Left demands: Charge Ted Cruz with sedition
By BYRON YORK | OCTOBER 18, 2013 | Washington Examiner
I appeared on NPR on Wednesday and was surprised to hear a caller say that Sen. Ted Cruz should be charged with sedition. “I’m really baffled by the fact that the discussion has not ever reached the point where charges of sedition should be brought up against him for conspiring and bullying others to work with him to undermine the American economy … full faith and credit,” the caller said. “He’s done so much damage to the standing of the United States in the world. And if you read the Sedition Act, it seems like it really applies.”
A colleague on the panel, the Wall Street Journal’s Sudeep Reddy, assured the caller, “There is no possibility of that.” And the conversation moved on. But it turns out that in a few corners of the left, there are activists who would like to see Cruz, along with other Republicans and conservatives who have expressed strong opposition to Obamacare, charged with inciting rebellion against the United States government.
After Cruz and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared together last weekend on the National Mall, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported the event in front of a screen with pictures of Cruz and Palin and the title LATEST SEDITION. Maddow did not utter the word itself, but viewers certainly got the message. […/] More
There’s more to the article and more names. So Obama and the Dems force a system on the country that people really don’t want, and they want to indict anyone who puts up any resistance, calling it sedition. Now they demand charges. Having 17 shutdowns before was not enough precedent for them, but they call this sedition.
What makes this ridiculous is Obama has obfuscated the will of the people time after time dividing the country, and picking and choosing what laws to follow, ruling like a dictator. He refuses to be accountable, essentially holding himself above the law. Then they accuse a Senator of sedition, along with others.
Following the pattern
“House Democrat calls Tea Party lawmakers ‘domestic enemies‘”
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., believes that his oath of office compels him to protect the country from “rabid” Tea Party congressmen because they qualify as “domestic enemies.”
“A lot of those members are rabid, they’re sophomoric — literally, they’re second term in Congress — they’ve never worked in politics before,” Cohen said on MSNBC.
“Really, you’ve got to think, we take an oath to protect this country from ‘all enemies, foreign and domestic,’ and these are the domestic enemies,” Cohen said.
Cohen said that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, should work with House Democrats and “give or take eight reasonable Republicans” to avoid another government shutdown and “protect the country from these people.”
The congressman is perhaps the highest-ranking government official to articulate a sentiment that has bounced around a lot of liberal message boards in the last several days, usually directed at Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.
Team Soros are the rabid dogs. Of course that’s a normal state for them. Reid chief among them:
Throughout the government shutdown battle, Reid repeatedly raged against “Tea Party anarchists” and “radical extremists” who were allegedly trying to take the “federal government and the economy hostage.”- [and called Cruz a laughing stock.]
“He is now in the Senate. People are as smart as he is. He can’t talk down to anyone anymore. But he has still not accepted that in his own head,” Reid said.
Did Cruz talk down to anyone during that whole debacle? How about Reid? Now that they are talking sedition, let’s see what Reid says about that. Remember, Reid announced on the Senate floor “this war is lost” while we were in Iraq.
The ‘Occupier’ Harry is running interference for threatened that we were going to “default”. Obama told reporters there was a real chance this time. A default would be not to pay the interest on the debt. Though there is enough money for that, and even Greenspan has said America could not default. Yet Obama went straight to using “default” as a talking point, along with Carney, Dems and media.
So what was Obama saying? Was he telegraphing that he was not going to pay that note? That is how default would happen. He repeatedly said it and yet was not asked about it. Wouldn’t you think that would be of national importance?
Was Obama willing to intentionally not pay that note? The more important point is, with all Obama has done, can we trust that he wouldn’t have done that? I have no reason for confidence. Yet afterward he assured everyone that “the full faith and credit” of the country is in tact. After all his talk…. were those “Just words…just words?”
Where is the cry from the Left about Obama’s loose threats and rhetoric? Or intents? Just using the language he and his administration did was chilling and threatening.
Ironic the Move over folks scream for sedition charges when their organization was founded on its resistance to Clinton’s impeachment. Oh, if only we were concerned about protecting our country from enemies foreign and domestic.