’s proposal tied advancement in the party to adherence to the party’s positions on floor votes. As Pelosi put it, there are just three good reasons to break with the caucus: “conscience, constituents, or the Constitution.”…
…”Under Gephardt, you could just say it’s a hard vote in my district and let it go at that,” one member says. “Nancy says, ‘No — you’ll have to come before the caucus and articulate a reason.’” The measure passed overwhelmingly on an unrecorded vote.
Pelosi herself didn’t speak in the caucus, but she had made her feelings clear to members in advance of the meeting. “If you’re a loose conglomerate of people who have a commonality of interests but who can’t tie it together,” she told the Prospect, “who wants to join that club?” Indeed, the reform was directed as much at boosting the members’ self-esteem as it was at disciplining wayward members. “If you feel that anybody can vote any way on a key vote, it’s dispiriting,” says one of the Democrats’ most senior staffers.
I suppose that is one way to get allegiance. But I personally find it a sad commentary when the party is more important than the constituents who elected a representative to Congress!
Another thing Pelosi did after her ascension was something she is apparently very good at, she started raising funds for the party and party members:
But it was on money and mobilization that Pelosi really delivered. Though Kerr outspent Chandler by $1.2 million to $900,000, the DCCC, with funds chiefly raised by Pelosi, outspent its GOP counterpart by a huge margin, $1.4 million to $850,000. The disparity in mobilization was even greater. In the final week of the campaign, the DCCC dispatched 11 buses carrying 500 volunteers — chiefly congressional staffers and advocacy-group activists — from Washington to Lexington. On Election Day, turnout — which one local paper predicted would come in at 10 percent — reached one-third of the electorate, and Chandler defeated his stunned Republican opponent by 12 percent.The victory marked the first time in 13 years that the Democrats had beaten the Republicans in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Republican. The second instance, most observers predict, will come in early June, when South Dakota Democrat Stephanie Herseth, bolstered by a bankroll that Pelosi has raised, is expected to win the seat vacated by Republican Bill Janklow after his conviction for reckless driving.
Chandler’s victory not only brightened the mood of the caucus; it also greatly enhanced Pelosi’s credibility with its members. From the day she became leader, Pelosi promised her colleagues that they would take back the House this November. Pelosi is convinced that 2004, unlike 2002, is a year in which Democrats won’t lack for either message or mobilization. Her chief task has been to come up with the money and the candidates. She and Matsui have designated roughly 18 House incumbents whom the party will have to seriously defend this November, and they’ve targeted about 40 Republican seats for major challenges. Working with Marc Gersh of the National Committee for an Effective Congress, they’ve identified 42 districts currently held by Republicans where the average Democratic performance in competitive statewide races over the last three elections is at least 47 percent.
I have now established who leads the Democratic Party in Congress. I’ve mentioned how she changed the Party rules to gain more control over the party and how it votes on matters in Congress. I’ve mentioned how else Rep. Pelosi helped the “Party’s” cause by her fund raising efforts. What is this other technique used to sway or affect opinions?
When you were a kid, did you know someone, maybe a friend, who had low self esteem? Maybe they thought they were stupid, fat, ugly! I did. I used to wonder why this kid felt that way. Then I was at her house one day playing. I noticed that her parents, and after a while, even her brothers and sisters, called her stupid, fat, or ugly! I also noticed that she began to believe them more and more. Soon, the other kids began to treat her the same way because the way she acted or dressed reinforced the way she felt about herself.
Most of the time parents don’t even realize they are doing anything harmful. But there are some parents and some people who like to belittle others, even their own kids or spouse.
In politics, a tactic like this can be applied very easily to sway public opinion if it is done subtly and carefully. Nancy Pelosi uses a tactic much like this in her attempt to help put more Democrats into political office and hopefully the Whitehouse. She is using this tactic to help lower public opinion of the President and this administration.
