Skip to main content

According to this report, Cliven Bundy's armed "militia" is now harassing the residents of Bunkerville, Nevada.

Democrat Congressman Stephen Horsford, who happens to be African-American, has requested that local law enforcement intervene and stop Bundy's armed hooligans from causing mayhem in and around Bunkerville, Nevada.

I offer the obvious counter-factual: what if a white Republican congressman wrote an open letter to local law enforcement demanding that they do their jobs and stop a group of black or brown insurrectionists from brandishing weapons, setting up checkpoints on public roads, and harassing white people?

Moreover, if Fox News and the Right-wing media were laid out on their collective fainting couch by two members of a group called "The New Black Panthers", they whose "crime" was having the temerity to stand outside of a polling area while holding sticks and looking "mean", what madness would ensue if Bundy and his brigands were people of color (or even white "liberals" or "progressives")?

The feeble response by the federal and state government to Cliven Bundy's welfare king revolt is both fascinating and important because it is one more example of how white skin privilege, Right-wing populist authoritarianism, conservatism, and white supremacy have helped to create a protected class of people in the United States.

Privilege consists of all those day-to-day things that a given person does not have to think about.

In the context of Cliven Bundy and the rise of the White Right in the Age of Obama, white privilege consists of the freedom for white conservative protesters and militia members to point guns at federal law enforcement agents--and to do so with the reasonable expectation that you will not be shot dead.

Moreover, if said white conservative was shot dead for brandishing a weapon and/or threatening the life of a federal law enforcement agent, white privilege almost guarantees that they will become a martyr and hero for movement conservatism.

White men like Cliven Bundy and his ilk can commit acts of domestic terrorism, shoot up schools, or openly defy the legitimacy and authority of the country's first black President (and Attorney General--this latter point is central and critical to the White Right's histrionics in the Age of Obama) and there will be no national discussion about Whiteness and White Masculinity. Why? They are just individual outliers who in the (white) popular imagination tell us nothing about "the ways of white folks".

Like Obi-Wan Kenobi's Jedi mind trick in Star Wars: A New Hope, in such instances, Whiteness tells its owners and adherents that "there is nothing to see here, move along".

Local law enforcement in the United States are heavily militarized. This had led to the abuse of citizens, murder, illegal and unlawful invasions of privacy, and excessive force in black and brown, as well as poor white communities. Consequently, the local and state police in Nevada should be able to neutralize Cliven Bundy's thugs with relative ease.

A complication.

What if Bundy's "patriots" were part of a larger movement that succeeded in taking over a town, city, or region?

Drawing on operational doctrines and Pentagon war plans, Small Wars Journal explored how the United States military would navigate the political and legal challenges of putting down a domestic revolt.

Cliven Bundy's antics, and those of the broader White Right in the Age of Obama, reveals the prescient nature of the scenario explored in "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future":

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest. Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points -- on major transportation lines. Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.” Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted.

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.

The insurrectionists will be defeated by the United States military. "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future" details the process and its aftermath:
Federal forces continue to tighten the noose as troops seize and secure power and water stations, radio and TV stations, and hospitals. The final phase of the operation, restoring order and returning properly elected officials to their offices, will be the most sensitive.

Movements must be planned and executed more carefully than the operations that established the conditions for handover. At this point military operations will be on the downturn but the need for more politically aware military advice will not. War, and the use of federal military force on U.S. soil, remains an extension of policy by other means.

Given the invocation of the Insurrection Act, the federal government must defeat the insurrection, preferably with minimum force. Insurrectionists and their sympathizers must have no doubt that an uprising against the Constitution will be defeated. Dealing with the leaders of the insurrection can be left to the proper authorities, but drawing from America history, military advice would suggest an amnesty for individual members of the militia and prosecution for leaders of the movement who broke the law. This fictional scenario leads not to conclusions but points to ponder when considering 21st century full spectrum operations in the continental United States.

The Right-wing media helped to birth Cliven Bundy and the rise of the White Right in the post civil rights era. His armed insurrectionists are part of a cabal that includes a murderer's row and rogues gallery of the most contemptible elements of the Right-wing such as the militia movement, the Koch Brothers, Fox News and its echo chamber, the Tea Party, white identity organizations, as well as Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists.

These elements constitute a Venn diagram of civic ugliness and a collective threat to the Common Good.

