More Than 44,000 Demand GOP Arrests For "Seditious Conspiracy" Against USA

Tyler Durden's picture

More than 44,000 people have signed a petition on the sebsite calling for the Departmnet of Justice to arrest some House Republican leaders for their roles in the givernment shutdown and debt-ceiling debacle. As The Hill reports, the petition singles out Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), as well as "other decision-making House Republican leaders," for the crime of "seditious conspiracy against the United States of America." While careful to point out that it does not "necessarily endorse the contents of petitions" we thought it ironic that more people successfully completed the petition to arrest the GOP for trying to abolish Obamacare than have successfully signed up for the new law.


Click image for petition


Via The Hill,

The House GOP leadership's use of the Hastert Rule and H. Res 368 to shut down the government and threaten the U.S. economy with default is an attempt to extort the United States government into altering or abolishing the Affordable Care Act, and thus, is self-evidently a seditious conspiracy. Arrest the perpetrators in Congress immediately and bring them to justice,” the petition reads.


...Merely reaching the goal doesn’t guarantee the liberal advocacy group will circulate the petition to its email list, which includes the White House, Congress, governors and state legislators. According to its website, MoveOn asks its members directly which petitions should be circulated.


MoveOn says it does not “necessarily endorse the contents of petitions” posted on its site.


And some more explanatory thoughts on this farce from Andfrew McCarthy of The National Review,



The petitioners claim the GOP’s recent strategy, leading to a government shut down and “threaten[ing] the U.S. economy with default,” constitutes “an attempt to extort the United States government into altering or abolishing the Affordable Care Act.” That, they proclaim, “is self-evidently a seditious conspiracy”




I suppose I should break it to these newfangled patriots that seditious conspiracy is, in essence, about the use or planned use of force against the nation. In fact, Congress first codified the crime during the Civil War to address terrorist acts committed by confederate sympathizers. The Supreme Court explained in the 19th century that the law prohibits forcible aggression, and appellate courts have referred to it as the crime of “waging a war of urban terrorism” against our country.


The statute (Section 2384 of the federal penal code), which is very straightforward and easily accessible online, targets those who conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or levy war against them, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States[.]…


Although the statute’s title is “seditious conspiracy,” you’ll notice that the word “sedition” does not appear in the text that defines the offense. That owes to the unsavory legacy of the Alien and Sedition Acts – a fact the Left is quick to remind us about when the statute is used against its obviously intended targets, terrorists.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

There's no accounting for stupid.

VD's picture

agreed. O&co. are the ones that need to be arrested for plethora of constitutional abuses and at very least 3 Watergate level scandals, and counting... 

BrocilyBeef's picture

Progressivism is a mental disorder.

ghengis86's picture

nice edit.  classical liberalism isn't a disorder.  this perverted progressivism sure is.

BrocilyBeef's picture

Thanks. I was worried that someone was gonna get in there before I could correct myself. ;)

LetThemEatRand's picture

Go Team.  By stupid I meant anyone who thinks the politicians and not those who bribe them should be arrested first.  The Fed and the bankers are not progressives.  They are just greedy oligarchs.   And the Blue Team is not progressive.  True progressives don't want to build a society in which the top .01% take all the wealth, and they sure as fuck don't vote for banker bailouts.  But I'm with you on arresting the whole lot for reasons completely different from the moveon petition.

MeMadMax's picture



Around 50,000 people have forgotten how our government works when it works out deals...



LetThemEatRand's picture

Yeah, the bankers tell both sides what to do and it gets done.

Pure Evil's picture

I don't know what everyone is bitchin' about.

Lets start with the Repugnants and once the smell of blood is in the air let's work our way to the other side of the isle and do the Demoncrats.

Gullitones and chopping blocks all around.

boogerbently's picture

So, now fiscal responsibility is treason ?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Now there's a petition I will sign.  But we can start with either Team.

GMadScientist's picture

Have some fun with it: one player from each camp is let into a maze with one long rifle with one round. Game on!

Manthong's picture

Did anybody ever start a petition about getting to the bottom of that phony layered birth document, the Connecticut SSN or the Colombia and Harvard foreign mediocre student affirmative action records? 

BrocilyBeef's picture

Good luck.

Barry Hussein Soetoro.

I pray you're not completely wicked.

Redemption is possible until you're laying on a slab.

You still have some time.

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

When are they going to petition the heaping of debt on future generations? Oh I see, you are the "special people" from a "special generation" and consequences don't matter at least for you. 


Reality doesn't matter any more. Disgusting!

t0mmyBerg's picture

The 44,000+ on the petition means there are 44,000 people who should be turned into soylent green

jeff montanye's picture

national review's distinction regarding force seems less convincing when it is the government, in this case the house of representatives, doing it.  the government, remember, has a monopoly on force so when they do something "legal" there is implied force in it.

the part i like best is the disparity in sign up rates.  as i read it, the aca is a brick wall for the economy and another millstone around the neck of the working and middle classes.

there may be a mixed metaphor above there but at least it stayed within minerals.


Zero Point's picture

I wonder if these guys realise they're funded by George Soros?

