MoveOn.org Wants Hosts Petition Advocating GOP Leaders Be Arrested for Sedition*

|

Terrifyingly democratic. |||

MoveOn.org, the progressive "netroots" outfit that was launched to defend what it felt were spurious impeachment charges against then-president Bill Clinton, is now agitating for spurious sedition charges to be filed against Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

In a petition with the admirably direct title of "Arrest and Try House GOP Leadership for Sedition," those champions of democracy are clamoring for the following:

I call on the Justice Department of the United States of America to arrest Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and other decision-making House Republican leaders for the crime of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America.

The website claims that there are currently more than 25,000 signatories, which I guess speaks well for the other 300 or so million of us.

Over at The Huffington Post, self-described journalist Andrew Reinbach expands on the idea:

Good things the grown-ups are in charge! |||

The behavior of the House GOP in the current showdown—whether or not they reach some sort of deal—makes them guilty of sedition. […]

The definition of sedition says among other things that "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire… by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

And in case you hear that "force" means physical violence only, here's the legal definition of extortion (a felony): "The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." "Official right" means a government official claiming he or she is acting under the law to commit extortion.

The law that probably applies here is 18 USC 1951, the Hobbs Act, which deals with extortion–a felony, as per the sedition statute. While Hobbs deals mainly with injury to individuals, it seems to me to be a small step to observe that every citizen of the United States is an individual, and the United States is being harmed—although whether prosecutors would find it an exact fit is up to them, and not mere journalists like myself. 

These are not the only liberals hankerin' to lock up their domestic political adversaries. Here's former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer:

They had to roll the red carpet backwards and EVERYTHING. ||| whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov

Conservative opposition to Obamacare has transitioned from obsessive to treasonous. Here is the simple definition of treason: the betrayal of allegiance to the United States. One caveat: treason applies only to acts committed during times of war. Well, we are in the middle of the war on terrorism, no? So that qualifies. The GOP could point to a fuller definition of treason to argue their actions are not treasonous: "the betrayal of one's county by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."

Well. How could anyone argue that willingly damaging the good faith and credit of the United States is not purposely acting to aid our enemies? The shutdown and impending default already caused Obama to miss a critical meeting in Asia, allowing China to dominate; an outcome clearly aiding our enemy. How could our enemies not benefit from a weakened and insolvent United States?

And MSNBC anger-bear Ed Schultz:

They will shut down the government and they will not pay the bills to get their way. The word is treason, the treasonous John Boehner.

So weird, how the T-word is always popular among those who support sitting presidents!

* UPDATE: I see now at the top of the MoveOn page the following note (which I've updated the headline to reflect):

MoveOn volunteers reviewed this petition and determined that it may not reflect MoveOn members' progressive values. MoveOn will not promote the petition beyond hosting it on our site. Click here if you think MoveOn should support this petition.

NEXT: DOJ Stops Hiding Its Use of Warrantless Wiretaps, Making Constitutional Challenges Possible

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There needs to be a Godwin term for self-parody.

    “You move-on’ed the entire story!” It doesn’t quite flow.

    1. “They be derpin’ it up again.”

    2. “Looks like you’ve Moved On.”

    3. I prefer “MoveOn. There’s nothing to see here.”

  2. For an organization called MoveOn, they sure have trouble moving on.

    1. You know who else had trouble “moving on”…

      1. Barack Obama?

      2. Certainly not George and Weezie.

        1. They weren’t moving on. They were moving on up.

        2. Actually, George would have made a great libertarian.

          Self-made man. Built himself a chain of dry-cleaning stores–from scratch.

          Hired himself a maid.

          1. That’s kind of funny, since I’ve always responded to the “Paris Hilton tax” rhetoric around the estate tax by explaining that it was much more a “Lionel Jefferson tax”.

      3. Wait, I know this one!

        It’s Tupac!

        “You can spend minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even months over-analyzing a situation; trying to put the pieces together, justifying what could’ve, would’ve happened… or you can just leave the pieces on the floor and move the fuck on.”

        —- Tupac Shakur

        http://www.goodreads.com/quote…..ven-months

        1. Nah, Claude Akins & Frank Converse

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movin‘_On_(TV_series)

          Kevin

    2. I noted that at the time: their first official action was the try to defeat Republicans who had led the Clinton impeachment effort. They’re been hypocrites from the very beginning.

  3. They should bring a civil suit. Because federal judges just LOVE to have unfounded and spurious cases in front of them. Do it enough, and the fuck-whacks at Moveon may just find themselves at the wrong end of a judge’s wrath.

    1. “Fuck-whacks”. I like it. Up there with “fuck-goofs”.

    2. Hey, it is helpful to illuminate what a bunch of assholes they are. Don’t underestimate the power of their message.

  4. Aren’t some of these folks hymning the praises of parliamentary systems of government (avoids gridlock)! Well, under such a system, the majority party in the lower house of the country’s legislature would run the whole country. Boehner would be Prime Minister, and his program (or programme) would be adopted after some *pro forma* protests from the Democratic minority. Good-bye Obamacare!

    1. I think they are advocating for something like the early Roman dictatorships where the Senate still existed but it had no real power.

      1. I thought the early dictatorships were temporary, like Cincinnatus’s.

        1. I think the one he’s famous for was just a few weeks long, too.

          1. Yeah and it was in response to a national emergency. My history is a little sketchy but wasn’t a few Celtic tribes moving south to make trouble?

            After the emergency was over he gave up the reigns of power and went back to his farm. Sorta like our George Washington.

            1. Think it was the Gauls, though it might’ve been a Latin enemy. He had been stripped of power and basically exiled to his farm, too, and ended up rescuing the consul who did it to him. Then he surrendered power and went back to his farm.

              Washington is definitely our Cincinnatus. And, like Romans in the late Republic, we wonder how we ever had a politician like that.

              1. Same people. The Greeks called them Celts, and the Romans called them Gauls.

                1. Maybe the Boii tribe. I think they lived in the Po valley about that time.

                2. To expand on what BardMetal said, the Romans referred to the Celts living in what today is roughly modern France (though it at one point also included northern Italy, and a small amount of the western portion of neighboring countries) as Gauls. There were also Celts in the British Isles, Iberian Peninsula, and central/eastern Europe, but they weren’t called Gauls.

                  1. Ooo syllogism.

                    All French are Celts.
                    All Gauls are French.
                    Some Irishmen are…

                    I messed it up.

                    1. But no true Scotsman, something something.

                    2. The French are Celts overlaid with Germans.

            2. Yes.

              The Revolutionary War’s version of The VFW or the GAR was “The Society of the Cincinnati.” Ossifers only.

              Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..Cincinnati

              Cincy OH is, in effect, named after Washington.

              Kevin

              Kevin R

            3. Yes.

              The Revolutionary War’s version of The VFW or the GAR was “The Society of the Cincinnati.” Ossifers only.

              Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..Cincinnati

              Cincy OH is, in effect, named after Washington.

              Kevin

              Kevin R

        2. I was thinking of Rome after Caesar took over. I guess that’s not very early.

          1. That’s about as late as it gets for the Republic. But it’s early Empire.

            The Roman system was actually pretty complicated, with the consuls, assemblies (there were a couple, depending on the period), Senate, tribunes, censors, aediles, etc. Not to mention temporary dictators, commissions, and even states of emergency called by the Senate where they could go kill people like the Gracchi.

            1. Perhaps I need to stop reading books about the Celts, and start reading up a bit more about the Greek & Romans.

              1. I think you should.

                Until then, you don’t know porn.

        3. In the Punic Wars a dictatorship lasted only 6 months.

        4. Yes, Roman Republic dictatorships were of limited duration.

          Bard is probably thinking of the early Emperors. That is when the Senate became second fiddle.

          1. One of the signs of rot in the Republic was the political class beginning to ignore traditional term limits.

      2. ^THIS^ Many of these assholes pine for one party rule (as long as it’s their party) ala Tommie Friedman. The rest pine for a full on dictatorship.

        1. Its a bit disturbing (though not too surprising). They seem to be saying that making the wrong decision is a crime. Putting the cart before the horse.

        2. As Hayek once said about those advocating total control:

          If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this

          Fast forward a while into the future, assuming the same trend continues, and you can imagine MoveOn writers penning a poem while they’re being taken to prison:

          First they came for the…

      3. I think they are advocating for something like….

        No, they are advocating whatever would benefit their side at this minute, as is typical for partisans (and especially progs). Any historical precedence is just a rationalization, and if they consider how this might be used against their own in the future, it’s an afterthought.

      4. I believe the Senate existed throughout the entire Roman Empire, including the Byzantine rump state.

  5. I was going to complain that the original headline was misleading, but it’s already been fixed.

    Damn you for putting me in the position of kinda sorta defending MoveOn.Org!

