SEDITION
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: se·di·tion
Pronunciation: si-’di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin seditio, literally, separation, from sed apart + itio act of going, from ire to go
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction —compare CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM, SABOTAGE
I like to believe that I am a “normal” American. I’ve had a good education, including college that I did part-time with help from my employer. I was gainfully employed for forty years or so and am now retired. I have a healthy interest in many things, including politics and what my government is doing. And as a “normal” American, I am worried about my country.
For eight years, we liberals watched in frustration as the Bush/Cheney Administration pursued their agenda of war for oil, subjected American citizens to warrantless wiretapping, redefined torture as “enhanced interrogation,” denied the implications of global warming, alienated our allies, slowed the progress of scientific research, turned the comfortable surplus inherited from Clinton into a massive deficit, and presided over an economic collapse not seen since the Great Depression, in pursuit of their goals. During the course of those eight years, we liberals spoke out, criticizing the actions of the Administration and working to identify and elect officials who would actively endeavor to put the brakes on what will likely become known as the worst presidency in America’s history. In spite of being labeled “un-American” because of our opposition to the Bush policies, we knew that the way to right the wrongs was to continue to put the facts before the public and work within the system for change.
On November 4, 2008, the majority of Americans voted for that change. Barack Obama was duly and legally elected as the 44th president of the United States. We celebrated our victory, breathed a collective sigh of relief, and set ourselves for the long, difficult climb out of the abyss.
Not surprisingly, the conservatives are unhappy with the change. The loss of the power of the presidency, and additional losses in both houses of Congress, coupled with the rejection of the policies of the past eight years is a bitter pill. So bitter, in fact, that it is driving some very reckless responses:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.): “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Tex) speaking about the possibility of Texas seceding from the United States: “But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.”
This rhetoric is being fanned by media personalities, particularly from one network, who pander to the extreme fringes, who know their audience, and deliberately target their fears, prejudices, and misconceptions. “Take your country back,” they urge, omitting the caveat to do so within the rules of our Constitution and form of government. They combine the kindling of fear and the fuel of anger with the spark of unreason. The result? “According to the SportsOneSource, a research firm that tracks the sporting goods industry, firearms sales in large retail outlets are up 39 percent this year. Shops across the country are reporting ammunition shortages because stores can’t meet demand for bullets” (TIME Magazine, Wednesday, April 8, 2009).
A Minnesota representative calls for American citizens to be “armed and dangerous.” And now the Governor of Texas speaks of the possibility of secession.
Secession? Armed revolution? When advocated as ideas or concepts, both are protected under the First Amendment as free speech. Thoughtful Americans will reject both concepts, because the results of either or both will be violence, chaos, and mayhem.
There are some Americans, however, who are not so thoughtful. They don’t hear “armed revolution” or “secession” as ideas, but as a call to action. And therein lays the rub: When promoted as desirable ACTION, both of these fall under the definition of sedition, a treasonable offense. Those government officials and media personalities who would speak of either scenario as a potential solution to our current crisis need to question their motives for their defiant disregard for the potential danger or consequences of their words. By promoting sedition, they are traitors, not patriots. And they bear the heavy burden of shared responsibility when an irrational, unstable individual, provoked and supported by their public urging, takes up arms against lawful authority.
