Skip to comments.MSNBC’s Ratigan Goes Way Off the Deep End - Discussing violent revolution as if it’s just another...
Posted on 11/23/2010 1:52:05 PM PST by neverdem
Discussing violent revolution as if its just another policy option
MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan not only decided it was a good idea to have on far-left cartoonist Ted Rall to discuss his new book The Anti-American Manifesto, which calls for the left to consider violent revolution if its aims aren’t met, but Ratigan overtly endorsed revolution and implicitly endorsed considering violence.
If this were on Fox News, the media would be blowing a fuse. It better get working on this one. If it’s suspension-worthy for an obiously left-wing host to give campaign donations to politicians, what is it when one quasi-endorses considering overthrowing the government via the gun?
Here’s Ratigan introducing his segment (via NewsBusters’ transcript):
RATIGAN: Welcome back. We are here with a very disconcerting question. Are things in our country so bad that it might be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes, the only question is how to do it. From the wrongful wars to the corrupt economy to the special interests and the six industries that control every politician in this country, the political system itself, gerrymandering, 75% of all districts weren’t even up for grabs last week. You call that a competitive market?
To clear our dire problems may require even more drastic solutions. And our next guest, cartoonist and author Ted Rall, targets the day-to-day absurdities in Washington through political cartoons printed in newspapers across the country, but now he’s tackling something bigger. The need for real change and real action, perhaps even through violence, or at least the threat thereof. It’s the subject of his new book, the “Anti American Manifesto”. Ted, nice to see you. What do you mean with that title?
Yeah, good to see you, Ted. Here are some softballs for you.
Fox News’s insane Glenn Bleck, while he’s gone way, way overboard with violent imagery and rhetoric, at least hasn’t gotten quite that explicit.
Leaving aside the dubious wisdom of even inviting on your program somebody advocating considering violence, if you’re going to do so, you at least need to go adversarial with them (I’m thinking old-school Phil Donahue show-how-they’re-nuts style). But this is as friendly as interviews get (emphasis mine):
RATIGAN: If you were to look at the way government changes, political process being the most preferable, although sometimes totally ineffective or destructive, the bond and financial markets, certainly an opportunity for those to intervene in this country, and force meaningful reformation, passive resistance and the end game being violence, why do you go to your book to the category 4, if you will, government change, which is violence?
RALL: In the “Anti-American Manifesto”, I argue that violence is the last case scenario. It’s the worst case, nobody wants it. It’s easier to go other routes. Obviously going through the political system is best. But we’ve seen for the last 2 years, since the economy melted down, that neither the Democrats nor Republicans nor any possible third party is poised to step in. We know that the financial markets are getting increasingly monopolized, and they’re in bed with the duopoly. As you showed at the opening of the hour, with the 1% of the country owning 24% of the income and it’s just getting worse. That process is going to accelerate. In terms of passive resistance, the american left has been very peaceful since the early ’70s, since the Kent State shootings, And where has it gotten us? Millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. What did it do?
See, there’s a fundamental problem with advocating violent revolution in the United States of America. I can’t believe I have to spell this out to newsmen affiliated with the National Broadcasting Corporation.
Where once Americans were subjugated by their countrymen across the pond and not given the right to freely choose their own government—we have that right now and have had it for more than two centuries. You can talk about the pernicious influence that corporations have on elections and on elected politicians, but ultimately Americans—if they want to—can rise up and throw these people out of office. 50.01 percent wins elections. If you lose, suck it up, hone your arguments, and fight (metaphorically, of course) harder. It is not acceptable to have a journalist on a major network talking to nutjobs talking about violence, even qualifying it as a “last resort,” as if this is a legitimate option.
If Americans think there are wrongful wars, they can elect people to end them. They elected Obama to end Iraq, but he campaigned on winning Afghanistan. That’s what he’s done—or tried to, anyway. The people voted for it, dude, however much you don’t like it. But when you’re rhetoric is as—to borrow a word—corrupted as Ratigan’s is that you can say with a straight face on national television that “six industries… control every politician in this country,” that betrays a basic faith in the people, one that implies that it’s acceptable for a minority to revolt to institute what they think everybody ought to think.