  6. MoveOn volunteers reviewed this petition and determined that it may not reflect MoveOn members’ progressive values. MoveOn will not promote the petition beyond hosting it on our site. Click here if you think MoveOn should support this petition.

    So in other words, they’ll support it if their members decide banana republic tactics are warranted against enemies of the state?

    I guess that’s democratic.

    1. ‘Progressive values.’

      Too funny.

      Forward! Eugenics!

    2. I guess that’s democratic.

      Yep – 50.1% enslaving 49.9% – that’s their stated beliefs.

      1. I don’t even think enslaving is the proper term anymore. I think the “intellectuals” that run MoveOn, Huffington Post, Jezebel, etc. would be perfectly fine with a targeted “cleansing” of the “marketplace of ideas.”

    3. It “may not” reflect their member’s values? Does it or doesn’t it? Either arresting people for voting the wrong way is part of “progressive values” or it’s not. Get a horticulture book and learn how to grow a pear.

  7. Treason and sedition: two of the flimsiest fig leaves ever concocted for state-inflicted terrorism.

    1. I think the concepts are valid, but overheated partisans always want to dilute such terms until they mean “Something the Other Team does that I don’t like.” See: “racism.”

    2. Treason and sedition: two of the flimsiest fig leaves ever concocted for state-inflicted terrorism.

      Especially considering the power of the purse is specifically given to the proposed defendants, and that power has been used innumerably.
      They would stand a better chance going after senators for filibustering.

      1. Especially considering the power of the purse is specifically given to the proposed defendants…

        An excellent point.

        1. Thanks! As they say, even a blind squirrel…

          Also, the Supreme Court has historically been extremely reluctant to interfere with the internal workings of the other two branches.

      2. Especially flimsy, I mean.

      3. Or that the ‘defendants’ are Constitutionally immunized for pretty much anything they do in session.

        1. Good point – no DUI if driving to a vote… seems hard that level of immunity would completely disappear just because MoveOn and others think the GOP legislators are evil….

        2. recently on the John Batchelor Show JB was discussing how the PRC has recently lifted the immunity form prosecution for members of the government. He described this as a bad move, returning to the days of Mao, when being on the losing side of a political disagreement could land one in jail, or worse. With the penalty for losing so high, people will then naturally do whatever they can – lie, cheat, kill, etc – to avoid losing. With the immunity, political disputes can be kept political and the loser can just go on to debate another day, or at worst get sent back to their farm.

  8. These clowns had better be careful what they wish for.

    There’s a *lot* of s-word and t-word stuff floating around.

    1. That’s true. You hear a ton of that shit from the right as well. If that precedent were set, I don’t think Move On and their ilk would be very happy about it next time the justice department is run by republicans. Maybe they think this is their chance to make sure republicans never run it again.

      1. “Maybe they think this is their chance to make sure republicans never run it again.”

        DUH!!

  9. MoveOn volunteers reviewed this petition and determined that it may not reflect MoveOn members’ progressive values.

    Oh, but then again, it most certainly may and IMO does.

    1. I guess they’ll find out.

    2. Then they have not researched “progressive” values too deeply.

  10. They’re just doing it for the publicity.

    We should learn from them.

    1. Maybe. I think you’d need a law making it a crime to violate the Constitution first, or we’d be as stupid as they are. Maybe it would work. But that sort of thing bothers me. I want to be better than them.

      1. I think it goes back to Marxism and people like the Situationist International…

        We don’t study them because they’re Marxist, but as revolutionaries writing about how to manipulate media and public opinion–as media was developing–they have a lot that could inform us.

        This charge Boehner with sedition stunt is like it’s taken straight out of one of their textbooks. Other causes on the left use the same kinds of tactics–when you see Greenpeace make a spectacle of something or, like, when PETA sued the California Dairy Farmers for false advertising because they ran an ad for milk stating that “Good milk comes from happy cows, and happy cows come from California”…

        That stuff is genius. It gets PETA in the news for a while; it makes all the haters rage against PETA for a while; that makes a lot of regular people in the middle resent the hate on PETA because they care about animals…

        We’re no good at that. We’re no good at creating those situations and manipulating the media that way. We’re great at logic, but most people just don’t live there. The tactics they’re using hit the irrational where it counts even more than anybody else–and some part of everybody’s minds start imagining the Republicans as traitors.

        Oh, and it makes all the Republicans jump up[and defend Boehner, too, which makes them even more unpopular than they were before–since Boehner himself is so unpopular.

        I’m tellin’ you–what they’re doing is ingenious.

        1. For all the shit he took (some of it deserved) Gingrich could be good at this. The Contract With America was a focus-group-tested list of common-sense reforms that had wide appeal. Democrats looked foolish trying to oppose things like making Congress follow the laws it passed for the rest of us. We could use more of that sort of clever partisan judo.

        2. Problem for us is to pull these stunts off you need a sympathetic media, something libertarians definitely don’t have. Look at the occasional impeach Obama overtures by the right, despite at least having some degree (a lot imo) of legal validity, those are laughed off by the media, and supporters in turn “othered”.

          1. They weren’t always sympathetic. And the stuff these stunts are based on was written back when the media was hostile to anything smacking of communism.

            The other thing is that these tactics don’t need to be centrally planned. All these different groups are using the same tactics–but they’re not coordinated. They just all read the same books!

            It’s not just MoveOn.org. It’s PETA; It’s Greenpeace; ever heard of Up Against the Wall, Motherfuckers? They started out as, like, situationist street theater–named themselves something that could never be printed or broadcast.

            Brilliant!

            Imagine a movement that can’t be stigmatized by the powers in the media–because the media can never use their name. How do you demonize a movement in the media that you can’t name out loud?

            I’m still learning about this stuff myself, but if the average libertarian were as conversant about media studies and Marshall McLuhan (for one example) as they were about economics and Hayek or Friedman? Maybe we wouldn’t be getting our clocks cleaned in the media so much.

            1. I’d like you to be right, but I suspect you’re more hopelessly naive. You talk about some time when the media was hostile to communism. When was that? It must have been before Walter Duranty garnered his Pulitzer.

          2. There isn’t anybody better at conveying the libertarian gospel to and through the media than Reason. Cato, with their research, infiltrates the media, too–and that’s why I support these people. But we need more than that, and the more we understand about media and media manipulation, the better off we’ll be.

            It’s just that so much of the stuff on that subject is written by Marxists and for Marxists to use to transform society, and libertarians don’t generally want to read stuff by Marxists.

            But useful information comes from wherever you find it. We picked up ideas from Marx like “creative destruction”; maybe it’s time we all started paying more attention to what the Marxists can teach us about how to manipulate the media, too.

            1. Yes. And some Edward Bernays would not hurt.

              We just have to deal with the unfriendly media. Remember, the Contract With America (and a lot of scandals) helped the kick the Democrats out of the House even before the internet and Fox News.

              One big problem is that so many libertarians are purists, unable to work (and talk!) incrementally. We didn’t get into today’s bankrupt, semi-socialist mess because Socialist won elections yelling “Socialism!” and refusing to compromise. We got here through Fabian incrementalism, and because leftists took over the Democratic party (and education and the media).

              One thing libertarians should do is propose experiments: individual areas, even geographic areas, where we propose trying a (non-purist) solution. Make them fair tests, and either get Democrats to agree, or force them to admit they don’t want to try something different, even on a small scale. A little Alinskyite judo.

        3. You think the left is genius because you think that the moral and the practical are opposed. You think it is practical to lie, scheme, and cheat–while forgetting that nothing can be made by faking it, and the only people they will attract are morons.

          You think evil is practical. It isn’t.

          1. I don’t think the left is genius; I think the left is genius at manipulating the media.

            I wish we were half as good as they are. Hell, we’ve got the truth on our side, and they’re still cleaning our clocks!

            I’m not willing to wait around until the rest of the world becomes rational before I get to live in a more libertarian world.

            And let me restate what I wrote elsewhere: if the people we need to reach in order to bring about a more libertarian world are irrational, then trying to persuade through rational argument alone is irrational.

            The good news is that there are ways to reach those people–and the left is really, really good at that. They’re running circles around us because we’re no good at it. But there’s no reason why we can’t use the same tactics they are.

            Now, I’m not talking about being irrational, and I’m not trying to trick people or fool them either. Take a look at this advertisement:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCsFvVg0UY

            That’s the way you sell things. It isn’t irrational. Irrational is jumping up and down and yelling, “DEMAN KURV!” and wondering why Generation Y isn’t interested. Gillespie and Welch are much better at selling New libertarian Coke than we are, but we need to preach the libertarian gospel ourselves, too.