Pelosi begins by noting the administration’s bewilderment at its failure to create more jobs, characterizing Treasury Secretary John Snow, who’d offered congressional testimony the previous day, as “clueless in the Capitol!”..
At a press conference a little later:
Pelosi begins and ends the conference, flaying the GOP and its budget with a tone of sadness and exasperation as she notes Bush’s refusal to fund his own No Child Left Behind education programs. Once again — twice again, actually — she calls Snow “clueless in the Capitol!”……In her speeches, she regularly precedes her recitals of Republican outrages with words like “sadly” and “tragically.” The tone is one of almost motherly disappointment, and that’s hardly the only aspect of Pelosi’s leadership that seems shaped by a maternal sensibility. As is clear from the morning’s two press conferences, Pelosi more regularly showcases her members — including freshmen utterly unknown to the media — than any party leader in modern memory.
Here are some other examples:
1] In the HuffingtonPost.com, Bush State of the Union – It Was a Nice Break from Reality TV…
2] In usatoday.com, Democrat’s Pelosi on Bush: ‘The emperor has no clothes’…“I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrates incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions”
3] In Dems Assail White House on Katrina Effort, Pelosi says ““Oblivious, in denial, dangerous,” she added.
If you watch the news or listen regularly to the news these type of comments seem funny at first, maybe even reaching a little when someone can’t think of anything constructive to say. Now let’s add a biased media that presents a one sided view of the governmental functioning. The daily news is always slanted negatively towards the administration, positively toward the “opposition.” They were tactics that led to our withdrawal from Vietnam, especially when used in conjunction with the “peace marches” throughout the country to keep the death tolls and war at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Subsequently millions died because we failed to follow through there.
But remember also that the nation was ravaged with the strife of the Civil Rights movement. Our involvement in a supportive manner in Vietnam had been an on going thing for quite a number of years. But the Civil Rights movement created an upheaval of our entire society at all levels. Then in the midst of this, Vietnam escalated. The draft had been implemented. Except for deferments for college, marriage, or only son, thousands were drafted. In 1967, about 500,000 men were in theater and I believe over 58,000 were killed over the course of the war. 1967 and 1968 were by far the bloodiest for American soldiers.
Socialist and Communist supported groups recruited college students in the droves. The hippies and drug culture were at their pinnacle. There were draft card and flag burnings in the streets in huge anti war protest rallies. There were huge Civil Rights protests and riots. The Black Panthers and the Weathermen [Weather Underground Organization] used terror tactics to present their cause and push for change. There also were the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] and the Youth International Party, or the Yippies. These groups were formed in response to the extreme social inequities and the pressures for change in the 60’s. Many of the members of the Weathermen went to Cuba and met with representatives of North Vietnam. Along with the media they contributed to the end of the War in Vietnam and also brought about many social changes through their violence and political activism. No one at the time except the government really had time to analyze the communist influence of the subversive groups at home and their work behind the scenes to force us out of the war and on our political decisions. No one escaped the tragedy of the loss of a friend or family member in that war. Many lives were lost at home through the violence that erupted at the time. But none of the loss of life was as senseless as those of our troops because they gave their lives for a good cause only to have it negated by subversive influences within the country that was fed by the communists’ influences from outside America that played on the idealistic youths of America. Granted, those who chose to follow those paths made their own choices. But, I don’t think those young people had the ability to make rational judgments about the forces influencing them. Before it was over, many of their young minds were molded in radicalism forever. Many of these people are now grown and for the first time since Vietnam have been able to reestablish their causes and activism. Their goals are not much different than the Islamic fundamentalists who want to take over the world except they want a society based on communism or socialism.
Now, they are lawyers, teachers, judges, politicians, and countless other professions and non professionals at all levels of our society. There are of course new supporters from today joined in with these people. But now they use umbrellas, front organizations, and the media through their financial web to influence voters and public opinion. They have slowly changed their outward appearance, even managed to affect the meaning of terms like imperialism” in the dictionary today as they seek once again to assert their ideology. They hate the United States and what it stands for. They hate our freedom. They see our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as imperialistic” rather than those of defenders of freedom.
