Why Health Care Reform May Kill the USA

I'm feeling really strange tonight. I really need to get some sleep, because I'm attending a special health care reform meeting in the morning organized by the new Agenda Project.

But I can't shake the feeling that President Obama and the Democrats' commitment to health care reform may kill the USA. (Accidentally, of course, but kill the USA nonetheless.)

How ironic. Imagine this:

News Flash: In an attempt to prevent the needless death of thousands and thousands of Americans each year, President Obama and his fellow Democrats have accidentally caused the needless death of thousands and thousands of Americans.

This happened when what was once characterized as a "rebellion" by people who said "And I would hope that it would continue, but continue in a civil way" turned into a real, armed rebellion by the relatively small but very well organized Second Revolutionary War division of what it's leaders call the New Republic(an) Party.

This waking nightmare was prompted by House Minority Leader John Boehner's appearance on the PBS NewsHour Thursday night.

When I heard Minority Leader Boehner say "...we are in the middle of a modern-day political rebellion in America." -- and add historical validation to that idea a moment later by saying "It was Thomas Jefferson 220 years ago who said, 'A little rebellion now and then is good for our democracy.'" -- I got scared.

Not worried, but scared.

And I think PBS NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Brown (who was conducting the interview) was concerned by this language himself (maybe more than concerned), when he followed Rep. Boehner's second use of the world 'rebellion' by saying "Right, but 'rebellion' is a charged word, of course, because the rebellion back then was a serious matter."

A serious matter indeed. In his day, Thomas Jefferson was the lead author of a pretty famous document -- The Declaration of Independence -- that formally justified the American Revolutionary War, in which the original thirteen colonies separated themselves -- by force -- from the rule of King George III of England.

So, why is the House Minority Leader speaking so positively of "rebellion"? Why -- as one might infer from his high position in the House -- isn't he saying:

Any attempts at a modern-day political rebellion in America are wrong. We have something here that a great many Americans have died to preserve. It's called democracy. It's the Law of the Land. And, as a firm believer in the Rule of Law, I want to assure the American people that I'm going to do everything I can to put to rest these feelings of rebellion I'm coming across. We don't need that kind of 'prairie fire" to start burning across America.

Why didn't he say that? I don't know. He didn't.

But here's the entire text of what he did say, the last portion of his PBS NewsHour interview.

'A modern-day political rebellion'

JEFFREY BROWN: Right. But as the leader of your party, as one of the leaders, how do you see your own role or responsibility in, for example, perhaps disassociating yourself from extremes or tamping down some of that rhetoric? What's your role?

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Well, I think -- you've heard me over the last several months make it clear that we want Americans to involve themselves in this discussion, but it ought to be civil. And, by and large, almost all of it is. Oh, there's going to be someone now and then who's going to get out of control or yell, but we are in the middle of a modern-day political rebellion in America.

JEFFREY BROWN: Rebellion?

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Rebellion. I've never seen anything like this. I've been around the country in a number of members' districts, and I've been watching this grassfire grow all year.

And the American people, they're concerned about what their government is doing. They know that these trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, this is not sustainable. And they're concerned that government here in Washington is getting too big, getting too much control, and they're making their opposition to it known. And all of my colleagues have encountered their citizens more engaged than they've ever seen them.

Now, I went to a tea party in West Chester, Ohio, on September 5th, Labor Day weekend, along with some of my colleagues; 18,000 people were there. And there were some Democrats there and some Republicans there. But three-fourths of the people there were people -- average Americans who'd never been engaged in the political process, really didn't know much about it, except that they were concerned about where our country was going.

And so this conversation that's underway is healthy for our democracy. It was Thomas Jefferson 220 years ago who said, "A little rebellion now and then is good for our democracy."

JEFFREY BROWN: Right, but "rebellion" is a charged word, of course, because the rebellion back then was a serious matter.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: It was. But having Americans engaged in this public debate is healthy. And I would hope that it would continue, but continue in a civil way.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. House Minority Leader John Boehner, thank you very much.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Thank you.

I urge you to watch the entire 11-minute interview. It's pretty chilling to actually see Minority Leader Boehner say these words... so matter of factly, as if there's nothing he can do about it (or, one might surmise, wants to do about it).

To me, this kind of talk -- by someone who is supposed to be one of the adults in Congress -- is much more troubling than Rep. Joe Wilson yelling "You lie!" at President Obama. That could be brushed off as one man's emotions getting the better of him.

But here we have the reasoned and thoughtful remarks -- running for several minutes -- of a major political leader in Congress: someone with, I would think, more respect for the Constitution and the democratic traditions of our country than were demonstrated by these rebellion-friendly remarks.

