The ONLY winner (so far) is Godwin!
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.
Obama’s ‘pen and phone’ vs. Constitution’s checks and balances
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 Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s 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 Hillary’s 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 Alinsky’s teachings as recounted by The New Republic’s 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfTSYe72KsI
I hope and pray for that everyday!
bfl
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
Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley
undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted
her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s 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 Hillary’s 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.”
Bump
BFL
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!
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.
Just sayin’
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.