Look, I think the system sucks, but I’m enough a democrat to think that the people can fix it if they want to. They’ve put in transformational figures like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan at key moments in history. Obama had his chance and flubbed most of it. When the system goes too far to one side or gets too captured, the people will overturn it at the ballot box.
Ratigan’s and Rall’s warped thinking is the same sort of logical fallacy made by lots of folks in the Tea Party (which by the way, is a prime example of how the people can still turn things upside down when they get ticked off). Taxes or health care, say, are not tyrannical if they’re enacted by democratically elected representatives. If you don’t accept this, you don’t accept the basic concept of democracy.
If I were tyrannical ruler of journalism, some folks would be gone from MSNBC. Good thing I’m not. But the very few of you who watch MSNBC can vote with your clicker and journalists in the NBC family can refuse to go on Ratigan’s show. They ought to unless something drastically changes over there.
The political system in this country is sick. People are pissed off (though the vast majority have enough good sense not to be this pissed off). Good journalism is about finding ways to explain this to people and showing them how to fix things through persuasion. Talking to kooks about resorting to violence, much less at a minimum giving the impression that you agree with them, is way, way out of bounds.
Journalism, to a fault, always seems to play between the 40 yard lines.
But MSNBC just got a safety, and it ought to be lights out on some folks over there. Else it’s time lock them away in Glenn Beck’s doom bunker.
These Lefties are complete whackos.
They feel emboldened by being able to intimidate Jews and Conservatives on college campuses, or by having SEIU thugs knock down little old ladies.
If these idiots ever REALLY got into a fight with the Right, it would certainly be a quick one...
“the left to consider violent revolution if its aims arent met,”
The left fantasizes about a violent uprising, and conservatives fantasize about how quickly it would be over...and who’d be on top.
I love it when the leftists get all butch and start talking about rebellion. How many rounds of ammo did the average democrat stockpile last year while we were clearing the shelves every day?
they always go back to their roots...Bill Ayers, SDS, Weather Underground, etc.
Are they crazy, don’t they know we still cling to guns and God..and we shoot em for fun...YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAw
They say they want a revolution well , we all want tom change the world...they start we have the solution well, we know, they’ll be eating dirt instead..
I don’t think that a violent revolution of the Left would get very far. Simply too many who love their country to be able to pull it off.
The left has always fantasized about a violent revolution but it just isn’t going to happen. Someone might try, granted, but it would be over quickly.
I wonder how proficient that armchair radical is with the use of firearms? I’ll bet he is all for violence so long that it does not involve him personally.
Time to go Ratigan, say goodbye, and please clean out your desk.
Funny thing is they will pull a gun on you but not the terrorists. Its their own people who they despise. Backasswards
FReepers do it all the time, in violation of FR posting rules. Why can't the commies?
Ted Rall is a wannabe Georges Sorel:
The American Left just isn’t smart. They’ve made sure their own folks are disarmed, and now they’re promoting armed revolt. D’oh!
“Bring ‘em on, I’d prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.” - Han Solo
The reason that the ideas and thinking of the left always seem “backasswards” is that their ideology is based in LIES from the father of lies.
Who would they direct this violence against? They just had a majority in congress and the prez. I guess they want a much further leftward outcome.
Proficiency in arms requires a level of discipline that most leftists eschew if at all possible.
>>Its their own people who they despise.
I was going to disagree and say that they don’t consider us “their own people” because we are the Other Tribe.
But on second thought, the self-loathing of leftists is one of their biggest defining characteristics, so I have to agree with you.
A Reichstag moment, as Glenn describes his ultimate fear, may be upon us. Certainly it will be the left the commits the “moment”.
>> Ratigan does the “way off” thing..
And it’s no doubt hard enough to be a rat the first time around, let alone to be one again, again, and again...
Law enforcement was told to just observe unless they were personally threatened....
If the left thinks they will have the same freedom to blow up buildings this time, they are wrong and they will be the recipient of what they start...IMHO
“I wonder how proficient that armchair radical is with the use of firearms?”
He probably stinks
“Ill bet he is all for violence so long that it does not involve him personally.”
Just the kind of guy who makes perfect 10-mm Auto fodder.
See my tag line.