Under the cloak of Progressivism and subtle remarks like those by Rep. Pelosi and others they erode the image of any who oppose their ideology. They still hide behind peace marches and anti-war slogans to draw in people who do not know who they really are. They appeal to the emotional aspects of the war, people who have lost loved ones, to give legitimacy to their activities. At a “march for peace” how many people would think to check out who really is sponsoring the march? When a speaker gives their sad tale to the audience, how many look into the credentials of that speaker and discover they have been an extreme activists for years but they are using their maiden name to avoid recognition?
All these methods to stir up dissent about the War in Iraq, the policies of the present administration, and keep half the news from the public are all behind the scenes, below the surface,subliminal activities designed to affect our will power, our political persuasion, our voting decisions, our ability to challenge facts because we are only getting a choreographed picture of reality. They empower our enemy and lower our support among our allies and other nations.
Nancy Pelosi made a speech against President Bush’s policies March 7, 2003, but much of what she advocated Bush was already advocating. He tried desperately and earnestly to enlist UN aide and support in making Iraq honor the UN resolutions. He formed a coalition of over eighty countries. Of course it was no surprise that France, Germany, and Russia would not offer their support. Her encouragement at nation building democracies is what is going on right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. She even gave her views on how to make Saddam give up his weapons of mass destruction” she now says never existed!
These progressives glut the American public with negative information and half truths. They carry out a campaign of insinuations and innuendos to discredit the war effort and lower the American will power to continue to support the administration and the war effort.
In How to End the Iraq War, written by Tom Hayden, AlterNet. Posted November 23, 2004, Hayden gives a detailed strategy for ending the war in Iraq. Among his views are:
1] The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance.2] Therefore, public opinion – if strategically focused – can end this war.
3] …the movement needs to create an even greater force of opposition that will become indigestible, a kind of gallstone in the stomach of power.
4] Indeed the best information strategy is to avoid attention-getting confrontations in the first place and to keep the public’s attention as divided as possible. We can dominate the world only quietly, so to speak. The moment the public focuses on a single crisis like the one in Iraq… it becomes a rallying point around which lonely and alienated people in a global mass society can define themselves through an uplifting group identity, be it European, Muslim, anti-war intellectual, or whatever.
5] Instead of assuming that the Bush administration has an “exit strategy”, the movement needs to force our government to exit. The strategy must be to deny the U.S. occupation funding, political standing, sufficient troops, and alliances necessary to their strategy for dominance.
A Plan of Action
1] The first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose “conditions” for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding. If only 75 members of Congress go on record against any further funding, that’s a step in the right direction – towards the exit.
The important thing is for anti-war activists to become more grounded in the everyday political life of their districts, organizing anti-war coalitions including clergy, labor and inner city representatives to knock loudly on congressional doors and demand that the $200 billion squandered on Iraq go to infrastructure and schools at home. When trapped between imperial elites and their own insistent constituents, members of Congress will tend to side with their voters. That is how the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia were ended in 1975.
2] Two, we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party. The anti-war movement has done enough for the Democratic Party this year. It is time for the Democratic leadership to end its collaboration with the Bush administration – with its endorsement of the offensive on Fallujah, the talk of “victory” and “killing the terrorists” – and now play the role of the opposition. The progressive activists of the party should refuse to contribute any more resources – volunteers, money, etc. – to candidates or incumbents who act as collaborators.
Thought should be given to selectively challenging hawkish Democratic incumbents in primaries, and supporting peace candidacies in 2006 and 2008.