            Isn’t that the way the Christians took over the Roman Empire?

  11. One nice thing about shutdownmeggodon: the prog-tards have not just allowed their mask to slip, they’ve pretty much ripped them off, wiped their asses with them and flushed them down the toilet.

    1. It’s like, cools, man, cause the masks were biodegradable and approved by the EPA and FDA.

  12. I think the gravest mistake a republic can make is to assume that the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pots, and Maos are anomalous figures of history. We like to think that they are rare examples of deranged individuals that happened to seize power when the opportunity came to them.

    But look at what progressives actually believe. Look at what that author from the HuffPost openly advocates and the commentariat of that site overwhelmingly supports: the arrest and imprisonment of their political enemies for no reason other than using their Constitutional authority to impede progress.

    Look at that and believe that somewhere in the lunatic asylum that is the Daily Kos, AlterNet, and Salon are people bold enough and fanatical enough to destroy all those who stand in the way of their utopia. There are Maos and Stalins and Pol Pots in this country today and God help us if they ever gain control of the state.

    1. They already do.

      If Obama got on tv tonight and said:

      “My fellow Americans, uh, we stand on the precipice of a national decision, uh. on the one hand, anarchy, death, and mayhem. On the other hand security, uh life, and freedom.

      There are those who would say that the Tea Party are well meaning and just misguided. And there are those who, uh, would say they are extremist and terrorist. To those people, I would say you are right.

      As of today, anybody who expresses dissatisfaction with the way that I or any other Democrat governs is guilty of sedition, treason, and uh, immediately forfeits their rights and liberties.

      I urge my fellow citizens to report what you see, and if necessary, uh, take the appropriate action towards these aggressors on our Great Nation.

      Thank you. And God Bless America!”

      And then Daily Kos, HuffPost, NY Times, MoveON, and Organizing for Action retards would spill into the streets and murder anyone who had a Romney sticker on their car.

      1. I think it may prove good for liberty that they’re stripping off the mask so often in recent years. At least it lets less insane people know what’s at stake. It’s not just whether we waste money or over regulate. It’s about whether we’re mostly free or mostly oppressed.

        Frankly, I think the open lust for tyranny on the left is a classic case of overplaying your hand.

        1. From your lips to Flying Spaghetti Monsters…whatever it has in place of ears.

          1. Those would be Noodly Appendages.

            Kevin

          2. Those would be Noodly Appendages.

            Kevin

        2. Frankly, I think the open lust for tyranny on the left is a classic case of overplaying your hand.

          I’d agree except for the fact that those that point it out are seen as an unstable extremists. Maybe the worm will turn the tiny minority of liberty lovers will be able to put the tin pot tyrants of the modern left in their collective place, but I doubt it.

          1. I’d agree except for the fact that those that point it out are seen as an unstable extremists. Maybe the worm will turn the tiny minority of liberty lovers will be able to put the tin pot tyrants of the modern left in their collective place, but I doubt it.

            Basically the same thing happened when Hitler first came to power. Those who were prescient enough to see the logical progression were labeled extremists. And enough of them eventually went along because FREE STUFF!!

            In the end we let basically let the National Socialists run (ruin) East Germany anyway.

        3. Frankly, I think the open lust for tyranny on the left is a classic case of overplaying your hand.

          Using the force of government is generally a sign that your message is not being well received by people in society. Pining for the use f government force when there is clearly no route to use that force is desperation.

          Their rhetoric is so strong because their message is weak, and people aren’t buying it on the merits.

        4. “I think it may prove good for liberty that they’re stripping off the mask so often in recent years.”

          That depends if the electorate’s reaction to the mask coming off is horror or cheers.

      2. And then Daily Kos, HuffPost, NY Times, MoveON, and Organizing for Action retards would spill into the streets and murder anyone who had a Romney sticker on their car.

        Well, they would try, anyway. One of the downsides to being anti-gun is that few of your supporters are armed.

        1. Yeah, it’s hard to go on a murder spree when all you have as a weapon is a worn out copy of Dreams Of My Father.

          1. It’d almost be fun to watch them try, though.

          2. “Yeah, it’s hard to go on a murder spree when all you have as a weapon is a worn out copy of Dreams Of My Father.”

            – with pages stuck together. While your opponent’s EDC is a hi-cap 1911 he built himself.

            1. A high cap 1911? What is this heresy? Single Action, Single Stack. If it ain’t these things, it ain’t a 1911.

              1. But they do have magazines that carry as many as 15 rounds for the 1911.

    2. Well, to be fair, those fascist teahadist want to impose their agenda on sane, moderate centrists like Alan Grayson.

    3. TRHSMV, not only that.

      The reason why these totalitarians came to be was a direct result of the crumbling of liberalism (ie classical liberalism) begun sometime in the late 19th century when socialist policy took root.

      To me, it’s irrelevant if fascism or nazism was left-wing. More telling is the fact they arose because of the decaying intellectualism of liberalism.

      All those people you read on those sites are exactly the same minds that consistently were on the wrong side of history in the run-up to the Great Wars and during the unification of countries like Germany and Italy (in particular).

      I think whoever came up with the term ‘useful idiots’ was about as accurate in their assessment of the left as any I’ve come across.

      They are the easiest people to fool. Hence, they fall for demagogues. Here, we can safely assert (I think anyway) conservatives are too naturally endowed with the understanding of human nature to be fooled by them.

      1. The reason why these totalitarians came to be was a direct result of the crumbling of liberalism (ie classical liberalism) begun sometime in the late 19th century when socialist policy took root.

        Not really. Stalin and Hitler, and the empowering of revolutionary interwar politics, doesn’t happen absent WWI — at all. You could make a good case that Weimar was screwed on account of its catering overmuch to Social Democratic interests, but Tsarist Russia was not leftist (it wasn’t even classically liberal) when it was toppled.

        For that matter, I’m not sure it’s true to say that classical liberalism was badly damaged by the progressive reforms of the late 19th century (which were mostly minimal and after-the-fact, unlike Depression-era legislation). Most of the damage done to classical liberalism was after the First World War.

        1. My contention is/was liberalism did collapse around that time. Absent that, the players we’re discussing entered.

          I may have overreached about socialist policy as it was, as you point out, minimal but there was socialist agitation. As there was anarchist movements.

          Again, all because liberalism fell.

          I hope we’re on the same track here?

          1. Hmm. I’ve always understood that the collapse in popular sentiment for both monarchy and classical liberalism in Europe more or less came out of the interwar period.

            I do agree that there was a ton of socialist agitation, but one reason why the “long 19th century” was so good is particularly because most leftist politics was revolutionary (and not parliamentary) in nature — leaving classical liberals and agrarian-conservatives in charge of government most of the time.

            I think we’re pretty much on the same page, though; thanks for clarifying.

            1. I’m going on straight memory here but you may be right about the inter-war collapse angle but the other part we can include is romantic nationalism in the 19th century on its corrosion of liberalism – to say nothing of romantic writers of the period.

              1. Yes, there were some nasty people writing and philosophizing about socialism and various statist center or leftist movements kicking around in the 19th century but they were pretty much cranks until the 20th century.

                WWI really did a number on the world; probably the most destructive war ever in terms of events and trends it set into motion.

                1. It destroyed Western civilization IT.

                  That’s when America became its torch holder – like it or not. Come hell or high water.

                  1. Make that European civilization.

          2. Well, libertarianism is like liberalism 2.0 in the same way the internet is the printing press 2.0 & democracy is monarchy 2.0. Aren’t we even supposed to be in a kind of slow motion globalization/postindustrial economic revolution?

            1. There is a case made that libertarianism is classical liberalism.

        2. Most of the damage done to classical liberalism was after the First World War.

          The income tax and more importantly the Federal Reserve came into existence before the Great War. In fact, without the banking cartel the war would have been prohibitively expensive for the generation that was forced to wage it. (we still haven’t paid for the First World War) They externalized the cost of it to future generations which made the killing of millions of people much more viable.

          I can’t think of a better moral argument against central banking than the fact that it’s primary function is to use theft to finance murder. OR at the very least, the extortionist policies of socialism in general.

      2. I don’t think you can put a right/left label on people falling for demagoguery.

        Some fall for the demagoguery of religion, others for the demagoguery of government. In the end you can scarcely tell the difference.

        Either way, falling for demagoguery is a sign of intellectual laziness. Isabel Paterson said it best – Theories, when they have gained credence, become vested interests; the prestige and livelihood of schools and teachers are bound up in them, tending toward enclosed doctrine not open to fresh information.

    4. I have no love for the left, but worries about another Mao or another Stalin emerging from the left are quite overplayed. The modern left in the west is far more Gramsci than Lenin; we will only see a return to revolutionary politics among the left if/when they are purged from governmental positions and put in the place of leftists at the beginning of the 20th century.

