Joe Klein of Time magazine stated that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Tea Party participants and FOX News Corp. of being “right up close to being seditious”. Klein also provided the legal definition of sedition as “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.” John Heilemann of New York magazine added Rush Limbaugh to the list.
Klein conveniently left out the last and ultimately more important final phrase of that legal definition: “usually in the form of treason or defamation against government”. Even at that, using Klein’s own distorted and limited definition he, and Heilemann are looking on the wrong side of the fence when seeking sedition.
From the dictionary: sedition
- incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
- conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
You want sedition? Hey guys, I’ve got your sedition right here!
Inciting discontent? Conduct or language inciting rebellion? Inciting a revolt against an established authority? Try this!
√ Denying public disclosure of any and all documents delineating his history from birth through the Illinois State Senate, Obama has incited discontent against the federal government.
√ How about forcing businesses to pay more and higher taxes causing some of them to lay off employees and shutter the doors. That can cause rebellion against the authority of government.
√ How about taking more and more of the paychecks from working class families for policies they don’t want, congress has not read and about which no one has any understanding. Wouldn’t that qualify for “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority”?
√ Could demeaning language, like calling anybody a racist who doesn’t agree with the president’s policies or those of Congress, incite discontent with the government?
√ Calling American patriots who have served their country on the battle field “Right-Wing Extremists with terrorist tendencies”. You think that might just irritate a few people and cause them to rally against the tyranny?
√ Giving taxpayer money to your friends and political donors under the guise of a financial bailout might also irk a few people and cause them to question the righteousness of the act.
√ Forcing people to buy a product (health care) by threatening fines and/or jail time for non-compliance also incites discontent in a population.
√ Attacking a news agency and all of its personalities including calling for advertiser boycotts just because they present a different side of issues might be considered conduct or language that might incite rebellion against that authority.
√ Hiring a tax evader to head the Department of Treasury might be considered seditious.
Sedition does not have to be from the outside against the government, it can also be from within!
Former President Bill Clinton even joined in the rhetoric fight comparing peaceful, organized and lawfully assembled Tea Party participants to the mentally unstable and violent Timothy McVeigh.
None of this, individually, is enough to instigate violent overthrow of a government that seems to be taking the country off the course of peace and prosperity. Collectively however, and especially if they continue, it will definitely do exactly that. This administration seems to be purposefully dividing the country and causing upheaval and unrest. Hmmm, I believe I’ve heard that is the goal of the progressive movement; that is their way to bring about change. Is it right for you?