I listed to it, and the use of Jihad here seemed to imply the "struggle" or "war" against their oppressors (not that I think they are). I don't feel like it was a call for violence. Just my interpretation of her speech.
So what happens when someone interprets differently?
She specifically rooted her call for resistance to this "tyrant" with allusion to "resistance abroad...in the Middle East". What is the principal character of the Arab Spring and its "resistance" to tyrants in the Middle East? It's violent. It's clearly violent: from Libya to Egypt to Syria these insurrections have been martial coups. So, no, I would argue that your interpretation is flimsy, and wishful, with no textual or contextual basis. She invokes the
violent, physical character & interpretation of jihad with this language, not the other three.
She also said it was Muslims' top priority "not to assimilate", and to "please Allah, and
only Allah". Assimilation is required of all citizens, achieved by binding oneself in an oath of loyalty to the American people & their government, and is a necessary precursor to demonstrating allegiance. This woman demands that her listeners be
not allegiant to this White House.
This is seditious speech. Whether or not it's explicitly seditious enough is a matter for lawyers, should it come to that, but after listening to that, I won't mind seeing this lady thrown into Guantanamo at the slightest further offense.