Here they come riding to the attack

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:

Harry Reid thumps his chest as he trashes Ted Cruz

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.

~ Bullright

Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Here they come riding to the attack

  1. Bill Baldwin says:

    Cruz, Cornyn and a few others repeatedly said that they only way the US would default on it’s debt would be by the pen of president Stompy Feet.

    As far as the sedition charges, that’s just following their playbook. If they can’t demonize the message, demonize the messenger. As far as the name calling that Reid was doing on the Senate floor, that was in violation of Senate rules and he was taken to task over that. He did apologize for it, though. Speaking (err, typing) of name calling, if you ever watch the debates on C-SPAN, you’ll notice that it’s very rare for any names to be mentioned. When senators refer to another senator, it’s usually “my friend from [state]” or ‘the senator from [state]”.

    • bullright says:

      I heard Steve King say it and he thought this guy would do it. It is now christened the Spite House, so I don’t doubt it. Yea, so cordial LOL. Reid apologize, must have missed that.

  2. Clyde says:

    The caller obviously has NEVER read the Sedition Act. And, the moron has Cruz confused with his Messiah,obviously.

  3. Kathy says:

    Good stuff, Bullright. Part of the problem is the Left and the Right are working out of two different play books. The Left’s book is full of dirt and mud, and the Right’s book only has defensive plays in it.

    Cohen and those like him are much closer to being the domestic enemies. If the country needs protecting from anyone, it’s jerks like him.

    • bullright says:

      You’re definitely right on the defense and stuck there. I wonder if sometimes they aren’t playing the offense against themselves too. But they’ve not been playing defense all that well either. People really vote for pols like Cohen and Reid? Wow.

  4. Saltwater says:

    Another classic example of the left engaged in mutual mental masturbation. They occupy themselves in a fantasy which makes them feel good. Their self-gratification accomplishes nothing, and will never produce anything.

    Clyde is correct about the caller’s lack of knowledge. The “Sedition Act” was not a stand alone law, but rather just an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. That amendment made even speaking out against the government or government actions unlawful. That law was repealed in its entirety in 1920.

    Another caller made reference to 18 USC 2384 as cause for prosecution. However, that statute clearly states that use of force, with intent to overthrow the government, is required to be in violation.

    • bullright says:

      They don’t have to make sense just follow the leader — word for word. Well, another word they are running down the sewer trap.

      Thanks for the citation. Apparently they really don’t know. Depends on the meaning of is, I guess.

  5. So………lemme get this straight. Supporting the Constitution is sedition, while destroying it makes one a moderate?

  6. Hardnox says:

    My first thoughts while reading this are in line with Crawfish. It’s stunning that anyone that supports the Supreme Law of the Land would be considered or labeled as an extremist. That premise is insane.

    Alinsky Rules for Radicals are at play here.

  7. Buck says:

    Yeah, while we are talking sedition let’s bring up John Kerry and maybe Ted Kennedy. And all the politicians who sabotaged the efforts in Viet Nam….

  8. bullright says:

    Here’s a video clip Cohen in action (end is the worst)