Ultimately, when a white male conservative takes up arms against the federal government it is an act of "patriotism" and "courage": Cliven Bundy is the myth of the American founding and frontier channeled through a violent, aggressive type of white masculinity which wraps itself in the vestments of the Constitution, the Bible, and the American flag.

Historically, when black and brown folks have taken up arms in self-defense against state tyranny and racism their deeds are reframed by the mainstream media and the (White) popular imagination as treason, rebellion, thuggery, and a threat to "law and order".

If Cliven Bundy and his compatriots in armed insurrection were people of color (allowing for the occasional black or brown conservative token and human prop), he and they would quickly learn that Uncle Sam has little to no patience for those who openly defy his power and authority.

Prison, death, and/or the hospital bed would be their reward.

 

Originally posted to chaunceydevega on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:26 PM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community, White Privilege Working Group, and Barriers and Bridges.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (285+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, OleHippieChick, aoeu, bunsk, nupstateny, badscience, howabout, DEMonrat ankle biter, TokenLiberal, a2nite, PhilJD, here4tehbeer, MHB, Gooserock, sethtriggs, Tonedevil, raptavio, jck, Habitat Vic, Paragryne, cotterperson, mookins, Mannie, KayCeSF, Meteor Blades, Tony Situ, Throw The Bums Out, Laurel in CA, Matt Z, old wobbly, Empower Ink, kharma, fcvaguy, Yellow Canary, Wreck Smurfy, peacestpete, vahana, maggiejean, Eric Stetson, FogCityJohn, slowbutsure, devis1, rapala, bleeding blue, carpunder, Sylv, high uintas, devtob, Crabby Abbey, Onomastic, Kevskos, Free Jazz at High Noon, Chi, TomP, wasatch, Involuntary Exile, Wendy Slammo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, swampyankee, Emerson, AnnieR, pajoly, myboo, The Hindsight Times, SeaTurtle, yawnimawke, cassandraX, 2thanks, Sal Bovoso, mph2005, chicagobleu, BarackStarObama, i saw an old tree today, shesaid, on the cusp, commonmass, Christy1947, El Bloguero, chimpy, afisher, Mayfly, theBreeze, tubacat, gramofsam1, VPofKarma, shopkeeper, countwebb, tofumagoo, Robynhood too, Terre, CwV, ratcityreprobate, pvasileff, trivium, ADDICAKES, tgrshark13, Dr Colossus, awcomeon, Glen The Plumber, Eric K, defluxion10, soarbird, anodnhajo, newpioneer, dewtx, jiffypop, Got a Grip, jbsoul, peptabysmal, joe pittsburgh, mconvente, wader, Angie in WA State, Smoh, Ditch Mitch KY, sydneyluv, ATFILLINOIS, flavor411, Gurnt, bbctooman, Debby, weezilgirl, Steveningen, LilithGardener, TracieLynn, navajo, oldpotsmuggler, emmasnacker, IndieGuy, praying manatheist, ichibon, Mathazar, Larsstephens, genethefiend, Paul Ferguson, harlinchi, Hammerhand, katrinka, Knucklehead, FindingMyVoice, begone, owlbear1, Jim Domenico, reflectionsv37, HCKAD, buckstop, Diogenes2008, Hey338Too, Sharon Wraight, Sandino, MrJersey, marleycat, Bule Betawi, tin woodswoman, TheDuckManCometh, CA ridebalanced, Black Max, J Williams, Nebraskablue, Jeff Y, Denise Oliver Velez, kaliope, KenBee, Texknight, glitterlust, camlbacker, caryltoo, laurnj, Gardener in PA, eeff, Aureas2, democracy inaction, terrypinder, JBL55, vicki, The Marti, HedwigKos, sny, vtjim, Bluefin, WaryLiberal, Box of Rain, Geenius at Wrok, prettygirlxoxoxo, spacecadet1, MKinTN, ThatSinger, ranger995, J M F, Raggedy Ann, Cedwyn, furrfu, Tim DeLaney, jfromga, Kristina40, mkor7, Librarianmom, blueoregon, Jon Sitzman, Homer177, Carol in San Antonio, Joieau, Hayate Yagami, oortdust, spaceshot, AoT, Jakkalbessie, Yasuragi, citisven, Windowpane, bobswern, science nerd, edwardssl, samoashark, papercut, remembrance, maybeeso in michigan, BlueZone, skyounkin, I am a Patriot, radarlady, legendmn, millwood, The Jester, cordgrass, OldDragon, Ian Reifowitz, Liberal Granny, odum, Subversive, poco, showthetaxreturn, PatConnors, Loudoun County Dem, LaFeminista, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, jdmorg, timewarp, kenwards, Caddis Fly, artmartin, joynow, AR2, cybrestrike, murphy0071, carrps, mikejay611, Krypto, Hetrose, The Sheeping of America, raspberryberet, kitchieboy, zootscoot, Dissentinator, bonnybedlam, stvnjon, SphericalXS, Man from Wasichustan, Invisigoth92, FarWestGirl, thanatokephaloides, Aaa T Tudeattack, GirlSwimmingInASeaOfRed, dsteffen, amoginesq, mercedeslackey, Terry S, Gwennedd, wiggin01, mdmslle, twocrows1023, Quicksilver2723, jilikins, SherrieLudwig, TKO333, greenotron, lastamendment, Oh Mary Oh, mod2lib, Plantsmantx, Jollie Ollie Orange, Teenygozer, dalef77, jaysunb, splashy
  •  Branch Davidians suffered from a Prophet. (26+ / 0-)

