Skip to comments.Before Bundy Ranch - What happens when constitutional vigilantes go mainstream
Posted on 04/24/2014 2:43:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Constitutional vigilantism of the type on display at Bundy Ranch last week has been a recurrent feature on the margins of American political life. What is newand dangerousis that it has suddenly moved from the margins to the mainstream. And it comes with guns.
Last week a mob of more than 1,000 armed protesters forced the Bureau of Land Management to back down from enforcing federal grazing fees. The protesters came out in support of local rancher Cliven Bundy, whos been letting his cattle graze on federal land in Nevada for more than 20 years without a permit. Were standing up for the Constitution, declared Bundy, to the delight of the television cameras. Bundy and his supporters have a simple constitutional worldview: They do not recognize the federal governments constitutional authority to manage public lands within a state, and they believe the move against Bundy results from a corrupt political system determined to deprive the people of their rights. But instead of trying to convince a court to adopt their constitutional views or work through the political system, Bundy and his supporters have shown that they can enforce their interpretation of the Constitution by waving guns at federal officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Obama and his pen and phone and BLM agents and Eric Holder comes to mind when I read the words of this useful idiot who wrote the opinion piece above.
Of course this analysis on rancher Bundy and his supporters isn't written for any other reason but to paint the Tea Party as the embodiment of the KKK.......because, "The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution."
"In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinskys first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinskys theories (she interviewed him personally for the project). In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King. The title of Hillarys thesis was There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In this title she had singled out the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause - his embrace of political nihilism. An SDS radical once wrote, The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.
Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.
The following anecdote about Alinskys teachings as recounted by The New Republics Ryan Lizza nicely illustrates the focus of Alinsky radicalism: When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: You want to organize for power!
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote: From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.
Unlike the Communists who identified their goal as a Soviet state - and thereby generated opposition to their schemes - Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve - socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system. By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends."................ David Horowitz: Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution - The Alinsky Model
This is a very good read thank you
“Jared A. Goldstein teaches constitutional law and environmental law”
We know which is more important to him.
Ugh, what an article. But excellent prefactory post by you.
“But instead of trying to convince a (corrupt)court to adopt their constitutional views or work through the (corrupt) political system........
Rosa Parks was a lawbreaker, and her dangerous interpretation of the Constitution went mainstream. “You can’t just have people breaking the law and getting away with it.”
Someone posted the link to a presentation at the 2012 Western States Sheriff’s Association by Stephen Pratt. I watched it all the way through all three videos (about 2.5 hrs) and took notes it is so good. I plan on watching it again and highly recommend it to everyone.
I hope and pray for that everyday!
What’s the matter liberal pussy,afraid they are coming for you? You reap what you sow
The answer is:
They drive out the domestic enemies of the Constitution who have been going mainstream for the past 50-100 years.
This one page 6 quote from the link was worth the read:
“In 1969, the year that publishers reissued
Alinskys first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley
undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted
her 92-page senior thesis on Alinskys theories (she
interviewed him personally for the project). In her
conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene
Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King.
The title of Hillarys thesis was There Is Only
the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In this
title she had singled out the single most important
Alinsky contribution to the radical cause - his
embrace of political nihilism. An SDS radical once
wrote, The issue is never the issue. The issue is
always the revolution.
“There is Only the Fight” Seems very appropriate for most any rabid dog Democrat. Get the power, its consequences don’t matter if you control the power.
“Constitutional Vigilantism” imagine that. It’s no different than the backdoor “Judicial Vigilantism” they use in creating supposed laws and rights out of thin air to meet their power grabbing needs. We just prefer to ‘legislate’ our goals with guns. Guess who’s gonna win if it ever comes down to the big fracas? There aren’t enough Rambo contractor goons to win that fight.
Excellent anti-Hitlery campaign material.
“Hillary concludes her thesis with
these words: Alinsky is regarded by many as the
proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy.
As such, he has been feared - just as Eugene Debs or
Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared,
because each embraced the most radical of political
faiths - democracy. But democracy as understood
by the American founders is not the most radical
of all political faiths or, if it is, they regarded it as
dangerous enough to put checks and balances in its
way to restrain it.
When Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1969,
she was offered a job with Alinskys new training
institute in Chicago. She opted instead to enroll at
Yale Law School, where she met her husband, and
future president, Bill Clinton.
In March 2007, the Washington Post reported that she had kept her connections even in the White House and gave
Alinskys army support: As first lady, Clinton
occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by
the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky
group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised
money and attended two events organized by the
Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.
For anyone who care to read, here is a link to Hitlery’s senior thesis:
What is newand dangerous......
I’m just astonished that the general population is so ignorant as to why the 2nd Amendment was drawn....to protect the people from the government....and now we are in dire need to utilize the provisions of that amendment for our government is totally out of control and is too corrupt to chance the direction it has now taken.
Thanks for the read, CW
The gentleman writing stops halfway through the story after offering all sorts of ‘winceable’ moments regarding the Klan and Posse Commitatus. He ignores the American Revolution, The War Between the States, Hoovervilles, Waco and Ruby Ridge. Indeed the Supreme Court does get to say what the law is, thats enumerated Constitutional power. But what happens when the executive branch takes that power beyond what the Supreme Court says it is? He never gets to that....tyranny is tyranny regardless of legal authority. At a certain point, Americans not on the dole in some fashion, will not accept tyranny above and beyond a certain point. At that point are they vigilantes or patriots?
Is the Bureau of Land Management a government agency, of a private, foreign controlled, corporation??
The ONLY winner (so far) is Godwin!
CN U SAY THS N 140 CHRS?
We all know THIS answer!
The 'patriots' are yesterdays 'freedom fighters' IE, the winners.
Sorry, Slate, but it was the government that came with guns.
“And it comes with guns.”
Yep. The guns brought by the BLM JBT’s. To which the ‘vigilante’ constitutionalists brought their own.
Because it doesn’t make sense to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Never mind the weaponizing of every feral government agency from dogcatcher on up. Armed IRS agents are good.
Ask George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams... mainstream constitutional ‘vigilantes’ all.
Neither Bundy or any of the other ranchers would win, no matter how strong their case or how weak the Government’s , in an Clinton or Obama Court. thy would be in a kangaroo court.
That picture, I can’t imagine that happening, yet I see it coming, it’s scary.
Funny, I saw a lot of footage from the standoff, but not one instance of Patriots “waving guns at federal officials”.
Could somebody be lyin’ here, Jared Goldstein?
CWII is going to be a real shock to the Libtards. They may have to actually live under the US Constitution again. :-)
That picture, I cant imagine that happening, yet I see it coming, its scary.