Now, I'm no Constitutional expert. And it's too late for me to research this tonight. But -- unless one of you who reads the following answers it in a comment -- I'm going to find out if the Oath of Office, in which all members of Congress promise to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, doesn't make it a crime (or, at least, an offense of some sort) to speak positively of a new rebellion taking place in the United States... especially if that person then favorably compares a new rebellion to the rebellion championed by Thomas Jefferson.

Anyone know the answer?

We who believe in democracy -- rather than rebellion -- and who believe that President Obama is actually carrying out the will of the people (the majority of the American people, who elected him) in all the ways the Constitution authorizes him to do so, should not take likely the loose use of rebellion talk by people in responsible positions of authority.

I think there's a word for that kind of talk.

Let me think. No, the word is not treason. (see definition of treason below)

But maybe the word is the one at the end of this great John Wayne quote:

"Life's hard. It's even harder if you're stupid."

Yes, that's the word... for this kind of talk.

Stupid.

--------------

From US Legal Definitions:

Treason Law and Legal Definition

A person commits the crime of treason if he levies war against his state or country or sides to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is a crime under federal and some state laws. Treason is made a high crime, punishable by death, under federal law by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. 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."

Under this article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.

 

 

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

Comments

[jeffrey678]

You have nothing to fear but fear self. History repeats itself. Have you ever wondered why FDR made statements like this ?

[PaxEterna]

Boehner and the rest of Republicans HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXCEPT FEAR PARADING AS - take your pick - homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogeny, etc.

Not one single constructive idea, let alone thoughtful program, has been put forth by the Republicans since that ridiculous smoke and mirrors piece of legislation known as NCLB.

Empty suits now stirring up the worst in us.

[Tane]

While treason isn't applicable, I'd say that sedition is. Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

I'd also purport that the 25 Republican members of Congress who went Israel and told their leadership that the Obama Administration is undermining Israel and appeasing Iran is seditious. Furthermore, the Republican Congressmen who went to China and told their leadership not to trust the Obama Administration's economic policies or trust that we will honor our debt is also seditious, if not leaning towards treason.

[From the Raft]

I agree with you.

[denlong]

I've been thinking for some time ... the tea-baggers are the ones with all of the guns

are Rush, Beck, etc going to pull a Ruwanda on us ?

[phylliscooper1]

Boehner is a scary guy. He looks like a caricature and speaks in that Stepford way, without inflection or emotion. He is intoxicated with his minority leadership status. Every time he says the government is taking over he is really saying the democrats are in charge. Too bad the democrats don't know it.

[From the Raft]

To me, he acts like he is mentally imbalanced and his deportment is arkward.

[dtlewis]

John Boehner may be "leader" in title but that's as near as he will ever get to possession of true leadership ability. His character is more the malignantly narcissistic sociopathic sort. The man is a lackey of the extreme right corporate wing and isn't fit to lead a troop of cub scouts let alone a "rebellion". Yes, there are those who would follow such idiocy like lambs to the slaughter but that's all it would be; a slaughter. Not that our nation would be all the worse for the culling. Those the likes of Boehner and so many others in Congress fancy themselves the hard-nosed take no prisoners type when in reality they are nothing if not over grown school yard bullies and like all bullies when confronted with firm resistance they will turn tail and run faster than you can say gutless wonder. No charlatan possesses strength of conviction and so exhibits cowardice in the face of righteous confrontation. It takes true charisma, courage and the wisdom to recognize when the "courage" you think you're feeling is actually stupidity. John Boehner possesses no such leadership qualities.

[timewaster2dcore]

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!

[GoldDolphin]

I think you're looking for 18 U.S.C. 2385, commonly known as "the Smith Act." This is Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 115 (Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities), Section 2385 "Advocating Overthrow of Government." The full text is here: . I think this is the most relevant excerpt:

"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction."

Got that?

Now, just mouthing-off is not enough. In Yates v. United States (354 U.S. 298), in 1957, the Supreme Court wrote, "The essential distinction is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed must be urged to *do* something, now or in the future, rather than merely to believe in something."

I don't think the public speeches we've seen so far meet that test.

So far.

BTW I'm watching this stuff closely too. As a retired military officer, I was never released from my own oath to protect, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies -- domestic as well as foreign.

Thanks for prodding me to look up the legislation that materializes the dangers addressed in that oath into something tangible.

[iblogleft]

It is worth noting that some people are walking on a fine line, under the definition of "Sedition".

[aeuropeanvoice]

Alow me another part.Here is what your expats say about health care in germany;read for yourselves
http://www.amiexpat.com/2009/08/18/health-care-in-germany/
THose strange republicans that claim that America is the freatest country in the world now claim their government can not even provide health care ?
If we can,you can too .