    Cliven Bundy has no such religious importance.

    Rifle militia have no idea what a helicopter gunship is capable of.

    If they declare war . . .

  •  Something similar to the Tulsa race riot (15+ / 0-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    1256 homes burned down or destroyed, 10,000 left homeless, hundreds wounded.  Different tactics would be used today, but there would certainly be plenty of shooting.

  •  Not sure how this is much of a problem (0+ / 0-)

    for the US - sooner or later the town goes down.

    No analogy with Bundy's - because the facts would all have to be almost the same.

    Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

    by dov12348 on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:46:33 PM PDT

  •  I looked for some first hand account of such (4+ / 0-)

    "checkpoints" and I found none.  Clearly alarming if such did exist, but I'm not sure they do, or do anymore.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:46:58 PM PDT

    •  SPLC looked into it as well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, J M F, 6412093

      They talked to news crews who went looking for checkpoints and didn't find any.

      http://www.splcenter.org/...

      The things that are confirmed are chilling though.

      Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:06:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow - Those calls should should be traceable (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hayate Yagami, Yasuragi, poco, mikejay611
        They aren’t the only residents who feel threatened. According to a report from KLAS-TV in Las Vegas, the militiamen have also threatened people who live in the nearby town of Mesquite, and businesses there claim they have lost over $100,000 because of their presence.

        The station reported that a local hotel was forced to evacuate all of its clients one evening following a bomb threat. The hotel also received at least nine threatening calls after it permitted Bureau of Land Management rangers to stay there. The callers demanded the BLM rangers be kicked out or the hotel “would not be standing in the morning.”

        One hotel worker told the news crew he had been told by an anonymous militia member that he would be “dragged out in the parking lot and shot”.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 05:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In the scenario, the milita (30+ / 0-)

    blocks I-95? That's interstate so Feds. But can you imagine the fiters blocking I-95??? The truckers alone would smash the stoopid to bits.

    Is it wrong that I'm LOLing?

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
    Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:48:00 PM PDT

  •  ... (32+ / 0-)
    ‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’
    “never interfere with the enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake.”
    Never … murder a man who is committing suicide
    “Then, gentlemen,” said Napoleon, “let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him.”

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

  •  will read later - but the answer is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MHB, chmood, Diogenes2008

    nobody gets out of that town alive.

  •  We already know what would happen (41+ / 0-)

    The Mulford Law in 1967 in reaction to the Black Panther Party showed up at the CA state capitol fully armed; Winger icon Ronald Reagan led the charge to implement what was then one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country because of white fear of the BPP and the desire to take guns out of the hands of what they termed "Black extremists"

    In historical context, it was merely the latest attempt at that time to ensure that African Americans did not have the same access to firearms that whites did.

    Check it out; wingers seem to have forgotten Don Mulford

  •  Well, gun control would finally be a reality. (8+ / 0-)

    Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act of 1967 was instigated when some "black teapartiers" known as the Black Panthers began legal, open carry.  In the end I suppose, white people feared black people more than they loved the Bill of Rights.  One thing for a white man to mass murder children, and an other thing for a black man to be walking around armed.

    •  NO, it wouldn't. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weezilgirl, AoT, Yasuragi, mikejay611

      Look at Florida now, already with a black woman who got mucho decades and now a retrial for less of an act than the fella who shot at a carload of teenagers because they offended him by playng loud music and insulting him by not stopping when he told them to, who is going self defense as we sit, and the distinction between the two being the point of the new stand your ground laws for white guys - haven't heard personally of any SYG cases where the little ladies of said white guys had the weapons yet.