      Remember, the smart, dedicated leftist vanguardists are what made Communism what it was in Tsarist Russia, and those people are comfortably nestled in government today. Why would they fight the Man when they are the Man?

      1. Interesting point about Gramsci. I know an Italian writer, philosopher and businessman who holds him in utter regard; enjoys his prose.

        I don’t see a Lenin etc. among them as well. Just didn’t see the Gramsci angle.

      2. but worries about another Mao or another Stalin emerging from the left are quite overplayed.

        Does it really matter where the next one emerges from?

        My guess is it will be a go-along-to-get-along type that suddenly gets victimized by what he thought he supported. Or it could be an abject moron like Francois Hollande.

      3. I don’t think the worry is about another Lenin in the revolutionary sense. The greater concern is about someone with the same lack of reservation about using violence to accomplish their goals. Sure, they are now The Man and increasingly ensconced in government. But, what happens when they decide someone or a some group proves sufficiently inconvenient.

    5. Democracy: Electing Kings and Despots every couple of years…

  13. Expand the petition to all three branches and I’ll sign.

  14. “The website claims that there are currently more than 25,000 signatories.”

    That’s right. There are–at least–25,000 Tonys out there.

  15. Hey remember when MoveOn.org pretended to give a shit about being anti-war until the President was a Democrat again? That was a fun 6 years. One of the leader guys even came to my college in 2002-2003.

    1. They never opposed any of their country’s wars! That would have been treasonous! Where do you get these notions, Faux News?

    2. Dissent is patriotic seditious!

    3. Seriously, they think consistency is for rednecks, religious people, and retards.

    4. They opposed war in Syria. But, then again, who didn’t?

  16. They should prosecute every politician who voted to “reopen” the FedGov for sedition, because reopening the FedGov hurts every individual American in so many ways.

  17. “They will shut down the government and they will not pay the bills to get their way. The word is treason, the treasonous John Boehner.”

    Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    So, no.

    1. But it was a War of process! Not voting for the common good is a war!

    2. “They will shut down the government and they will not pay the bills to get their way. The word is treason, the treasonous John Boehner.”

      This is just a two-minute hate drill on John Boehner–taken straight out of the pages of 1984.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvvPZd6_D8

      Blaming Boehner for the shutdown is ridiculous, too–and they know it! John Boehner isn’t in any way responsible for the shutdown. He was just afraid that if he didn’t assuage the Tea Party, he’d lose his speakership.

      But you can’t do a two-minute hate drill on a group of people like the Tea Party–you need to focus people’s attention on a single individual. IN 1984, Goldstein may have been a pure fiction created by the government for that very purpose. MoveOn.org is basically building John Boehener out of the same stuff for the same reason.

      1. ” He was just afraid that if he didn’t assuage the Tea Party, he’d lose his speakership.”

        I suspect the jury’s still out on that one…

        1. I hope it is. I hope they toss him out on his ass come Monday.

          I think he was afraid he was going to lose the speakership like this week if he didn’t go along for as long as he could.

    3. Sense treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, couldn’t the president be accused of that for his willingness to give arms and military support to Islamic militants in Syria?

      1. We’re not at war with that particular set of Islamic militants, at the moment.

        So, not really, no.

        (Nor is “willingness to” included – only actions, not inclinations.)

    4. So then when they voted to give Al Quaeda affiliates funds and guns to fight in Syria, THAT was treason?

  18. Yes, this is why we need to roll back government to something more like that described in the Constitution. Because there are people out there who want oppression, tyranny, and unlimited government. We must stop them.

    1. I have a lot of trouble understanding why some people desire tyranny. It must be a combination of arrogance (in order to think you know whats best for everyone) and a firm belief that the people in power are people like them, and will always be.

      Arrogance and ignorance they always seem to be together.

      1. I have a lot of trouble understanding why some people desire tyranny

        When you’re free, you might choose poorly, and the only person you can hold responsible for your poor choices is yourself.

        I’d wager a great many people could not bear the weight of such responsibility.

        1. So basically they are like children? Well that explains to paternalist attitude that government has.

          1. “So basically they are like children?”

            Yes. More expensive energy saves money. Spending money makes money. Saving money costs money. Restricted speech is free speech. Reverse discrimination isn’t racism. Corporations aren’t part of the economy but simply have money. Raising wages doesn’t lead to lower profits and/or higher costs. Detroit is a success. Public workers generate wealth by spending your tax dollars. And finally, you didn’t build that.

            Next question.

            1. These are investments. They are not simply spending money.

              And these investments are for the children I might add.

              So, FYTW !

        2. All true, but part of it is seeing poverty and injustice and oppression in the world, and believing that tyranny will “fix” those things.

          1. All true, but part of it is seeing poverty and injustice and oppression in the world

            Of course. The only way to fix oppression is with more oppression! For teh childrunz!

            1. Oh, but the Good People will oppress the Bad People, so it’ll all work out.

          2. They have what Sowell might call the Vision of the Anointed and want to build a tyranny filled with Anointed Ones

            1. Kinda like the Zionists?

        3. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

      2. Bardmetal, that’s what it is. It’s the belief that the majority of people are too stupid to make the ‘right’ choice. They even admit as much.

        Choice, of course, being as they define it.

        I have no respect for that sort of thinking because at its base root, it’s premise is wrong.

      3. I have a lot of trouble understanding why some people desire tyranny.

        You should read Discourse on Voluntary Servitude if you haven’t already.

  19. By their definition, Dems should be charged with sedition, too. ACA has been forcing my hard earned green out of my pocket for couple of years.

  20. These people aren’t going to be happy until an actual shooting war starts.

    1. Yup. And then they’ll have an excuse for the government to completely crush all opposition and impose the kind of all out authoritarianism they really want. How long did Reconstruction last after the War Between the States?

      1. I doubt it would turn out like these shitlibs expect. Remember Boston? The population of the cradle of the American Revolution curled up into a fetal position while a bunch of weekend warrior tacticools got to violate some constitutional rights, run around proudcock, and then take the credit for apprehending a guy who was only found because a Mass-went out to have a smoke.

        If a couple of dumb yabbos can cause that kind of havoc with a pressure cooker, some fireworks, and a knockoff glock, how on earth are these people going to resist any kind of organized attack?

        1. Stupid squirrels–Mass-hole, Mass-tard, take your pick.

      2. ” And then they’ll have an excuse for the government to completely crush all opposition and impose the kind of all out authoritarianism they really want..”

        Judging from our governments track record on trying to impose its will on a determined enemy, through asymmetrical warfare… I’m not so sure “crush” is the right word for it… And I suspect their political appetite for an Afghan/Iraqi/ or even.. *gasp* Vietnam style counter-insurgency would wane rather quickly under the watchful eyes of our creditors and enemies…

    2. At this point, how can there not be? Was it Bart who said something to the effect, ‘we need another Vietnam to thin the ranks out?”

      While liberals focus at how ‘good’ things are in Europe, the reality and truth is that they’re not good. In fact, it’s downright bad. The Europeans have no liberty. They’re slave-zombies to a massive supra-structure in Brussels.

      Job prospects, debt, and low if not negative growth (while the Euro has pretty much exacerbated these issues – prior to the Euro, at least Greece could still function; but not under the current criteria) is on their horizon. That won’t end well.

      In short, you won’t be able to change their minds. They’re just as whacked as the right-wing extremists they chastise.

      Actually worse, since to them, everyone who disagrees with their message is an ‘extremist’ now.

      Far, FAR more dangerous in my view.

      1. “..While liberals focus at how ‘good’ things are in Europe..”

        Amazing how a feared and respected third party nation can subsidize security, inject soft and hard cash into the economy, and occasionally prevent a mass genocide, so that the civilized and sophisticated Europeans could be free to build.. fuck up.. and destroy their socialist utopia (all while looking down their noses at those cultureless uncouth cave dwellers who made it possible), rather than send a whole generation of their youth into some meat-grinder every ~20 years, over the offended sensibilities of some Euro trash dignitary.. Maxim chose the European market for his machine gun for good reason…

  21. Sedition, Treason… What difference, at this point, does it make?

  22. These people aren’t going to be happy until an actual shooting war starts.

    Liberals are the most violent people I have ever met. They thrive on rancor, on conflict. The only thing that stops them from taking up arms is their “reputation” as peace-lovers. Call it global peer-pressure.
    Privately (and as a former journalist in a liberal town, I have interviewed many) they will tell you that they’d like to fucking kill their enemy. Literally. With guns and shit.

    1. Privately (and as a former journalist in a liberal town, I have interviewed many) they will tell you that they’d like to fucking kill their enemy. Literally. With guns and shit.