If so, they probably think he's a great philanthropist. Fucking funny old world sometimes.

A guy could die laughing.

Deacon Frost's picture

Soros funded, are basically Marxist ‘agent provocateurs’.

George Schwartz (aka Soros) should know all about mass arrests.

Schwartz is possibly the most despicable sort of sociopath.

Schwartz born in Hungary, in order to survive, it is said he collaborated with the Nazis, and worked with a Judenrat, a Jewish council set up by the Nazis to gather information for them, in the arrest and deportation of other Jews.

Normalcy Bias's picture

He enjoyed collaborating with the Nazis against his own people...

George Soros "The Happiest Time in My Life"

BrocilyBeef's picture

We could handle only 50,000. We're talking many M I L L I O N!!

Folks, we've got work to do.

knukles's picture

OK, so now here's one petition to which UKnowWho will respond as it has in excess of the 10k or whatever that "red line" is that he'd promised was to initiate action on behalf of the "people"


Race Car Driver's picture

Wrong website. This is a petition and is not the 'We The People' (whitehouse) website.

(we the people. indeed ... cracks me up)

DollarMenu's picture

I thought the WH bumped that up to 100K because too many petitions were passing the 10K action mark.

Can't have being too responsive, like to know...whim.


BrocilyBeef's picture

How many Progressives do you know that are awake? Simply incompatible.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Not many.  My point is that most people are tribal.  They belong to one of the Teams.  The Blue Team is not progressive and the Red Team is not conservative, but most people who belong to one of the Teams identify themselves as one or the other.  They are wrong.   And the petition is stupid because these people actually think raising the debt ceiling is somehow a good thing for them as opposed to the bankers, and they actually believe that the GOP wanted to stop it from being raised (they never did because their banker contributors wanted it raised).  There's no accounting for stupid.

BrocilyBeef's picture

I appreciate your response.

I'd actually really like to hear about the Progs that you know that are awake. I don't understand how someone could continue down the path of Progressivism and then come to the conclusion that the government is the problem.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't know what your definition of Progressive is.  Personally, I would like to see much smaller government but I believe elected government is a critical check and balance to rule by the biggest bully (oligarchs).  I believe government is necessary for a common defense, and I believe government is useful for things like roads, airports, space exploration (think GPS), helping poor people (not the bloated corrupt welfare system now but a true safety net), creating pensions given that the private sector can't or won't, funding but not necessarily running schools, and a host of other things that we all take for granted.    The Founders were considered Progressives in their time.  I would like to see a government that they envisioned, while preserving freedom everywhere else.

If there were a candidate I believed in who ran for President, I'll bet you'd vote for him over the other guys just as I voted for RP.  EDIT, or maybe not based on the downvotes.  I know, let's all just take ideological sides and watch it burn while the two Teams who don't believe in ANYTHING we believe in rule us because we are divided on some things.

Anusocracy's picture

It is easy to label people. What's not easy is finding the basis for labeling.

"To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided. The funniest and most painful illustrations are Haidt’s transcripts of interviews about bizarre scenarios. Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. Haidt shows, for example, how subjects relentlessly marshal arguments for the incest taboo, no matter how thoroughly an interrogator demolishes these arguments.

To explain this persistence, Haidt invokes an evolutionary hypothesis: We compete for social status, and the key advantage in this struggle is the ability to influence others. Reason, in this view, evolved to help us spin, not to help us learn. So if you want to change people’s minds, Haidt concludes, don’t appeal to their reason. Appeal to reason’s boss: the underlying moral intuitions whose conclusions reason defends.

Haidt’s account of reason is a bit too simple — his whole book, after all, is a deployment of reason to advance learning — and his advice sounds cynical. But set aside those objections for now, and go with him. If you follow Haidt through the tunnel of cynicism, you’ll find that what he’s really after is enlightenment. He wants to open your mind to the moral intuitions of other people.

In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. Does the guy own the chicken? Is the dog already dead? Is the sister of legal age? But step outside your neighborhood or your country, and you’ll discover that your perspective is highly anomalous. Haidt has read ethnographies, traveled the world and surveyed tens of thousands of people online. He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don’t start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal."

LetThemEatRand's picture

He's right but he forgets one basic truth -- what many people believe is based on what they are taught as children.  Most people (not all, but the large majority) belong to a particular religion, for example, because they were raised with that religion . It is the reason that many Muslims are convinced 100% that the religion is the only true one.  Same for many Christians.  It's no coincidence that the vast majority of those people are raised by parents who believe in that religion and they are indoctrinated.  The tendency to be indoctrinated may be hardwired, but it is the teaching that selects the religion.  The oligarchs who control this country teach both Teams what to believe.  Most people who are raised Blue stay blue and same for the other Team.   We now have a media owned by a few giant corporations that teach the two Team values day in and day out on the tee vee.  It is no accident that big corporations have developed competing cable and other tee vee that pretends to have different values, while teaching the same basic "truths" like that the Fed is okay and taxing the rich too much will destroy the world.   And most importantly, that you must vote for one of the Teams to fix things.   The internet is causing some people to wake up and realize they have been programmed (no pun intended).  There's hope, until they shut it down.  Which they are working on (not to get rid of it, but to make it controlled entirely by the same corporations that control television and newspapers).