    •  we are remembering it was the FBI COINTELPRO (7+ / 0-)

      that initially infiltrated guns to the Panthers in an effort to discredit them so they could be framed as dangerous and violent and therefore shooting blacks and browns would be ...'Justified'.
        It worked to a large degree. Shootings were controversial, but 'the dangerous Panthers had it coming' in the national (white) view...more or less.

      There were similar unsuccessful efforts to try to coopt the SDS type activities with guns too that failed. Maybe cause they were largely white, maybe not. I know for a fact the guns were real, I had one..more were around with other people. Fortunately non violence was a strong pressure and reinforced as an idea.
        The police were pretty provocative during and before the IV riots, an eye opener that was, especially when anybody with two brain cells rubbing together could tell this was nothing compared to a day in the life in Oaktown or Watts etc.

      And also that the FBI would try ( and largely succeed) to discredit the white students by burning the BofA in Isla Vista was pretty dam amazing...and the media didn't challenge it then, and still basically hasn't in spite of the published and unchallenged memoirs of the agent in charge of it.

      'If they could beat and invade and gas and run down with patrol cars the well off resource heavy children of white privilege, what must they be doing to the poor and people of color and underpriviledge?' is what it then sounded like in the town of IV..and after the NG shooting in Ohio, the veil was pierced forever. Even white priviledge has it's limits.

       

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:44:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  None Of Them Would Make It Out of Their Houses (0+ / 0-)

    to a rendezvous.

    Unless they're organizing via carrier pigeon, Fatherland Security would have them in custody under a pile of indictments.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:05:11 PM PDT

  •  What happens? (9+ / 0-)

    You don't have to speculate.  Ronald Reagan, when governor of California signed some of the most restrictive gun control legislation while governor.  The reason?  Black Panthers carrying guns in public places.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:14:15 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this, chaunceydevega. (24+ / 0-)

    Your points about white privilege and its manifestations, especially in this militia incident -- gun pointing by whites at Feds without consequence is a biggie, you'd think -- have to be broadcast far and wide. These separatists cannot be allowed to get away with it.
    I think the language in the ::shudder:: full spectrum ops in the ::shudder:: homeland is trying to be sensitive, fair and reasonable.
    Your contrast of the treatment and devious terminology used when referring to white vs. black so-called militias or insurrectionists is a striking example of an insidiously all-encompassing white privilege. It's far past time for this to be loudly exposed, written about and derogated.

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
    Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Thu May 01, 2014 at 01:32:24 PM PDT

  •  Just read the article and and comments on it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, tgrshark13, KenBee, AoT

    Off hand, many comments took offense at the scenario--proper (white Christian) people ain't gonna do such a thing.  From another angle, the authors should have started not with a fictional scenario, but those rooted in American history itself. "Organized bands of African Americans on the west side of Chicago have rebelled....this article proposes to examine  how the military will or can be involved in suppressing the rebellion. History tells us since the Tulsa insurrection a policy needs to be created to guide the suppression of historically occurring African American rebellions."  

    •  The comment thread is jaw dropping (6+ / 0-)
      Tea Party - KKK - Anti-Immigrant coalition taking over a city?
      Why not use drug cartels subverting a border or state (it's happening in Mexico)? Maybe even make this super fictional and create some zombie apocolypse but tieing a law abiding organization to the KKK and Anti -immigration groups sounds as bad as Napilatano's vportraying vets as potential radicals.
      A retraction is required at a minimum. More likely the authors need to be separated from instructing officers in any capacity. It's been done when officer's discussed radical islam as the enemy.
      To let this lay unadressed is asking for the equivalemnt of what Hasan did at ft. Hood but potentially on a much larger scale.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu May 01, 2014 at 05:42:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "If You Investigate Whites, Expect Terrorism?" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, AoT, travelerxxx, mikejay611
        A retraction is required at a minimum.....  To let this lay unadressed is asking for the equivalemnt of what Hasan did at ft. Hood but potentially on a much larger scale.
        Actually this sounds remarkably like Anders Breivik's trerrorist manifesto, who said he killed 80 people (mostly kids) to fight "political correctness" and intolerance.  Because nothing says "tolerance" like killing anyone that disagrees with you!  White privilege indeed.

        Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

        by bernardpliers on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:18:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fox would literally shit a brick (6+ / 0-)

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu May 01, 2014 at 02:35:08 PM PDT

  •  i've been hoping (30+ / 0-)

    that the plan has been to wait them out, until things quiet down and many go home, to prevent it becoming another waco. i've been assuming that the bundys can't afford to support all these people for too long, and these people will need to go back to their jobs. but i'm starting to wonder how they support themselves in the first place. i'm guessing bundy isn't the only one living off the government while condemning its very existence.

    but the intimidation of the locals is out of hand. although that may also help with public relations, if the government does finally respond. bundy has lost the right wing noise machine, and he's losing the locals. it's just a matter of time until the locals are demanding help from the government.

    and yes, if this was a black "militia," we'd already be at philadelphia 1985.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 01, 2014 at 03:33:02 PM PDT

  •  Wish I could rec this a million times. (23+ / 0-)

    If Bundy and his armed gangs were liberal and/or non-white, they would already be in jail for disturbing the peace, obstruction of justice, threatening law enforcement officers, or possibly even on terrorism charges.

    Quite possibly, they would have been shot dead by cops when they first resisted the government enforcement of court orders against Bundy by pointing guns at federal officers.

    We have a problem in this country with unequal treatment under the law, depending on people's race and/or political ideology. It has long been a major problem and doesn't seem to be getting better.

    The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

    by Eric Stetson on Thu May 01, 2014 at 03:43:31 PM PDT

  •  The (White) Privilege of Individuality: (29+ / 0-)
    White men like Cliven Bundy and his ilk can commit acts of domestic terrorism, shoot up schools, or openly defy the legitimacy and authority of the country's first black President (and Attorney General--this latter point is central and critical to the White Right's histrionics in the Age of Obama) and there will be no national discussion about Whiteness and White Masculinity. Why? They are just individual outliers who in the (white) popular imagination tell us nothing about "the ways of white folks".
    This is one of the key advantages of white privilege and one of the key disadvantages imposed by racism.  No one looks at a white criminal and then considers me suspect because I also happen to be white.  In contrast, the actions of nonwhite criminals are thought to reflect some broader, more general characteristic of whatever nonwhite racial group is at issue.  (And this is without even considering the role race plays in who we classify as "criminal.")

    As a white guy, I am not burdened by the notion that I am somehow responsible for the actions of other white people.  Nor am I burdened by the idea that my shortcomings are somehow an inherent product of my whiteness.  But people of color face these notions every day.

    Not to mention the fact that people like Bundy and his armed supporters are entitled to do things (like take literal aim at federal officers) without fear of punishment that no nonwhite person would ever be allowed to do.  Indeed, the difference in treatment is so great that Bundy and his supporters are praised and lionized for their criminal activity.  

    Welcome to the new colorblind, "post-racial" America.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Thu May 01, 2014 at 03:58:36 PM PDT

  •  There was a great diary earlier (9+ / 0-)

    reminding us all about our brother Bobby Seale. I don't think we need any imagination on what would happen if the racial component were reversed.

    Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

    by high uintas on Thu May 01, 2014 at 04:03:28 PM PDT

  •  Nothing, because they don't notice race (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milkbone, Bronxboy47

    maniacal laughing.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Thu May 01, 2014 at 04:14:35 PM PDT

  •  Just send in the National Guard (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weezilgirl, HCKAD, WaryLiberal

    I don't care what they do on their land, but why the fuck are they allowed to setup checkpoints on public roads?

    •  Good possibility white NG members join the rebels (0+ / 0-)

      Especially in the Southern and "wild West-mindset" western states. And they would probably take NG heavy weapons, armor, supplies and aircraft with them.
      When people go crazy, they go totally crazy. There is no halfway.

      Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

      by fourthcornerman on Thu May 01, 2014 at 06:33:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if the NG is unreliable (4+ / 0-)

        now would be a good time to find out.  There are good arguments for restraint, but that isn't one of them.

        What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

        by happymisanthropy on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:16:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sometimes there are outlandish comments... (5+ / 0-)

        and then there are REALLY outlandish comments!

      •  Actually, this is a very valid point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raspberryberet, tubaguy

        I work with and personally know members of the NG in both Texas and Louisiana. Every one of them I know would have a hard time going after Bundy and/or the "militia" thugs. I've heard several of them talking, and they support what is happening at Bundy's ranch in NV. Come to think of it, the "several" I overheard are all officers in the NG. Some others are not officers. They all happen to be white and two (that I know) are members of the Oath Keepers organization. They leave Oath Keepers literature laying around our workplace all the time.