      None of this is news. Anyone that’s willing to put a gun to your head and take your money “for the common good” is more than willing to kill you for it.

      Quite literally the only reason we aren’t dead for our money already is because they think they can get more money out of us being alive.

      1. +100

      2. It’s also why they are so antigun. They know they can’t trust themselves not to use it on someone, so they project that onto everyone else.

        1. the real reason they’re anti-gun is the same reason they were pro-nuclear disarmament, even pro-uniateral disarmament. Good intentions trumps results.

        2. I’ve read more than one liberal who specifically says if they had a gun they would use it. They talk about self-defence like they can’t distinguish it from vigilante action.

    2. Sadly true. The hatred I see on Facebook directed at Republicans and libertarians is depressing. So much for tolerance and diversity and civility and all that old-fashioned crap.

  23. Good. The republicans get a taste of their own eliminationist rhetoric! Finally the left is putting up a fight!

    1. I suppose it’s far too much to ask you to at least put some effort into your trolling.

      1. You libertarians just can’t stand that someone intelligent can argue with you so you accuse me of trolling!

        1. Could you point out the intelligent part?

        2. Science has proven we are smarter than you projectionist.

        3. It’s a spoof of Tony. I just didn’t think whoever was doing it would keep it up this long.

          1. He’s hopped up on political Viagra – the little blue team pill.

        4. If Frodo is the best the left can hurl in this direction then…isn’t that…precious.

      2. On a scale from 1 to 10, I’d give him a 3.

        1. Quit insulting the number 3. WTF did it do to you?

          1. He did write a complete sentence. The words were spelled correctly. He even spouted a generic progressive fantasy without botching it. So his comment deserves a 3.

            1. Meh, I liked the Gamboler in chief way more. At least it was funny.

              1. I thought this one was amusing. I wasn’t convulsed with laughter, but a good parody.

        2. The name’s sort of clever, in a liberalnerd way.

          1. The name represents my struggle. Like Frodo I march forth into Mordors where republicans dwell!

            1. Just like a progressive; violating private property rights in order to impose his own morality on other people.

            2. The name represents my struggle. Like Frodo

              So… You’re a whiny bitch?

              1. YOU sound like the bitch, my friend, since you have done nothing but harass me today!

              2. “my struggle”

                Sure.

                1. “my struggle”

                  In the original German, it’s spelled “Mein Kampf”.

                2. Mein Kampf , by any other name…

            3. Mary, is that you again?

      3. At least he put the effort into finding a catchy youtube song, filled with spocks and hobbits

    2. Well, if you consider “signing a faux petition anonymously on the Internet” the same as “putting up a fight”, perhaps so.

  24. Some names and comments from the petition:

    Alexander Huang Oct 17, 2013 Plano, TX
    Sen. Ted Cruz must also be included. He must be brought to justice for costing our nation $24 billion and putting countless people out of work.

    16 days Ted Cruz kept furloughed Federal employees metaphorically chained in his metaphorical torture dungeon!

    Colleen Patrick Oct 17, 2013 Seattle, WA
    These men do not care about our nation, only about their political machinations.

    Only we care about America! Which is explains how this Seattle denizen knows what’s best for everyone.

    Gerald Ingram Oct 17, 2013 Monroe, LA
    Not just the leadership, anyone who signed the letter.

    You know who else thought signing a letter was treasonous?

    Mark Hutchenreuther Oct 17, 2013 OCEANO, CA
    It’s a start, but it doesn’t punish enough of them or go far enough, IMO.

    I wonder what far enough would be.

    1. They sound like they’re ready to go full-on Cultural Revolution.

      1. Isn’t it interesting that they are deliberately antagonizing a group of people that they consider “dangerously unbalanced”, and that by all accounts is well-armed.

        1. They think that since their dood’s in charge, he can just sick the military on his enemies. Few of them are familiar with the military, and think they will blindly follow orders like automatons.

          Problem is, the majority of the military aren’t real big fans of Obama, and are somewhat big on the whole “following their oaths to the Constitution” thing. They don’t realize that if Obama tried to wield the military in that manner, it would be like holding a rattle snake by its tail.

          1. ‘and are somewhat big on the whole “following their oaths to the Constitution” thing’
            Really? When was the last time anyone in the US military made a big deal about following the consitution? I mean Manning made a big deal about following the UCMJ, but look what happened to him. US troops will shoot whoever you want as long as you’re in the White House.

        2. Judging by some of the anti-gun tirades I have read in the past, they seem to think that the entire U.S. military is on their side. So if we ever get out of hand they think elite navy seals will descend down on Jethro’s turnip farm while he tries in vain to resist with his squirrel rifle.

          1. I was thinking about Idaho. Almost the whole fucking state is mountains and even the Democrats there lean pretty far to the right. These people hunt down bears, cougars and wolves for christ sake.

            If the BO attempted to nationalize the Idaho National Guard, do these fucking idiots really think they are going to take the feds side?

            1. I’ve been to some pretty creepy places in West Virginia, and I was thinking the same thing about them. A lot of them are Democrats because they’re in unions–they’re coalminers, etc…

              If you think the Taliban gave our troops a hard time, just try going after those hillbillies in West Virginia and Kentucky. It’s mountainous, like Afghanistan, but it’s covered with forest, too.

              1. And they’ve lived there for more generations (know the terrain) far longer than most of the Taliban (mostly foreign) have been living in A-stan.

              2. Yeah but in Afghanistan we were trying to spare civilians. Wereas in a civil war, anyone not volunteering to enforce the state’s will would be an enemy combatant.

                Carpet bombing entire areas is pretty easy.

                1. Various U.S. military apologists have frequently declared that the only reason it loses wars is because it’s fighting with one hand tied behind its back. Maybe they’re just full of shit, and it has very finite limits on what it can do.

                  1. Various U.S. military apologists have frequently declared that the only reason it loses wars is because it’s fighting with one hand tied behind its back. Maybe they’re just full of shit, and it has very finite limits on what it can do.

                    No. If you gave someone like Tamerlane command of the US military, they’d conquer every nonnuclear country in the world.

                    Suppressing an insurgency is quite simple. Not easy, but it is simple.

                    1. Suppressing an insurgency is quite simple. Not easy, but it is simple.

                      Indeed. The Germans had a simple policy in their African colonies: for the first villager who takes up arms against our government, we will take 10 people (men, women, children, whoever) from your village at random and shoot them in the head. If more insurgents come from your village, we will up that number until we decide to wipe your village from the map.

                      They didn’t have to do that for very long before the insurgents got the picture.

                      Wasn’t nice, but it was extremely effective.

                      The Soviets had similarly brutal ways of dealing with insurgents. Either empire would have had a field day with current technology.

                    2. That can backfire though. The more effective way is carrot and stick. Especially with modern tech. Descend on a village, bring everyone out in the open, show the drone footage of Mr. Smith hiding a rebel band after they raided the local supply depot. Have a quick military trial, and shoot him right there. Then offer a cash reward for information that leads to the capture of more rebels.

                      The Nazis tried random reprisal in WWII, and it didn’t work. Because people who were genuinely neutral were driven into the arms of the partisans. But if you ruthlessly punish people who genuinely take up arms against the occupiers, while treating everyone else decently, you will really strangle an insurgency.

                    3. That is true. German Southwest Africa basically revolted over to South Africa during WWI as soon as they got the chance, and was never recovered by Germany. In contrast, many of the English and French colonies contributed arms and personnel to their respective war efforts.

                      WRT the Nazis, much of what was called “random reprisal” was out and out genocide (especially in Belarus); whole towns were wiped out without any evidence of an incident or where the incident in question was insignificantly small (e.g., a member of the Wehrmacht not being addressed by “herr”) — arguably they are not really a good example of cold-hearted bastardly utilitarian thinking since they were never applying it in good faith in the first place. Random reprisal worked OK for colonial administrators that could count on absolute sovereignty over the land from other great powers.

                    4. Yeah the Nazis let their stupid racial bullshit cost them that. I mean, that’s how stupid Hitler was: He could have raised entire armies from the “Soviet” people his troops were slaughtering for no reason. They hated Stalin.

                      Oh, and SA conquered SW Africa in WWI, they didn’t defect. Additionally, the German commander in East Africa, now Tanzania, led the Brits on a merry chase for the entirety of the war. He surrendered his forces in good order two weeks after the armstice. One of the more underrated generals. Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck was his name.

                    5. The US did a bang up job in the Philipines back when political correctness didn’t run the US war machine.

    2. I wonder what far enough would be.

      I think they are talking about you, brother. Join me, and together will shall see Rome tremble.