3] Three, we need to build alliances with Republican anti-war conservatives. Non-partisan anti-war groups (such as Win Without War) should reach out to conservatives who, according to the New York Times, are “ready to rumble” against Iraq. Pillars of the American right, including Paul Weyrich, Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley, are seriously questioning the quagmire created by the neoconservatives. Strategists like Grover Norquist call the war “a drag on votes” and “threatening to the Bush coalition” that cost Bush six percentage points in the election. The left cannot create a left majority, but it can foster a left-right majority that threatens the hawks in both parties.
4] Four, we must build solidarity with dissenting combat veterans, reservists, their families and those who suffered in 9/11. Just as wars cannot be fought without taxpayer funding, wars cannot be fought without soldiers willing to die, even for a mistake. Every person who cares about peace should start their daily e-mail messages with the current body count, including a question mark after the category “Iraqi civilians.”
Groups like Iraqi Veterans Against the War deserve all the support the rest of the peace movement can give. This approach opens the door to much-needed organizing in both the so-called “red” states and inner cities, which give disproportionate levels of the lives lost in Iraq.
The movement will need to start opening another underground railroad to havens in Canada for those who refuse to serve, but for now even the most moderate grievances should be supported – for example, relief from the “back door draft” that is created by extending tours of duty.
Over one-third of some 3,900 combat veterans have resisted their call-ups, and the Army National Guard is at 10 percent of its recruitment goal. More generally, the “superpower” is stretched to a breaking point, with 14 of the Army’s 33 combat brigades on front-line duty in Iraq. Though most discourse on Vietnam ignores or underplays the factor of dissent within the American armed forces, it was absolutely pivotal to bringing the ground war to an end. It already is becoming a real “gallstone” for the Pentagon again.
5] Five, we need to defeat the U.S. strategy of “Iraqization.” “Clearly, it’s better for us if they’re in the front-line,” Paul Wolfowitz explained last February. This cynical strategy is based on putting an Iraqi “face” on the U.S. occupation in order to reduce the number of American casualties, neutralize opposition in other Arab countries, and slowly legitimize the puppet regime. In truth, it means changing the color of the body count.
The problem for the White House is that if the Iraqi police and troops will not suppress and kill other Iraqis on behalf of the United States, the war effort will completely disintegrate. In April, the 200,000-strong Iraqi security forces assigned to Fallujah simply collapsed. In the most recent battle of Fallujah, the Iraqi troops took part in little if any combat. In Mosul, insurgents seized five Iraqi police stations, not an uncommon event.
There is no sign, aside from Pentagon spin, that an Iraqi force can replace the American occupation in the foreseeable future. Pressure for funding cuts and for an early American troop withdrawal will expose the emptiness of the promise of “Iraqization.” In Vietnam, the end quickly came when South Vietnamese troops were expected to defend their country. The same is likely to occur in Iraq – or the U.S. can deepen its dilemma through permanent occupation.
6] Six, we should work to dismantle the U.S. war “Coalition” by building a “Peace Coalition” by the means of the global anti-war movement. Groups with international links (such as Global Exchange or other solidarity groups) could organize conferences and exchanges aimed at uniting public opinion against any regimes with troops supporting the U.S. in Iraq. Every time an American official shows up in Europe demanding support, there should be speakers from the American anti-war movement offering a rebuttal to the official line.
Hungary is only the latest government to “bow to public pressure and prepare to bring its troops home” The others who have packed up or plan to depart include Spain, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Thailand, Singapore, Moldova, and Bulgaria – 15 of the original 32. Japan is trying to limit its troops to non-combat roles.
The most frightening U.S. “ally” is Pakistan, where 65 percent of the population has a favorable impression of Osama bin Laden and only seven percent a positive image of President Bush.
But the most important governments with troops still on the ground are Britain (8,361), South Korea (2,800), Italy (2,700) and more symbolically, Japan (550) and Australia (250). Peace movements have achieved majority or near-majority status in all five countries, with Britain being the most vulnerable. In addition, both France and Germany continue to resist the U.S.-dominated coalition, in part because of the movements in those countries. Any strategy to mobilize public opinion across Europe, especially in Britain and Italy, could complete America’s isolation from its historic allies and the world in general.
With Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggesting that the Iraq policy is illegal, the Bush administration faces the danger of being frozen out of international diplomacy. At some point, the administration will painfully find that it cannot impose its will on everyone on the planet.
In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make “Iraqization” more difficult, and build a peace coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians are too frightened or ideologically incapable of implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is for the people to pull the plug.
Where do mass demonstrations and civil disobedience fit into this framework? Certainly Bush’s inauguration will be an appropriate time to dissent in the streets. Nationwide rallies are an important way to remain visible, but many activists may tire if they see no strategic plan. The civil disobedience actions at Bechtel, the San Francisco financial district, and the Port of Oakland in early 2003 come closer to the strategy of pressuring the nerve centers of war. Care will have to be taken during such militant actions to send the clearest possible message to mainstream public opinion.
Time for Action
If this sounds “irresponsible,” the “responsible” people have had their chance – they can still rig the Iraqi election to install a regime that will ask us to leave. After that, there’s no hope but to begin the withdrawal one person, one community, one country at a time, until the president learns there’s no there over there.
Ending this bloodbath is the most honorable task Americans can perform to restore progressive priorities and our respect in the world. We have passed the point for graceful exit strategies. Our policy is to go on mechanically killing people unless they vote in January for us to keep on killing people.
By any moral or economic accounting, we now are worsening the lives of Iraqi since the fall of Saddam. We have turned innocent young Americans into torturers in places like Abu Ghraib. When going into battle, we close hospitals first. We make sure that television and newspapers are not “able to show pictures of bleeding women and children being taken into hospital wards” – this reported on Veterans Day in the Times. Not even our friends like us anymore, whether we are tourists in Europe or diplomats at the United Nations.
We bomb Iraq towards an American-style market economy, passing along a $200 billion war cost and trillion-dollar debt cost to our children, while our own market economy has failed most of us: minimum wage, down thirty percent since 1978; company pensions, holders down 18 percent since 1979; median job tenure, down from 11 years to 7.7 since 1978; health insurance coverage, down from 70 percent to 63 percent since 1987.
We may even be making another 9/11-type attack more likely. What kind of government repeatedly states that another attack is “inevitable,” “not a matter of if but when,” then behaves in way to provoke one?
Our priorities must change.
Both parties now are trapped in the vicious cycle of the “war on terrorism,” just as they were caught up in the Cold War, be it the nuclear arms race, opportunistic alliances with dictators, and McCarthyite suppression of domestic critics. Only the Sixties peace and civil rights movements could finally shatter Cold War thinking at that time. It will take another such movement today to restore America’s respect in the world, take steps towards global justice, and in the process possibly prevent another 9/11 attack.
Tom Hayden was a leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s. He served 18 years in the California legislature, where he chaired labor, higher education and natural resources committees. He is the author of ten books, including “Street Wars” (New Press, 2004). He is a professor at Occidental College, Los Angeles, and was a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics last fall.
Frankly, I don’t understand why some of these people are not arrested and tried for treason.
Treason – This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
To stick fast or cleave, as a glutinous substance does; to become joined or united; as, wax to the finger; the lungs sometimes adhere to the pleura.
To hold, be attached, or devoted; to remain fixed, either by personal union or conformity of faith, principle, or opinion; as, men adhere to a party, a cause, a leader, a church.
To be consistent or coherent; to be in accordance; to agree.
To hold, be attached, or devoted; to remain fixed, either by personal union or conformity of faith, principle, or opinion; as, men adhere to a party, a cause, a leader, a church., these words sure seem to indicate to me that there is a lot of adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort going on in America by ANSWER, Code Pink, UPJ, and MoveOn.org. In other words, by empowering our enemy through financial support and public statements of support, maybe the Smith Act needs to be re-written!