        Anyone who thinks this "crazy militia talk" is limited to civilians needs to rethink. There's no invisible wall that somehow stops members of our military from the same attitudes and prejudices that plague the general population.

        Remember, Armed Forces Radio plays Rush Limbaugh all over the world for our troops. Even if they're stationed in South Korea, they can still get their daily dose of hate. I'm assuming AFR plays Fox News for the troops, also, but I don't know with certainty.

  •  Absolutely right--and in addition to clear (10+ / 0-)

    white privilege, there is the really disturbing fact that these idiots are kissin' cousins of Sean Hannity, Ron and Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, and assorted other Republicans.

    The GOP's extremism has fed the militias and even, frighteningly, legitimized them enough that they were Fox News buddies until Cliven clumsily failed to couch his racism in code.

    We really do have a powerful fascist right in this country. That's another reason why these goons are not being chased out of Dodge.

    "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

    by cassandraX on Thu May 01, 2014 at 04:54:14 PM PDT

  •  Very interesting war game scenario (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Turn Left, KenBee, poco, travelerxxx

    Which includes a very interesting and....lively...discussion thread.

    Wow! This is just a small sample of the discussions. I would love to hear all these people's opinions of the current situation at the Bundy ranch.

    To me, wargaming involves deconstructing scenarios in a wide variety of possible events (correct me if I am wrong). My question is why would something unthinkable like this become "thinkable" enough to explore? Does the DoD consider it likely that future events will create conditions where segments of society will view our country's condition to be so bad they are compelled to engage in open rebellion?
    I am a member of the Tea Party and immediately saw that the insurrection was not representative of the Tea Party to which I belong.
    ....
    I have always said that the day right wing extremists get their act together is the day we will face a true battle for freedom in America.
    Personally, as a former Army officer and career intelligence officer, I would rather face an insurrection mounted by uber-liberals than one mounted by right wing extremists. Why? Because it is far more likely the right wing extremists were trained by the world’s foremost military; the United States military, and will understand planning and combat operations.
    This is an unimaginative and abbreviated scenario and analysis at best. An unstated assumption is that those in Darlington are not operating constitutionally when the reality is that the ONLY reason an insurrection would occur is due to the federal goverment having vacated their responsibility to follow the constitution. Those who would actually need to invoke the Insurrecton Act would already have conducted the affairs of their offices in such a patently un-American, unethical, illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous manner (anybody we know?) that the elected official should uave already been arrested and put on trial.
    I agree with many other posters that the scenario is ludicrous, UNLESS the current group occupying the White House remain there from 2012 through 2016 and unless there is an ongoing op to infiltrate the Tea Party and mount a false flag insurrection according to the scenario.
    I NO LONGER TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT and thanks to fools like Benson and Weber for it.
    As a retired Marine, conservative, TEA Party member, and Oathkeeper, I am appalled at this essay, which is nothing more than race-baiting and projection from two likely progressives. I've worked with the Army for YEARS and thought they were screwed up but now that I've read this trash, my thoughts are confirmed.
    Evidently things like the Posse Commitatus Act, the Tenth Amendment, and the US Constitution mean nothing to Benson and Weber, or this regime in DC for that matter.
    The RIGHT to revolt against an oppressive and tyrannical regime is enshrined in our founding documents...

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Thu May 01, 2014 at 05:35:37 PM PDT

  •  The only way to handle this is to handle it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, weezilgirl, HCKAD

    Frankly, you shouldn't get to threaten law enforcement with loaded weapons and walk away. Allowing them to do so has only emboldened them. They have committed crimes and need to be held to account or the federal government means nothing.

    I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

    by tgrshark13 on Thu May 01, 2014 at 05:54:56 PM PDT

    •  If this happened in Sean Hannity's (3+ / 0-)

      or any of the Fox talking heads' neighborhoods, these people would be arrested so fast it would make their heads spin.

      This would not be tolerated for one hour in any affluent
      neighborhood or city in America, but I guess the people in that town aren't rich so it's ok to subject them to whatever happens.

      I know this is slightly off of the main thread topic,
      racism still exists in America, but how did racism start in America?
      Some people wanted free labor to ensure big profits for themselves.

      It all traces back to money in the end and that includes racism.
      From what I've read, that is what Dr. Martin Luther King was planning to emphasis before he got assassinated.