[Unsui]

Thanks for the link.

[Wupazz]

All I have to say to these idiots is to bring it. I would gladly fight with right wingers. I feel they are worse for this country than terrorists at this point.

[mobedda]

I admire your spirit, but there are to many good things about America to throw away by giving idiots exactly what they want. We need a little more Obi Wan, and a little less Luke here.

[dtlewis]

are we to interpret your meaning to be that were right-wing belligerants to commence armed hostilities against our countrymen and the state that you will claim conscientious objector status so you may avoid active participation in defense of the rule of law and domestic tranquility? I believe you would think differently after a loved one is harmed or worse by those in opposition to our nation's democratic principles. I know it's a difficult question especially when the aggressor is known to be acting out of ignorance under misguided leadership. Just something to think about. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the sheep will allow themselves to be so easily led to slaughter. It's the last thing I would want to see happen but if it does I think there will be a dramatic shift in the sentiments of those of us who are basically peace loving law abiding citizens.

[Chernynkaya]

PART I from wiki:

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

[Chernynkaya]

PART II from Wiki:

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

[Esmereldap]

How about... seâ‹…diâ‹…tion­â€‚ /sɪˈdɪʃə­n/ – noun – 1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

[RedDogBear]

As someone who has spent a lot of time hanging out with people on the extreme left I have to smile when I hear all this talk of rebellion. I've heard it from various left wing zealots since the 60's. How we need to launch the revolution. I learned at a pretty young age that the people who talked about violence and revolution were the ones who got nothing done and just wasted everyone's time with macho grandstanding. Its nice to see the same nonsense on the right for a change. They are all talk and you have the right word. And in case they aren't I would tell them the same thing I always tried to tell zealots on the left: No matter how many shot guns, deer rifles, or even M-16s you have in your basement, one mechanized platoon (ever seen an Abrams tank, its practically indestructable) will take you and your militant friends out in a few minutes.

[research]

NOT FROM CONGRESSMEN!

[RedDogBear]

No need to shout dude. Yes, you are correct I can't remember any left wing politician, let alone congressman proposing revolution. So this is different. But I still feel that my original point is valid, the people who talk violence are mostly just talk. At least when it comes to talking about session or other kinds of mass rebellion. When it comes to rallies though, that's a very different issue. I do find it very scary that its somehow become ok to bring concealed weapons to rallies and even to speeches by the president. Its an example of how insane are current gun laws are. Which reminds me Tom Tomorrow had a great cartoon on the differences between the way the left reacted to Bush and the right reacts to Obama: http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/09/08/tomo/index.html

[mobedda]

Yeah, but the lefties didn't bring guns to marches.

Yes, the military would wipe out the krayzees in short order if they ever really ginned up the revolution machine, but imagine the societal damage in the aftermath? [also, what if it became a slow-boiling insurgency instead? Those are kinda tough, don't you think?]

[ladyfractal]

RedDog:

As a vet myself, I share your faith in our military to put down a rebellion if one were to happen. This is different than what you heard in the 60's and what I heard in the early 90's. Those differences are non-trivial:

1> As someone who has spent the last decade educated progressive and liberal friends on military matters, there was never a real threat that the Left would rise up in arms. For the most part, liberals are almost completely ignorant of tactics or military affairs and appear to not be altogether all that interested in changing that.

2> Tied to item 1 is this; for the most part, liberals don't own guns in the same numbers as conservatives. Now, this is not universally true. After hearing Boehner's comments my partner, who grew up in red-state Utah, finally conceded that perhaps my wanting to buy a firearm and get us some concealed carry permits wasn't such a bad idea after all.

3> Back during the 60's or during the 90's, you could not find a *sitting Democratic senator or member of congress or other elected official* who would have argued that a rebellion was necessary. Over the last 8 years, you did not see Democratic elected officials advocating for rebellion. When Joe the Plumber stands up and says "we should have a revolution, yee haw!" it is one thing. When John Boehner talks, favorably, of political rebellion it is something entirely different.

Cheers
LF

[Unsui]

I agree with every point you make here RedDogBear. Everybody is going way over the top here, I think. These fantasies of the Right Wing zealots are absolute nonsense, and the liberal reactions to them are too quickly in the panic mode. We need to take a page from Obama here and just let all this hyperbole run its course and implode on its own, as it surely must.

[zombie fairy]

These people can't figure out how to use the Metro system in DC (I can't help but wonder how many of them found themselves at the southeastern reaches of the green line by mistake); I can't imagine them having the organization, discipline, or smarts to do anything other than show up at a rally at an appointed time with their guns and shoot each other.