The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’

[justinacolmena]

What's da matter dey ain't got jobs to go to?
You are aware that Trump went to an Ivy League college?

The Ivy League colleges have all been Democratted through the frat house on campus.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

Trump lost

The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and various other groups are planning to hold a rally on January 6.
The Democrats need to be thrown out of Congress, out of the White House, out of the Ivy Leauge institutional educational system and out of the court system for all eternity.

Seditious turds. Treat them as such.
Democrats are the future. These fuckers?...aren't.

 

[Moonglow]

What's da matter dey ain't got jobs to go to?
You are aware that Trump went to an Ivy League college?

The Ivy League colleges have all been Democratted through the frat house on campus.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one!

 

[Agit8r]

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

Trump lost

The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and various other groups are planning to hold a rally on January 6.
The Democrats need to be thrown out of Congress, out of the White House, out of the Ivy Leauge institutional educational system and out of the court system for all eternity.

There you "right" wingers go, telling religious institutions who they can and can't hire.

Amazing...

 

[Concerned American]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

We've been "buggered" for the last four years with the democrat BS. The amateurish attempt to phony-up this election is quite clear and the democrats will be held accountable. Concede, fat chance. I'll sign my concession in....lead.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

We've been "buggered" for the last four years with the democrat BS. The amateurish attempt to phony-up this election is quite clear and the democrats will be held accountable. Concede, fat chance. I'll sign my concession in....lead.

Anything you say keyboard commando. Just be sure to take pictures when you go slinging that lead.
We need some good YouTube vids.

 

[daveman]

Democrats are far more loyal to the Democratic Party than they are the United States.

 

[d0gbreath]

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

Trump lost

The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and various other groups are planning to hold a rally on January 6.
The Democrats need to be thrown out of Congress, out of the White House, out of the Ivy Leauge institutional educational system and out of the court system for all eternity.

If they can't get the orange god to make an appearance, their turnout may not be that impressive.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump's refusal to concede was not part of the Dems election fraud scheme. Hilarious

 

[TheParser]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

With all the horrible COVID-19 news here in California (which had the most draconian lockdown), I needed something like the OP.

For four years, the Dems were proud of their Resistance to President Trump.

As they say, bullies can dish it out but can't take it.

 

[Concerned American]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

This isn't dissent. It isn't even disagreement. It's flat out denial.
Nothing was stolen. Nothing was rigged. He lost. End of story.
Concede. Move on...and hope they don't bugger you with legal action for the
remainder of your days on this Earth.

We've been "buggered" for the last four years with the democrat BS. The amateurish attempt to phony-up this election is quite clear and the democrats will be held accountable. Concede, fat chance. I'll sign my concession in....lead.

Anything you say keyboard commando. Just be sure to take pictures when you go slinging that lead.
We need some good YouTube vids.

Well, we can be assured that comedy is one of the trades that you don't have. LOL. I don't make videos, I only perform for live audiences. Thank you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump isn't going to concede. He isn't leaving a letter. He won't have Chicom Joe for lunch. The Pentagon has identified the chicom mole and won't have intelligence briefings.

The communists are on their own.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yeah, it’s sedition except for when democrats do it — which is constantly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

No. the ‘left’ recognizes sedition as sedition.

Trump and his enablers plotting to overthrow a fair, honest, and free election absent any ‘fraud’ or ‘cheating’ is not ‘resistance.’

Conservatives advancing lies and baseless conspiracy theories about the election being ‘stolen’ is not ‘resistance.’

Meritless lawsuits filed in bad faith by those whose only intent is to disenfranchise voters and invalidate their lawfully cast ballots is not ‘resistance.’

And denying the fact that Trump lost the election and Biden will be president in 2021 is not ‘resistance.

 

[Lysistrata]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

So why is resistance to trump defined as "sedition"? The individual human trump is not synonymous with the great country of the United States of America. He is just a pig and we are greater than that.

 

[donttread]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

The spin doctors are good at word craft. Take the FB site Occupy Democrafts" they provide a video where some dem typically envicerates, humiliates, crushes some repub on some issie. They often describe happenings in the video that aren't actually in the video. Most subscribers don't watch the video and simply believe the words. Then there is MSM where 300 riots in 2020 were "mostly peaceful protest" despite deaths and billions in property damage. BUT one riot in early 2021 was "insurrection" and "sedition". The things people like Maxine Waters and others said and did during the time of the 2020 riots was free speech and mayoral judgement not inciting violence or dereliction of duty. A few months later they attempted to impeach an American citizen who used to be president because he challenged an election which was morphed into "inciting "
The main difference was simply what neighborhood had to endure the riots. Little effort was made to track down any but the worst of the 2020 rioters and nothing done to make the people in those neighborhoods safer. And the MSM made no objection .Yet suddenly in early 2021 people were tracked down for trespassing , fences were now OK and so were cops with guns! And a billion dollars appropriated for the saftey of residents of THAT neighborhood. But that was necessary!
We are , as a nation, suckers for spin . It was estimated several years ago perhaps in 2016 that the difference between that already slanted media and a non biased one would equal 6 points in an election. I'll bet what's going on now is over 10!

