May 25, 2010 Political
The liberals in this country are not that hard to figure out. They are like colonizing insects that take orders from one entity and then carry the same message around. The MSM, the liberal politicians and the liberal base all get talking points from the White House and then they all use the same words like the good little drones they are.
On any given day we can hear the same unique words coming from nearly every liberal media outlet (Limbaugh sometimes compiles montages of these people all saying the same thing around the very same time) and liberal politicians chime in when they all use carefully crafted phrases to present a false picture or mislead the public.
Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts (and Obama buddy) received the memo on new words to use when referring to Republicans. That word is sedition and it was first used a few weeks ago by Joe Klein (a supposed journalist) who accused Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of sedition and then agreed when Rush Limbaugh’s name was added to the list.
Of course, nothing that any of these people have said or done in any way, shape, or form fits the definition of sedition and this is true of the incorrect definition Klein scrawled on his martini napkin. The definition of sedition is; “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”
This definition is the dictionary definition and not the one contained in the United States Code. The USC calls the crime of Seditious conspiracy and defines it as such:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Cornell Law
One will notice that this requires more than words that would incite. You see, the United States has a history of using sedition laws to regulate speech and has done that on 24 different occasions. The Supreme Court ruled that criticism of the government could not be suppressed and “The First Amendment permits punishment of seditious utterances only if they expressly advocate immediate unlawful action and are likely to produce such action imminently (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)).” (1)
Klein’s assertions carry no water but they do not have to. The whole purpose of characterizing what those people say as sedition is to regulate their free speech. This is where Deval Patrick comes in. He recently said that opposition to Barack Obama borders on sedition. I seriously doubt this dim bulb knew the word sedition until he got his marching orders and it is obvious now that he knows the word he does not know what it means.
Opposing what any politician wants CANNOT be seditious. Sedition is an act against a country and the authority of government, not an individual. It is important to keep that point in mind, sedition is an ACT. It requires an act of force. 18 USC (cited above) requires some kind of force to meet the definition of sedition and the definition describes this force used against government, not an individual.
So, it is impossible to be seditious to an individual. As with Klein though, this is not important to those who are working to paint a picture of people planning to use force to overthrow government. This is not the case and even if people were talking about it there would have to be an imminent threat before it could be considered seditious. The purpose of this entire exercise though, is to paint a picture for when the government decides to use sedition as an excuse to stifle the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with the Obama regime and what it is doing to destroy the country.
Patrick was challenged on his assertion and he claimed that it was rhetorical flourish. Once someone explained the definition to him he had a change of heart. But let us be clear. Sedition is not the kind of accusation a person makes as rhetorical flourish. No, sedition is a serious charge especially since our government has used the charge as a way to silence opposition.
This is what the left wants to do. The liberals figure that if they can keep pushing the charge of sedition then perhaps it will be time to silence the dissent as the government has done in the past. The echo chamber of the left will begin to echo the word sedition and many liberal nitwits who do not know the word will be repeating it. This is how the left learns vocabulary. If it were not for the 2000 election most liberals would not know what disenfranchise means. But I digress.
It is not sedition to speak out against government so do not let morons like Klein and Patrick tell you otherwise. They do not know what they are talking about. It is also important to note that anyone who swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic cannot be seditious in doing so. Since our government gets its authority from those governed (us) we cannot be seditious if upholding the Constitution, the document by which we give that authority, no matter what it takes to do so.
The government in this country is We the People and the politicians are forcing their will upon us and changing our nation. They are ignoring our Constitution and forcing us (using FORCE) to get us to comply.
Now look at the definition of sedition and tell me who is being seditious.
But this pattern will continue as the echo chamber of the left continues to parrot the talking points sent out by the propagandist in Chief in the White House.
As for Barack Obama. He wants to fundamentally transform this nation and that transformation looks like his intention is to “to destroy by force the Government of the United States.”
And that my friends, is where the sedition comes in.
Never surrender, never submit.