      1. +1 doomed slave revolt

    3. Sen. Ted Cruz must also be included. He must be brought to justice for costing our nation $24 billion and putting countless people out of work.

      Countless? This guy thinks the government employs countless people and is upset when they get a 2 week paid vacation?

  25. Said it before, I’ll say it again: When everything is political, politics is everything.

    If government were just a few people in offices making rules about import/export and the like, people wouldn’t get so fired up about it. When government is a matter of housing, health, culture, language, employment, and everything else under the sun, of course people are going to fight viciously for the One Ring of Power.

    1. It becomes an identity thing, too. Politics isn’t just something to argue about–it’s who you are. It’s like being Catholic or something. …and religion is a great metaphor for it, too. America has always been an extremely religious culture, and there are a lot of people on the left, right now, who have substituted politics for religion. They believe in Obama and progressive solutions for the same reasons a lot of Christians believe in Jesus and creationism…and it gives their life meaning.

    2. You got something against import/export firms?

  26. This woman, for example, won “Peacemaker of the Year” in this shitty little town I live in.
    She later told me, in a private conversation, that she would gladly take a gun to the head of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, among others.
    Here is my response to it when I was a columnist.

    1. That was quite entertaining.

      1. TY.

    2. You’re going to sweep the boards – Nobel Prizes for Peace *and* Literature!

    3. Good cloumn. As a resident of the People’s Republic I have to ask how you survived as long as you did at that overpriced, bird cage liner worthy, progtard circle jerk that is the Missoulian. IIRC you did the music beat, no?

      1. Yes, Mike. I was an arts reporter as well, as I have my minor in music and remain a jazz pianist in Missoula (back to college now, one year away from A.B. in legal studies).
        Nice to see a fellow Missoula libertarian here!!

        1. Er, make that A.B.S. in legal studies …. derp.

      2. And to answer your question? I did not survive the Missoula daily rag.
        I quit in March 2012.
        Let me tell you what you have long suspected: The paper is filled with progressive liberals locked in to the Missoula intelligensia … they simply believe that libertarian/conservative ideas are troglodyte. They hang around the same people, speak the same language, and are completely dismissive of people who don’t think like they do.
        It is really that bad. I was a freak in that newsroom, and they treated me like a sideshow.
        They liked me — I am a likable dude, I guess — but they simply could not see other points of view.
        They openly mocked non-liberal ideas every single day, without end. And when that shitheap began sinking (and it’s still sinking), I jumped ship.

        1. You can reach me at jamieinmissoula (AT) gmail.com

        2. the Missoula intelligensia

          There’s a misnomer if I ever saw one…

          -jcr

        3. I’ve known that for a long time..when I moved to Missoula in 78 I was a progressive type in theory (just out of college) but more of a blue collar democrat. The D’s on the city council were the same then. Things have changed.

          I have an old college roomie that was the fire chief and served in the legislature last session as a D. He’s a get it done kind of guy, not a progtard. His take from the session was that everyone from anywhere else in the state hated Missoula. We argue about it but when Missoula sends Ellie Hill and Dick Barrett to Helena there’s not much to argue about. Let’s not forget luminaries like Alex Taft who in a short time on the city council has surpassed long time nanny stater carpet baggers Weiner, Strohmaier and Marler on my contempt meter. Why students who pay out of state tuition are able to vote these fuckstains in is ridiculous. End rant…I’ll shoot you an emai, would like to buy you a cold one and shoot the bull. Would like to catch a set when you are playing…I’m a Chick Corea/Keith Jarret jazz fan. Peace..

  27. So weird, how the T-word is always popular among those who support sitting presidents!

    That is some pretty weak “the right does it too”.

    FWIW, the only incident during the Bush years I can think of in which “the right” made a serious accusation of treason against Congressmen was over Jim McDermott’s trip to Iraq on the eve of the invasion.

    1. Maybe it’s not what you’d call “serious accusation”, but a lot of right wing commentators such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh were suggesting that people who opposed the president or the war were traitors or guilty of treason.

      1. a lot of right wing commentators

        Ann Coulter is half of the links. “Noted hyperbolist Ann Coulter”. The other half’s most recognizable names are David Frum and Charles Johnson who likely agree with the Move-On petition as well. Then there is a Thomas Sowell column critical of the MSM war reporting that says “fifth column”. All-in-all, pretty damn weak.

        What I do recall from the Bush years was a chorus of “stop questioning my patriotism!” any time anyone disagreed with anything they said. This never followed “I question your patriotism” so it was more to stop debate and a whole lot of projection.

        1. I think your whitewashing things. Accusations of being unpatriotic and/or treasonous were pretty common in the Bush era. Especially so if you just looked at random Internet commenters instead of major media figures, but that’s also true for progressives today.

          1. I was called a traitor here in comments. I was called a terrorist here in comments for opposing torture, too.

            I think it’s a little different when you’re opposing a war. We’ve been calling people traitors for opposing our wars since we chased the Loyalists to Canada.

            I’ve called Barack Obama a traitor to the constitution, myself, but I think it’s different when you’re talking about charging an elected politician with Sedition or Treason because he opposed raising the debt limit.

            MoveOn.org can’t even be taking themselves seriously. It’s just for publicity. They’re just trying to get their name and their cause in the news.

          2. Calidissident|10.17.13 @ 7:38PM|#

            I think your whitewashing things.

            STOP QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM!!1!

            Kinda like that…

          3. I think your whitewashing things.

            & I think you got your facts and news during that time from people who actively dislike the right – because what you imply didn’t happen.

            There were a fair amount on the far right who wrote about whether they can and should question the opposition’s patriotism / love of the country – but never arrest threats nor muderdroning.

  28. I don’t know why you guys are being so hard on poor Mr. Frodo. His little quips are so retarded they make me laugh.

    1. So…he’s your sockpuppet, is he?

      1. I wish I had that much time on my hands.

    2. Wait, libertarians hard on a statist!?

      THE HUMANITEE!

      1. Your normal Tony or Shrike statist, sure. But Frodo is an obvious troll/sock. I couldn’t stop laughing in the doctor’s office as I read the derp he was slinging earlier.

  29. DO IT

    Everyone should sign this. Might as well get this party started.

  30. Well, they would try, anyway. One of the downsides to being anti-gun is that few of your supporters are armed.

    Meh, these fucking cowards don’t have the balls to confront anyone themselves. That is what they use the government for. And if they did try to confront them personally, it would be a slaughtered…..cuz these are the crazy motherfuckers with all the guns that have been buying all the ammo they can get their hands on.

    1. They would be slaughtered…..

  31. “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire… by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

    Well then I reckon than means that Obama and his lackey HHS Secretary should be locked up for 20 years, since they conspired to hinder or delay the execution of the employer mandate portion of the ACA law without having any legal authority to do so.

    1. “Will you stop applying our own principles to make us look ridiculous?”

  32. This is the Infowars counterweight.

  33. From 2001-2008, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Starting in 2009, it became treason.

    The 2016 election (assuming we have one) may or may not change this.

  34. So basically what every tea partier says ten times a day about the president.

    1. So basically what every tea partier says ten times a day about the president.

      …is what every proggie says about Ted Cruz.

      1. If Barack Obama had an (R) after his name, and perhaps a different name and skin color, and did everything exactly the same, he’d be hailed by the right as the greatest president since Reagan and probably greater. Just think about it and let it sink in.

        1. Republicans tend to support Republican presidents? You don’t say. Well, yes we have evidence of that since Obama is Bush redux. Of course, that does not reflect well on Democrats either.

          1. It’s just one giant clown show with the same rules and similar outcomes no matter who is in charge. Seems to me there are two basic groups of Americans that just don’t like each other that much.

          2. More than half the Republicans weren’t supporting Bush in late 2008. Neither LBJ or Carter earned that much enmity from their own TEAM.

            1. According to Gallup, the lowest approval ratings among Republicans that Bush ever had was 55% in early October 2008. However, this was temporary, as it bounced back up to 75% in January 2009 (before Obama took office).

              http://www.gallup.com/poll/116…..ush.aspx#2

              1. didnt ppl stop identifying themselves as repubs tho?

                that dip to 55% was squashed cuz ppl stopped considering themselves part of that group.

        2. I’m sure slashing tax rates, getting rid of the oil crisis, and winning the Cold War had nothing to do with why Reagan is considered by Republicans to be so great.

          It’s just because Reagan had an (R) after his name?

          You really don’t take yourself seriously, do you?

              1. It’s Tony – he’s not interested in debate – just in trying to prove he knows more and is very smart.

                Which you’d think would mean he’d like to use evidence for his beliefs – but Tony is so certain his team is right and all opposition is evil – he sees no need to provide any facts at all.