Oh settle down everyone. It’s just a bunch of 5th grade boys talking trash. Can’t handle the new hormones, I guess.
Violent revolution by LEFTISTS??!! Now THAT’S funny. Who can picture Dennis Kucinich in camo fatigues! Would regular 4 PM latte breaks be part of the training schedule for their para-military forces? Seems to me the fighting would be done be the leftist “females” while the “men” would be weeping under their desks!
If it got to the that level, it would be rather one sided.
Sorry for my Alex Jones-ian rant but cops these days don't impress me.
My son is a cop, an Iraq war veteran, a member of this forum and an all around decent young man. Sorry you have such disdain for him.
God bless you and your loved ones this Thanksgiving season.
I’m all for a leftist revolt. We have the guns. I would love declaring open season on some lefties, Ted Rall included.
If violent revolution breaks out I’ll be glad to demonstrate how it works to Ted.
Lighten up Francis, most cops, like the military, are conservative. I see someone got a speeding ticket recently.
Anyone can see by the election that the base is just not there for a revolution, maybe a few riots free tv’s and electronics, groceries is about it. Go back to your room put on some phsycodelic music smoke a joint and relive the good ol days, mommy will have dinner soon.
This all sounds good but it misses an important point. Elections are more and more not fair and not legitimate.
Vote fraud dilutes my vote just as the Fed dilutes the value of my dollar = my treasure = my sweat and life force. The Fed and their member banks can also shut down my markets thereby causing the value of my assets to fall perilously.
When the ruling class can maintain a standing force of operatives that steal elections, we can cry out and say "Well! If Americans really want to do something about it, they can!". Not so.
We just had an election where conservatives in the TP were victorious in battle but not in war. The dems and the ruling class RINOs will not stand down, they will not toss in the towel nor fly a white flag. They will continue to develop their army of operatives, many of whom have infiltrated election offices (no conspiracy nut here; look at November 2004 archive of soundpolitics.com), and gain control of political powers through stealth.
Lie, cheat and steal is the mantra of those that look down at the purists and moralists as idealistic school children that refuse to grow up.
But it's my and your vote that they steal, my and your treasure they steal and that means watching and waiting for an opportunity to attack using 'defensive' violence if necessary.
For example, if a conservative were to catch ruling class operatives redhanded in the act of preparing to stuff a ballot box, the act of blocking/tackling those operatives to the ground would be an act of condoned defensive violent resistance.
In years past, conservatives have witnessed operatives at polling booths take stacks of provisional ballots and toss them into a ballot box to be counted and once they are mixed, there is nothing to prevent them from being counted. Such conservatives thought that merely reporting the incident or even videotaping such acts would hold up in court or cause prosecution. They were wrong. But blocking the operative and wresting them to the ground before they stuff the box would have brought prosecution, perhaps on both sides. But what does it matter?
In acts of defensive and protective violence, getting arrested or taking a bullet should be expected.
The investment banks and the Fed just collapsed the US economy and not one protest has been made on the steps of the Federal Reserve, not one attempt to protest and block entry to the offices of Goldman Sachs.
Such acts of protest and violence are rare and show that the passion is not sufficient to risk one's freedom or life.
Years ago a couple of protestors confronted Al Gore at a book signing, they were pushed and shoved by security agents out of the event site. Their protest was never registered in the public mind. Had they fallen to the ground or chained themselves to a fixture forcing the security agents to hit them or kick them, then there may have been a chance to bring the incident into the public eye. If many protestors had surrounded Gore and his security agents, there may have been gunfire. So be it.
As it were it took unknown unseen heros to expose Gore's scam on the internet. And remember Barbara Boxer's remark when the AGW emails and data were revealed? She remarked that the perpetrators were 'hackers' who should be prosecuted. Had they been outed and prosecuted, then protest and defensive or protective violence may have been warranted.
Violence is warranted when the system of justice has in a broad sense broken down and when a representative government has failed.
We are not there yet but we could be there at any moment as the ruling class consolidates its power to manipulate justice and representative bodies.
Note that it only takes a small amount of equity percentage to control some corporations. For example, Warren Buffett controls Moody's by owning only 26% of their voting stock.
The ruling class understands they need only a small percentage of certain political bodies, offices and courts in order force their will.