BrocilyBeef's picture

An excellent response and unfortunately full of truth. :)

I have yet to find where this wabbit hole leads. Down, down -- deeper we must go.

James_Cole's picture

I'm 'liberal progressive', don't hold any of the beliefs I was raised in. 

Reading, travelling and getting out of your comfort zone will make you learn. If all you know is what you were taught by your parents, yeah, you'll probably think just like them. 

akak's picture

So you really mean "illiberal regressive", right?

Actually, that explains a lot about you.

James_Cole's picture

Actually, that explains a lot about you.

After arguing with me for this long on zh you haven't noticed?? lol

BrocilyBeef's picture

I was a Progressive. Born and raised.

Woke up. Chased team Red for a year or two. Listened to Mr. Beck for a while. So many memories...


Progressivism (i.e., gov do no wrong, gov solution, more gov better solution, etc.), as it's practiced today, is a dead end.


Long Live Our Constitutional Republic.


@ JAMES COLE                             Maybe you are one of those gaming the liberal line to keep your 3 Obamaphones and section 8 housing and EBT card.  Or are you sitting in a MIC cyber room trolling the ZH cite to get in your 8 hours? Either way you're a cockroach. Just sayin bro.

angel_of_joy's picture

I'm 'liberal progressive', don't hold any of the beliefs I was raised in.

Most of the time though, you sound just plain retard...

Anusocracy's picture

It's not really teaching, more like re-inforcing innate behaviors - developing them.

formadesika3's picture

-- Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken?

Only if you can't find a live chicken to have sex with.

-- How about your sister?

If your parents don't mind.

-- Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal?

Depends on what shape the stalls are in.

-- If your dog dies, why not eat it?

Why not fuck it, you fucked the chicken.

Unless the chicken was just a careless fling... careless fling?... Never mind, too much Sven.

Anusocracy's picture

Is it okay to kill an innocent person to save the lives of five?

Anusocracy's picture

Is it okay to wipe your butt with an American flag or pages from the Bible?

A Nanny Moose's picture

Effing comment of the least. ROFLMAO

LooseLee's picture

It is 'conditioning'---psychological, that is...

Oldwood's picture

So are values and morals an issue subject to "progressive" change? How about honesty, loyalty and thrift? Respect of others opinions and property? These are things I was taught by my parents. I know it is so totally backward to not reject our parents values, but while I would agree it is important to follow nothing blindly, I do think there are some pretty stone cold facts about life that have not been disproven by time or technology.

James_Cole's picture

So are values and morals an issue subject to "progressive" change? How about honesty, loyalty and thrift? Respect of others opinions and property? These are things I was taught by my parents. 

If I have any good qualities I'd say they come mostly from my grandpa who grew up dirt poor but worked hard and made something of himself. 

Progressivism refers to something specific and generally unrelated:

Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Ah..., and there in lies the rub, doesn't it? It all depends on the very subjective concept of just what exactly defines 'progress'. For example:

Advances in Science: Gender-selected abortions based on MRIs.

Advances in Technology: Police scanners that record ever single license plate as cars drive by.

Advances in 'economic development': NAFTA, The Federal Reserve, The IMF, etc.

Advances in Social Organization: Obamacare

And that's just to name a few. James, progress just for the sake of progress isn't. The litmus test is simple. If the so-called progress curtails individual freedoms, it ain't progress. It really is that easy.

And before you break into any supposed, hypothetical situation that would try to refute that, think on this. Government is evil. All of it. At best, under the most controlled scenarios it is a necessary evil, but it is evil pure and simple just the same. The progressives' concept that the purpose of government is to "do good" is vile, obnoxious and highly delusional.

If men did not sin against each other there would be no need for government. The existence of government is not one of a good to counteract the evil, (in mens' hearts). it is an evil to be used to keep that other evil in check, (theoretically), no more and no less. Unfortunately that little fine point has all but been lost in the discourses of the day. And lo, beware, evil this way comes.

James_Cole's picture

You seem to mean well but your argument is absurd and particularly ironic that you would rail against the evils of technology and the government through the medium of the internet.

Sure, you can pick out things you don't like, but then there's this:

The litmus test is simple. If the so-called progress curtails individual freedoms, it ain't progress. It really is that easy.

So? Did anyone here define their standard of progress as only that it does curtail individual freedom?

Obviously, more people are more free now than they were 1000 yrs ago.

Government is evil. All of it. At best, under the most controlled scenarios it is a necessary evil, but it is evil pure and simple just the same. 

Government simply refers to how a society is organized, it's not good or evil inherently. 

The existence of government is not one of a good to counteract the evil, (in mens' hearts). it is an evil to be used to keep that other evil in check, (theoretically), no more and no less. 

When you have societies of millions of people inevitably you will need some general structures (or very advanced technology), it's not only about 'sin.'

jwoop66's picture

Theo's argument was sound.


yours was a whole lot of nuthin...