                Indeed – he lies openly and constantly – because his opposition if sooooo evil – they don’t even deserve being dealt with truthfully.

                As Tony and others like him think just like extremist Muslims who believe lying to infidels isn’t a sin, while lying to Muslims is – just understand for Tony & his ilk, you either agree with everything, or you are the infidel.

                1. So Tony’s engaging in Toniyya?

                2. Tony has to avoid facts, because facts make his hero a criminal.

                  -jcr

        3. Ach, what bullshit. No, Republicans would not hail President Dennis Kucinich (R), either, Kucinich being an Obama-equivalent lefty without the tan.

          1. That this is utter bullshit is my point–Obama has not governed as a leftist and his policies have not ended up being ultra-liberal. It’s just name-calling.

            1. “Obama has not governed as a leftist and his policies have not ended up being ultra-liberal. It’s just name-calling.”

              Nationalizing the distribution of medical insurance, taking ownership in various automobile corporations, banks, various ‘green’fraudulent operations, sicing the private police and the tax agency on the public, manipulating the response to an attack on an embassy (and causing deaths thereby) for political gain.
              Nope, that’s not leftist at all, is it?
              How far to the left of, oh Hollande does a slimy lefty have to be for you to find them lefty, idiot?

              1. Pol Pot…

            2. Expansion of the entitlement state: check
              Redistribution of wealth (and tax code): check
              Direct intervention in the private economy (GM bankruptcy, bypassing of standard federal BK rules to reward union cronies, solyndra, green debacles, War on Carbon, NLRB Boeing extortion): check
              Demonization of the individual and glorification of the State: check

              Sure sounds like a centrist to me.

              Republicans are at best ambivalent about Bush II. Even though Barry has continued virtually all of the Bush policies just because he’s in favor of even bigger gov’t he gets a pass from diehard fanatics like yourself. The denial is strong in this one.

        4. Keep your talking points straight, please.

          Remember, right-wingers want to wage WAR ON WOMEN by restricting their access to reproductive health services (abortion). Obama is probably the most abortion-friendly President this country has ever had.

          Also, right-wingers are pretty much the American Taliban and want to have gays rounded up and executed. Obama supports gay marriage (at least, as of the end of his first term).

          So no, according to the things liberals say about their opponents, the right would clearly not be praising Obama as “better than Reagan” if his white mother had gotten knocked up by someone from her own race.

          1. “Obama supports gay marriage (at least, as of the end of his first term).”

            He found out he was pro-gay, right after Biden outted him…

            1. My left-leaning acquaintances get really upset when I point out that Obama came around on that issue only weeks after Dick Cheney did.

              -jcr

        5. Another C- trolling effort at best.

          You are really getting lazy.

        6. Seriously weak drive by trolling,kumquat.

        7. Tony|10.17.13 @ 7:52PM|#
          “If Barack Obama had an (R) after his name, and perhaps a different name and skin color, and did everything exactly the same, he’d be hailed by the right as the greatest president since Reagan and probably greater.”

          Nope, dipshit, we have the obvious example; Bush.
          Obama has done what Bush did, but worse, Bush was white, had a R after his name and was never hailed as ‘the greatest’ by anyone.
          There are some other differences: Obo is black and guilty whites will give him a pass for shitting in the reflecting pool at noon, since ‘it’s so cute!’
          Obo is D, so lefty ignoramuses will give him a pass for continuing every war Bush started and starting several others, since they (and you) have brains shit from pigs.
          Obo can continue and expand spying, using the tax agency to punish enemies, ignore deaths in foreign embassies for political purposes, nationalize some 40% of the economy, and STUPID SHITS LIKE YOU will claim he’s better than a cockroach.

        8. perhaps a different name and skin color,

          Blow it out your ass, rent-boy. I’ve fucking had it with you leftards claiming that my opposition to Obama’s power-grabs are jut because he’s black. You are a snotty little jackass, and all you ever do here is prove, over and over again, that you’re incapable of a coherent thought.

          -jcr

          1. I’ve fucking had it with you leftards claiming that my opposition to Obama’s power-grabs are jut because he’s black.

            This x eleventy.

        9. That same argument could be said about Bush. Yet in the end the (R) people grew tired of him. Will the (D) people ever tire of Barry? Will they criticize him harshly once he’s gone?

    2. Yesterday, Tony was telling us how no one was blaming Boehner for what the Tea Party did.

      Today he’s rationalizing MoveOn.org going after Boehner for Tea Party sympathies–as being commonplace.

      Tony doesn’t wonder why everyone laughs at him. Tony doesn’t wonder why no one takes him seriously. Tony doesn’t even take himself seriously. I wonder if he laughs at himself?

  35. I think we can all agree that treason and sedition are a little off for what the GOP did in its ultimately weak-willed attempt at checks and balances. Heresy, on the other hand, seems like it’s right on the mark. They could have damaged the State-God with their irreverence.

  36. This is pretty much the definition of doublethink.

  37. This is a more virulent version of that guy who wants to file a class-action lawsuit against Big Gay on the model of the Big Tobacco lawsuit.

    While the legal system is certainly corrupt, I don’t think it’s reached the level of degeneration necessary to support sedition prosecutions for House members or class-action suits against gays and their supporters.

    The abuses which have crept into the system need to be rooted out, but they still have *some* sense of shame and *some* idea of what is and isn’t appropriate.

  38. I’m so fucking happy to not be on Facebook anymore.

    1. The NSA misses you already…

  39. “by force to prevent, hinder, or *delay* the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

    OK, there is no doubt that Obama is self-admittedly guilty of the terms of that law.
    Now, he wasn’t marandized, so he should have a chance to explain the delay of O’care with the advice of counsel, but it seems we have a felon in the WH.by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

  40. ZJoe Diddley thouhgt that was a good idea

    http://www.AnonWonders.tk

    1. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang begs to disagree.

  41. To be fair, conservatives do talk about impeaching Obama a lot.

    1. Yeah, getting fired and getting arrested and facing jail is close to the same….

  42. So I finally got my “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” letter.

    If I like my insurance, which apparently went from being the cheapest plan to the silver-level plan, my costs increase 16.65%.

    I say costs because the mendacious whores “lowered my premiums” by taking it out of my employer’s HSA contributions and then some! As for choice, there was the bronze plan, which was identical to the silver except annual premiums are $5.20 cheaper in exchange for an extra $500 of deductible. The gold plan is almost identical though costing an extra $174.20 in annual premiums in exchange for $800 less in deductible and non-emergency services covered while traveling!

    Now that’s what I call choice! Hobson’s choice.

  43. So those Democrats who ran away to prevent Walker’s RTW laws from passing were guilty of treason? As were anyone who shut down the government more than 10 times in the past?

    And what about those who hid runaway slaves and secretly taught negroes how to read and write? They’re guilty and fit for the gallows, I assume.

    And of course, if you sign the Moveon petition, you effectively sign Snowden’s execution papers. And other “revolutionaries” the liberals love so much.

    STFU, Tony and Palin’s Buttplug. I know you’ve ran your mouths somewhere in this long thread. STFU.

  44. I’ve been expecting to hear the term “Republican Wreckers” (and we all know what Stalin did with “Wreckers” back in the 30’s), but this is even better!

    Nothing like a sedition charge to stifle dissent.. :))

  45. Better post this before I’m arrested:

    “Design Firm Removes All Reference To Its Work On Obamacare From Its Website

    “…Visit the website of Michigan-based design firm Teal Media today and you’d never know designers there helped create HealthCare.gov, the troubled online portal for Obamacare.

    “Just a few days ago, the site looked very different. Teal Media’s homepage featured its work on Obamacare prominently, placing a link to the firm’s work on one of the most well-known websites in America front and center. Now that link, as well as the page devoted to Teal’s work on HealthCare.gov, have been removed.”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmc…..bamacare-f

    1. Getting the shit back into the horse, by: Teal Media?

    2. Looks like the client page is back, but the reference is off the home page.

  46. Petitions at Move.org are splendid opportunities for trolling because you can attach a comment when you add your name or pseudonym. Check it out.

    It worked marvelously for anti-Scientologists trolling a petition created by a Scientologist.

  47. It is significant to note that the Great Depression and the Great Recession was followed by a national urge to jail all business leaders and by a host of regulations. By contrast, the Reagan Recession of roughly 1981-1982 was deeper and more severe than the Great Recession. But all of Reagan’s moves were designed to encourage economic growth. Prior to 1982 the marginal income tax rate was about, if I remember correctly, 72 percent. As an analyst I was impressed with the extent that business planning was designed to convert corporate income into capital gains. Stocks were divided into “orphans and widows” stocks, suitable only for those in a the lowest tax brackets, and “growth stocks,” those that had prospects for capital gains, where 40 percent of profits – capital gains – were excluded from income tax. Corporations engaged in acquisitions for cash, foreign investment, and share buy-backs to boost the value of their shares. The result is what is known as “stagflation” – inflation plus stagnant growth in productivity.

