It seems that the anonymous editorial in the NY Times has given people pause to consider the following terms:
Sedition:
incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
Treason:
1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
2: the betrayal of a trust
Revolution:
1: a sudden, radical, or complete change
2: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
3: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
Our forefathers fought a Revolution against their lawful government in order to be free. There were some acts of sedition (such as the Boston Tea Party) but when men of good conscious understand their duty, they act openly, with honor. The actions that define the Deep State are not honorable and do not have good intentions: tyrants never have these qualities.
Based on these events, do you believe the round table at the PATCON should be focused on this topic?
David DeGerolamo
I believe the topics of lawful authority, allegiance, and fundamental change in political organization should stimulate some interesting discussion.
The terms sedition, treason, and revolution, however, have notoriously negative connotation.
Si vis libertatem, imperium esse delendam.
Why glorify a coward? How much effect would the Declaration of Independence have had if it had been anonymous, rather than signed?
I have been arguing for some time that we need to be separated from any cult of personality, the President included, and perhaps especially so the President. Tonight he could up an die from natural causes and what then? Would “150M” rise up in revolt? Extremely unlikely. But imagine if we were engaged enough with what’s going in the various Cabinet agencies -- such that we could feel reassured that progress will continue in the direction we want it to and not be subject to a “Pence Putsch.”
Continuity of Government (COG) and Continuity of Operations (COOP) will be dusted off and brought into play in the event of widespread social unrest -- for better or worse -- and what, exactly, is in those plans?
Since you asked, I would prefer we keep our focus on establishing the rule of law in austere conditions and here’s why: the “softest landing” I can foresee is that the large metropolitan areas will gradually decline in favor of mid to small sized communities -- bleeding off the current centers of wealth and influence in favor of more localized, resilient, sovereign and culturally homogeneous communities -- where anonymity and vast bureaucracies will no longer rule the roost.
But history does not favor such a soft landing. Instead, I am beginning to suspect that there will be a showdown between the (mostly rural) sheriffs (who are elected and, at least on paper, answer to the people) versus the large metropolitan police commissioners (who are appointed and answer to the mayor) -- the National Guard and Federal/State LEA’s are the wild card in all that. President Trump has been currying favor with sheriffs more than he has police. Large metropolitan police force leadership naturally side with the city administration, which is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. ICE and CBP are pro-Trump -- FBI has shown itself to be just the opposite and virtually every major agency has a SWAT team. So the potential for conflict seems clear.
In times of crisis, it is our human nature to turn to figures of authority and typically the people who seek power are the last ones that should have it. I believe having a strong body of knowledge in the principles of good governance, discerning beneficial leadership, as well as effective, proven strategies to recruit/develop other like minds to that cause would be more beneficial than discussing the anonymous op-ed. Moreover, if the op-ed is in fact genuine, it is a rather clear case of treason and what is there to discuss?