Reich's Impertinent Question - Is it Treason?

First saw it on Daily Kos

taken from Salon

Robert Reich: Has the 1 percent committed treason?

Date 7/12/13

Has the 1 percent committed treason?

A small group of extremely wealthy people are systematically destroying the US government

By Robert Reich

Permit me an impertinent question (or three).

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

Well – I went into the comments – shouldn’t have done that.  DK is not a place for progressives any more.

I guess the one comment that sums up the comments on this at DK wass this one

This over-the-top rhetoric should stop. Of course that doesn't mean that it will.

“over-the-top rhetoric”

The nemesis of my blogging life – and I will get to that in a later diary.

Who defines “over-the-top rhetoric”?

Who controls what is “over-the-top rhetoric”?

Why should they be allowed to refer to others writings as “over-the-top rhetoric”?

And the most important problem that I have encountered:

Why should they be allowed to censure others based on what they define as “over-the-top rhetoric”?

More on that later.

Well – back to Reich.

Treason as defined:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,

Select comments from DU about this article

Does this question actually need to be asked and if so, then yes, is the answer.

Thank you Robert Reich for breaking the ice...

ok, I'll call it treason, but fascism will work as well.

It's only treason if the 1% call it treason. What the 99% says doesn't matter in the U.S.

It was interesting that Common Dreams did not even post Reich’s article – so I could find no comments there.

Censuring others based on what they define as “over-the-top rhetoric”?

Other comments , another place

I do not know much about him, but the first statement there "Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government," means that no matter what they did it should be considered treason.  Whatever the action is, if the purpose of the action is to destroy the U.S. by a U.S. person then that act would be treason.

Robert Reich is the man.  Massachusetts represent.

That being said, I wouldn't describe all the plutocrats as treasonous, just the ones who work for the federal government and therefore swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and then proceeded to undermine it at every opportunity.

From Huffington Post - HUGE find - a hidden find

Was this where he first posted the blip?

The title here is

An Impertinent Question

Impertinent – Merriam Webster Dictionary

not restrained within due or proper bounds especially of propriety or good taste

Select Comments from HuffPo

The basic problem is the disconnect between what is legal and what is moral.

Labeling the political opposition as treasonous is something I have come to expect from the far right and smacks of McCarthyism. Please don't go there..

I would say yes, it is treason. This group seeks to disable government. A disabled government, one elected by the people, t is an improvement only to those who believe government should simply not exist.

The GOP has committed treason when they met on January 20, 2009 in secret and conspired and plotted to intentionally subvert the progress of our Nation. A special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate and prosecute the conspirators.

"I am a Republican who is Forcing the Uber-Wealthy Conspiracy Against America on the American people----whether they Like it or Not." 

But then it got down to business.

An impertinent answer ... but isn't some of that exactly why ALEC was formed?

BINGO

The American Legislative Exchange Council - taking a democracy and turning it into fascism.
In terms of democracy vs fascism  - the battle is between the people and the corporations. 
And in this battle for power, control and ultimate rule in an established democratic republic - the corporations become the combatant, the enemy.

Legislative members of ALEC

adheres to their enemies
giving them aid and comfort

through corporate written legislation distributed by ALEC to promote a corporate states.

Impeach those who are pledged to the Koches, its illegal what they are doing. Also, take the evidence of the COPIED Koch ALEC laws, and, make them null and void, effectively immediately.

Prosecute (yes, use the law against white people who have broken the law) those legislators who have forsaken their jobs to COPY the legislation handed to them by Private individuals in exchange for Cocktails and a Vote.

Take back the Word Capitalism, Free Market, define these socialist corporations that suck public money while blah blah blah about government.

For the purists

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

They would say, No.
But the same purists have been bending the interpretation of the Constitution to suit their will/goals for the past 40 years.

adheres to their enemies
giving them aid and comfort 

So - I would say - YES.

Impertinent questions have to be asked in today's political world.

Impertinent questions are important NOW when there is the possibility that a woman - which will again be unpopular with the RepubliCONS - may be the next President.

Impertinent questions MUST BE ASKED - so the dialogue can begin.