    By reducing marginal income tax rates and government regulation Reagan spurred an almost instant turnaround in the economy, leading to what became known as the Great Moderation.

    The shutdown debacle should be interpreted as a modern day confrontation over fundamental governmental policy in an era which has become almost virulently radicalized.

    1. I would agree except for one glaring problem, those that orchestrated the shutdown come from a party that loves to tax, spend and regulate with the same verve as the opposition.

      Want to clean up Washington? Take away all of the money!

      No money to spend means nobody would give a crap about whom is elected for the most part so all of the campaign finance silliness would evaporate.

      It would also lead to a robust and market-centered economy the likes of which haven’t been seen for the last 100+ years.

  48. As my dad used to say, “scratch a liberal, find an autocrat”. The people who love Big Brother love power for its own sake, and they all wish they could throw us in a Gulag.

    -jcr

    1. That should read ‘commie’. That’s the simple fact we are re-learning oh so slowly.

  49. Only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

  50. Anything MoveOn does should be ignored . . . not reported.

  51. “So weird, how the T-word is always popular among those who support sitting presidents!”

    You don’t understand the “pot calling the kettle” theory, do you Matt? Surely you can’t be serious suggesting this is purely a left wing tactic. I could post you hundreds of quotes and links from the Tea Party AND the Republican Party calling this President treasonous.

    Here…just two I found in 10 seconds

    http://articles.sun-sentinel.c…..-commander

    http://www.saveamericafoundati…..brownbill/

    Surely you jest in your selective outrage. What, when your party does it, its righteous?

    1. I think the wording he used implies heavily that both parties do it. I don’t know where you’re coming from.

      1. You can’t find ANY wording that suggests both parties do it. He only called out the left, called them sarcastically “champions of democracy.”
        Please.

        1. “So weird, how the T-word is always popular among those who support sitting presidents!”

          Right there suggests both parties. As in both parties have had sitting presidents and therefore both parties have acted this way.

          1. That comment could not be more nebulous. And because the sitting President is a Democrat, not hard to find what his true intent is.

            But I would suggest, and I am 100% sure of this, that the “T-word” has in fact been most bandied about by those who in fact DO NOT support a sitting President.

            Surely you are aware of how many times the Tea Party has called this President treasonous?

            1. The point isn’t how much one group has used it. The point is both groups have used it when their party is not in power. It’s like anything in DC, when your party is in power you act one way, when it’s not, you act another, both parties are guilty of this.

  52. Time to cool down the rhetoric and hyperbole. Debate is debate, is is not treason, nor is it terrorism.

  53. Wow, I didn’t know any part of the sedition acts were still alive. But if 18 U.S.C. ? 2384 includes “…or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States”, wouldn’t that pretty much include all the partisan infighting that has ever occurred in the history of our beloved federal government?

    Anyone who would stand up for an form of sedition would surely have stood behind Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

  54. Please do it, give half the country a reason to secede, please.

    1. Just secede anyway…why just keep threatening…go ahead and do it. The threats are getting old.

      1. Don’t have the support, but I guarantee that if one part attempts to arrest another because of their beliefs you will see secession.

        1. No one is arresting anyone for their beliefs…enough with the conspiracy theories. Its just the latest fantasy. Last time it was Texas will want to secede if the President is reelected. And the grand total of those in Texas who support secession is about 20%. Stop talking about it already…the threat is hollow and you know it.

          1. Of course nobody is doing it yet, however that’s what this article is about, it’s a petition to do it. The point is IF they did you would see that number of supporters shoot up. Also 20% is a lot, when America fought for it’s independence it did not have a huge majority who supported it.

          2. Twenty percent? Is that a real number, or an ass-pull?

            Because if it is real, it is a serious number of people and puts secession into the realm of the possible, if not necessarily the probable.

            1. Not sure what an “ass-pull” is (I’ll look for a high school sophomore to tell me), but as opposed to people like you, I’ll show you

              http://www.publicpolicypolling…..texas.html

              And that makes it “near probable?” Maybe that high school sophomore I find can teach you math.

              Let me put it this way, when considering those who have no opinion on the matter in Texas, roughly 70% are opposed to secession. Given your math skills that must mean 100% certainty that all Texans don’t want it.

              1. He said it’s in the realm of possible and specifically. If you were not so quick to hostility you would have seen that.

                1. Here is what he said, and I quote:

                  “…if not necessarily the probable.”

                  Sounds clear to me, eh? Don’t be so defensive about holding people accountable for their use of English. I only did the same for Matt. And both Matt and Thomas are guilty of the same…selective use of the facts.

                  1. no, it doesn’t, because taken into context of the overall post it can be read as being possible even if not necessarily probably. You were just already hostile to what was really just him asking for a source on the number you provided and you attacked him for it. I personally don’t take ass-pull as hostile, to me that’s just a turn of phrase “pulling it out of your ass” is just another way of saying that something you claim doesn’t have a hard source with it.

                    1. OK…next time I’ll try to take somebody asking me if “I pulled that out of my ass” as an attempt at being gracious. My fault.
                      Enjoy your weekend, Quinn!

                    2. it’s just a phrase where I’m from, maybe in your neck of the woods it’s different, I don’t know.

                2. By the way, I did take “ass-pull” as a bit hostile, how about you?

  55. Lock up a few congressmen. The progs will have a grass roots movement on their hands they never would have dreamed possible.

  56. Indeed, let’s get this party started. Make your arrests and file your charges and know that the next season it will be your turn. Can’t wait.

  57. Hoestly, I don’t think these loons have thought much beyond step one. Okay, you jail the Republican leadership. Fine. Done. What next? Bear in mind, a lot of people agree with them or even think they’re not taking a strong enough stand. And a hell of a lot of those people are armed. And by the way, you really don’t know who most of them are.

    Guess what, you’ve just thrown away the last roadblock to out-and-out civil war. And I’m not talking about one of those neat little geographic civil wars like we had in the 1860s. Nope. It’s one of those, you have no idea in hell who your enemy is type civil wars. But on the other hand, your enemy knows all too well who you are.

    So, great. You’ve arrested John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Now, the not-so-fun part starts. You know the part where people on your side start disappearing, only to show up a few days later as corpses on the side of the highway. The part where things like police stations, government offices and even locations where the certain people frequent start blowing up.

    Oh, and John and Mitch and even Ted and Rand? Sorry, they can’t help you much anymore (that’s assuming you even bothered to keep them alive). They were creatures of a different era. And, really, it was about them, anyway.

    Congratulations! You wanted banana republic politics in America. Now you got it. In spades.

    1. Damned squirrels…”it was about them” should read “it was never about them”

  58. Start working at home with Google! Its by-far the best job Ive had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. Useful Reference http://www.Pow6.com
    WORK LESS EARN MORE

  59. No different than some of the authors and commenters on this site. There will always be people who prefer hyperbole over rational thought. Please don’t try to paint all Reason, MoveOn or Huffington Post authors and commentators by the work of those who are willing to speak in the extreme and ridiculous.

    1. Said very reasonably, reasonableS. And exactly right.

  60. “The definition of sedition says among other things that “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire… by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

    Hate to tell you this move on, but that makes the president guilty also when he delayed the employer mandate without consent.

  61. Has anyone considered that this is just another money raising trip from MoveOn.org? Maybe they are just that cynical. Maybe they are just that shallow. Who knows?

  62. my neighbor’s aunt makes $86/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her payment was $21941 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website
    ==========================
    http://www.works23.com
    ==========================

  63. For the harm the GOP Leadership has caused the United States during a time of ware, I call their behavior acts of treason. A MASTER TERRORIST couldn’t have damaged the US anymore than they have. Democracy that was/is not. For our Government Leadership to sit and not act against these acts of tyranny, treason and betrayal demonstrates their complacency. A Serious Crime of the highest order has been committed in public view. Where’s the outrage? We’re talking about the loss or taking away of our Democracy.

    1. Listen to yourself, you sound like you are…….a blabbering idiot.

  64. just as Carol responded I didn’t know that people can make $6819 in 1 month on the computer. read this
    http://WWW.JOBS72.COM

  65. just as Carol responded I didn’t know that people can make $6819 in 1 month on the computer. read this
    http://WWW.JOBS72.COM

  66. Based on the definition of “sedition”, Obama and Holder should be in jail.

  67. These people send a lot of mixed messages – why do they get so butthurt when we compare them to Stalin and Hitler, then turn around and act just like Stalin and Hitler? Those whacky fucksticks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.