Lest we think we can by sheer numbers at the ballot box prevent ruling networks from gaining power, think again. Be prepared to be disappointed that the political movement is setback as the ruling class and their media organs regroup and plot new strategy to cause the new TP elects to fall on their swords.
Exactly. Let it come. Let the Libtards take to the streets. Our side has most of the guns and ammo.
I’m from Georgia so I only have two questions:
1. Is there a bag limit on liberals?
2. Do I have to have a DNS tag for their ear?
A network executive once told me (I’m paraphrasing) “Nothing goes on TV by accident. Everything is planned and staged.”
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
The far left thought with Obama they were going to have every thing they had ever dreamed of since the Summer of Love. Now, it all seems to be slipping away.
You can bet the farm that bed-wetter Rall will not be on the frontlines of any leftist violence.
>>Sorry for my Alex Jones-ian rant but cops these days don’t impress me.
>My son is a cop, an Iraq war veteran, a member of this forum and an all around decent young man. Sorry you have such disdain for him.
Hm, I am similar in two out of three of those: a member of this forum and an Iraqi-war veteran.
Now, as a soldier I know something about the oath of enlistment, and the Officer’s oath as well; the Oath of Enlistment begins and ends with the Constitution (the former to “defend it from all enemies”, and the latter to “obey lawful* orders”). [*If the Constitution IS the supreme law, then ANY order contrary to it is unlawful AND any order IAW it is lawful.]
In one sense, I *HATE* the military [as-an-organization], not because of what they do, but because of what they won’t do: defend the Constitution against the DOMESTIC enemies of America. When was the last time that the Army marched on DC and plied their violent trade upon those there that disregard the Constitution? (i.e. ObamaCare is an excellent example, the Congress has NO AUTHORITY to mandate the purchase of ANY product or service; Roe v. Wade is another the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, to alter/amend the Constitution; the refusal of the executive to deal with the illegal-immigration** problem is another.)
**US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The ‘justification’ given for such inaction is that “it would be political.”
Police officers [as-a-group] are much, much worse their purpose is PRECISELY of a domestic nature; and, being charged with the enforcement of laws, they are among the worst for knowing what the law says AND APPLYING REASONING THEREUNTO.
Consider this single law; US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Now when was the last time you ever heard of the police arresting the judge and prosecutor in a case wherein someone was denied the use of firearms because of a “Domestic Violence” restraining order? (Violating Amd 2, Amd 4, Amd 5, and Amd 6 ALL AT ONCE!!)
Or to put it in even more concrete terms, consider this, my State has a State Statute which says the following:
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
—(1) a peace officer;
—(2) university security personnel;
—(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
—(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
—(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
—(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
—(2) “university premises” means:
——(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
——(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
And yet there is the State Constitution which says this:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but
nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep
and bear arms.
So then, if I were to open-carry my spiffy Glock .45 on campus would I be committing a crime?
If so, then are not the arresting officers committing a crime [the above cited US Code entry] by arresting me for exercising 2nd-Amendment* Rights? (*I _AM_ a member of the State’s militia, as defined by my State’s Constitution, if it is applicable to only the militia; I am a member of “people” if it refers to Citizens, as I am a Citizen; I am a member of “people” if by people you mean “the human race.” — There is no way to wriggle out of that without radically redefining the words involved.)
And if not, then the officers are arresting me over a non-crime, which is false-arrest and/or kidnapping-under-color-of-law which should cause rapid retribution, no?
Since, with my one action I can, in theory, raise “Seven Shit-Storms” in the legal/judicial life of a police officer is it not in his best interest to know the answers here? Or if, as the officers I have talked to are correct and it is legal [to arrest], then the Constitution [any Constitution] means nothing, and having no authority over the Executive, Judicial, or Legislative CANNOT, logically, establish such branches — in that case, then by what authority does the government operate? The authority-of-having-more-guns?
>God bless you and your loved ones this Thanksgiving season.
On the note of love, in Matthew 24:12 Jesus said “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
An elitist, he is, in the “vanguard of the masses.” Doncha know?
Dylan Ratigan is certifiable.
> “Would regular 4 PM latte breaks be part of the training schedule for their para-military forces?”
Don’t forget the biscotti...