 

[Clipper]

Parties that make a mockery of an election in order to gain power should be banned and their leaders executed. We could start with Quid Pro Joe, then Kameltoe, then Piglosi, then Sen. Good-for-Nothing, then Nadler, then Waters, then Booker, then Bloomberg, and on and on. AMMO UP.

Actually it was Trump who made a mockey of the election you moron with his lie that it was stolen from him. He made the same threat back in 2016 that if he lost, the election was stolen from him. To bad you fucking MAGA clowns are too goddam stupid to see thru his bullshit.

You don't like the fact that your candidate lost? Then move your asses to fucking Russia where elections really ARE rigged. Then run your mouth over there & see how long it takes before you're thrown into some Gulag.

 

[surada]

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’
Remember when dissent was patriotic?​

The Left Redefines Resistance as ‘Sedition’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
19 Dec 2020 ~~ By David Catron


It was inevitable that the Democrats would overreact to legal challenges by President Trump and other Republicans to corrupt election practices in swing states, but some responses have been unhinged even by their standards. One recurring refrain is particularly disturbing — that lawyers, members of Congress, and state attorneys general who supported post-election litigation are guilty of sedition. At least one Democratic congressman insists that attorneys representing the president in such challenges should be disbarred and that House members who supported Texas v. Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seated in Congress. One of the defendants in that ill-fated lawsuit described it as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
This dangerous view of dissent has a long, sordid history among progressives. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was the driving force behind the notorious Sedition Act of 1918, passed by his fellow Democrats at a time when they controlled both houses of Congress. This anti-democratic outrage made it a felony crime to criticize the government and, by extension, Wilson himself. A violation of the Sedition Act was punishable by a fine of as much as $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as 20 years. More than 2,000 American citizens were arrested and prosecuted pursuant to the Sedition Act. This crime against democracy was at length repealed by the Republicans after the GOP won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1918 midterm elections.
Considering its ignoble history, one would think journalists would avoid a term like “sedition.” Sadly, the legacy media has joined the creepy chorus described in the first paragraph above. The Week advises, “The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress.” The New Yorker solemnly intones, “There needs to be a real reckoning.” Salon accuses the president of plotting a “seditious secession movement.” Esquire describes states that filed “friend of the court” briefs in favor of the Texas lawsuit as “accomplices” in a “seditious conspiracy.” All of this would be mildly amusing if the “S” word hadn’t actually been used by Pennsylvania’s attorney general in his reply brief to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law profressor Jonathan Turley explains:

Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism… It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.​

This is the kind of reasoning we expect from a reputable law professor. Sedition is, after all, a word with a legal definition. As Jennifer Stepp Breen, an associate professor at the Syracuse University School of Law, recently explained to Capital Tonight, “We have a federal criminal law defining seditious conspiracy, and that’s when a group of two or more people gather together to essentially overthrow the government, or prevent a government from enacting its laws.” This does not include empty rhetoric or tweets about stolen elections. Sedition has to involve “imminent lawless activity.” And it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence — even a Sunday morning talking head — that filing state and federal lawsuits does not constitute an attempt to overthrow the federal government.
In the minds of many Democrats, however, it is seditious to merely question Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Friday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) went on CNN and delivered herself of this accusation: “These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, are bordering on sedition and treason.”
~[snip]~
Moreover, the Democrats and the media who insist on using words like “sedition” know it. What, then, is the point of deploying such words, particularly when the purported winner of the November election has called for national unity? Historically, authoritarian regimes have used fictitious tales of treason as the pretext for crushing their political rivals and cowing their citizens into submission. This is invariably enabled by propaganda organs willing to parrot the regime’s party line while less compliant media are censored. But that could never happen here, right? We’re Americans, right? We wouldn’t sit obediently behind our useless masks enduring a new wave of ineffective lockdowns while it appears that a presidential election is being stolen before our eyes, right? Right?

Comment:
Indeed, The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat left lies about everything. People who consume only the Quisling Marxist press in the USA will never know that there was any election fraud at all.
Odd isn't it, PM/DSA demonstrations of more than 400 'legitimate protests' against Trump and over 1000 un-permitted ones in 4 years. Cities and towns destroyed by Antifa and BLM violence and arson didn't qualify as sedition?
It seems, that only resistance against PM/DSA Democrats is sedition. Otherwise, it’s perfectly fine.
They don’t even hide their tyrannical hypocrisy.

Trying to overthrow election results would be sedition.

 

[Concerned American]

Actually it was Trump who made a mockey of the election you moron with his lie that it was stolen from him. He made the same threat back in 2016 that if he lost, the election was stolen from him. To bad you fucking MAGA clowns are too goddam stupid to see thru his bullshit.

You don't like the fact that your candidate lost? Then move your asses to fucking Russia where elections really ARE rigged. Then run your mouth over there & see how long it takes before you're thrown into some Gulag.

You stupid fuck. The democrats have made a mockery of the American system of government for the last thirteen years. BTW, I didn't vote for Trump. You know what "assume" does don't you? In this case it just makes an ass out of you.

 

[task0778]

When the democrats do it, it's called resistance, a peaceful protest. When the other side does it, it's called sedition and insurrection. There is no greater example of hypocrisy than the democratic party.