    •  I suspect that there are photos of every one (4+ / 0-)

      of the yahoos who were slinging guns around. I hope they will be quietly removed to various prisons around the country. I cannot imagine that they will be allowed to "ride"  off from Bundy without being nabbed sooner or later.

      If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

      by weezilgirl on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:50:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I want to know, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mooshter, weezilgirl, Sixty Something

    You know that local county sheriff who has been hanging out with Bundy?
    Who's his boss?
    He has stood by watching crimes be committed, brandishing firearms, resisting Federales...
    The dereliction of his duty should get him fired and removed from office,no?
    And since he's the highest authority that Bundy respects, he's got to be the one to arrest Bundy.
    His boss needs to give him the choice.
    Make the pinch or be arrested himself.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu May 01, 2014 at 05:55:37 PM PDT

  •  What if they were Black? (0+ / 0-)

    Sure, it's fair to assume that if Bundy and his supporters were Black they would've been killed where they stood.  To assume that though means Federal agents are racist muderers.  

    Now, I don't disagree with any of that but since we are against Bundy that kinda puts us on the side of the BLM.  I don't know about you but I'm not going to support a bunch of racist pigs.

  •  Colfax Massacre - largest domestic terrorism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, 6412093, FogCityJohn

    event in American history took place in Colfax, Louisiana on Easter Sunday 1973. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken). Elections had just taken place and they had appointed the first black Sheriff in the United States.

    I did not know this part of our history until today when I Was watching this panel on the 14th Amendment today when I stumbled into the back story of Cruikshank v US. It's a SCOTUS decision beloved by gun rights activists because it states that the RKBA is a pre-existing right not dependent on the US Constitution.

    Professor John Payton, on the panel tells the context and the story, http://www.youtube.com/...

    The Cruikshank decision whitewashed the end of reconstruction when they exonerated the 3 convicted ring-leaders of the Colfax Massacre, which had taken place on Easter Sunday 1873. It was arguably the largest incident of domestic terrorism in American History.

    I'm gobsmacked.

    This is why the assholes in the neo-confederate militia movement thinks that civilians armed with small arms and cannons can over-throw elected government. Because they did.

    141 years ago, on Easter Sunday, they did exactly that. A Supreme Court Justice intervened at the trial, and later SCOTUS whitewashed the Massacre.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:46:24 PM PDT

    •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

      So because Keller overturned Cruikshank, you're going to defend Keller now?  Or are you going to lovey-dovey on the four liberals whose dissent relied extensively* on Cruikshank and were horrified that Scalia et al overturned it?

      You'll have to cherrypick pretty hard to pretend that it's the NRA and not the Brady people who love Cruikshank.

      And I don't remember a single liberal - NOT ONE (except possibly myself) who said at the time that "Keller overturned the longstanding Cruikshank precedent AND THAT'S A GOOD THING."  Instead it was all "Keller overturned "over 200 years" of precedent and that's a bad thng."  Even though Cruikshank wasn't even 200 years ago.

      Hell, Justice Stevens is still pissed that Cruikshank was overturned.  He's even still using the inaccurate 200 years figure.

      *Without Cruikshank, and cases based on Cruikshank, there never was a kollektiv rights interpretation of the second amendment in federal jurisprudence.  So it's pretty ridiculous to assert that Cruikshank is beloved by gun rights activists.

      What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:29:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your concern is noted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThatSinger

        The backstory is relevant to this diary. Did my post hit a tender nerve happymisanthropy?  Why are you attempting to redirect the focus away from the main point of my comment?

        I never heard of Cruiikshank until I started reading Daily Kos. Cruikshank was quoted often by RKBA group members as a seminal case that established a doctrine that the right to armed self defense predates the US Constitution. If you've seen gun control advocates at Daily Kos cite it as support for state's rights, e.g. to justify the Sullivan Act and similar state laws, then you should provide some links to prove your claim.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 04:40:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  1873 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      In the first line you said 1973

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:22:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cruickshank and SYG laws - relevant to this diary (5+ / 0-)

      The back story of Cruickshank, is relevant to this diary because it came from an incident where black citizens, armed with small arms, were attempting to defend the results of their recent election. In particular they were defending the appointment of the first black Sheriff in American history.

      The massacre took place at Colfax County Courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana. People who want to downplay the significance call it the Colfax riot. It was not a riot. It was insurrection and a massacre.

      An armed mob of hundreds of white citizen/insurgents refused to accept the election and attacked local law enforcement at the Colfax County Courthouse. The insurgents set fire to the courthouse, destroyed local law enforcement, captured the surviving black citizens who were defending the courthouse. The white insurgents refused to accept their surrender and slaughtered them instead.

      A federal investigation followed and indictments were whittled down to a few ring leaders. After the ring leaders were tried in federal court and convicted, a sitting supreme court Justice intervened, declaring the trial unlawful, and releasing the convicts on the spot.

      The appeal went all the way to SCOTUS and in 1876 we got the very flawed Cruikshank v US decision.

      So yes, in answer to the diaries, we already know what would happen if a group of armed black citizens attempted to defend elected officials. In 2014 they could still be shot  with impunity by armed insurgents invoking Nevada's Stand Your Ground law.

      Thanks in part to ALEC infested state legislatures 140 years after the Colfax Massacre, white privilege to kill black citizens is alive and well, codified in SYG laws in almost half the states.


      Caveat - I am neither a historian nor a Constitutional Scholar, nor even a lawyer, so I have no way to assess for myself whether the indictments after the Colfax Massacre were indeed flawed. My thoughts here derive from discussions by constitutional law scholars in a 2009 panel at the American Constitution Society.
      Video here: The Road from Lincoln to Obama

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 04:58:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you agree that Cruikshank was flawed (0+ / 0-)

        then you must have been happy when Keller overturned it?  Or where you horrified, like Justice Stevens?

        It would have been nice if the four liberals on the supreme court had said "We disagree with this decision, but all the same overturning Cruikshank was the right thing to do."

        But they didn't!  They said that overturning "200 years of precedent [by which them meant Cruikshank even though it's not actually 200 years ago]" was awful, awful.

        What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

        by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:46:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you want to discuss Keller (0+ / 0-)

          or are you just doubling down on snide?

          If the former, please post a link, and I'll take a look when I have time.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:02:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Stevens's dissent:

            In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876) , the Court sustained a challenge to respondents’ convictions under the Enforcement Act of 1870 for conspiring to deprive any individual of “ ‘any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 548. The Court wrote, as to counts 2 and 10 of respondents’ indictment:

            “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Id., at 553.

            This is the origin of EVERY federal court precedent saying "The second amendment is not an individual right."  Miller cites Cruikshank, everyone else cites Miller.

            What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

            by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:36:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and I'll add one more (sorry) (0+ / 0-)

            This diary mentions the Cruikshank case in the context it is usually understood: The original foundation for all future rulings that the second amendment is not an individual right.

            What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

            by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:42:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              It's my understanding that much of Cruikshank has been overturned. So...

              ... why do so many modern cases/scholars still cite Cruikshank for its precedent re a pre-existing right?

              In the 18th century a few states, Louisiana and Connecticut to name 2, explicitly articulated an individual right to bear arms. Connecticut's Individual Right to Arms - 190 Years Before Heller.

              In the 18th & 19th centuries, most states articulated a collective right in their state constitutions. Some states were clearly concerned that militias and military be strictly under civilian control, and a few had explicitly racist protection for the right to bear arms, (e.g. Tennessee and Florida).

              In the later half of the century more than a dozen states had specifically excluded concealed carry from the constitutional RKBA.

              I still have no idea why your harping on Keller, or even what is Keller about. Is it Keller v US, US v Keller? What's the back story of the SCOTUS petition in Keller?

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I meant Heller. (0+ / 0-)

                duh, me.  Um, I don't know about most states but Washington's constitution dates to 1896 and it includes an individual right.

                I suspect race had to do with a lot of it, especially with "what changed" halfway through the 19th century.  The civil war, the 14th amendment, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, etc.  Basically, transitioning from slavery to slightly less overt racism.

                A written law against anyone carrying a concealed weapon (enforced only against black people) coupled with an unwritten law that any black person who actually exercises his right to carry openly gets lynched... I think the laws worked largely like that even outside the south.

                Before the 14th amendment, it was all but unanimously accepted that everyone had a right to keep and bear arms, and that "everyone" meant white people.

                After the 14th amendment, in practice things stayed the same but laws had to be revised somewhat to make what they had done all along stay constitutional.

                What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

                by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:23:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, Keller = Heller (0+ / 0-)

                  FWIW, I don't have an opinion about whether Heller was correctly decided or not. That's way beyond my experience and knowledge of constitutional history.

                  What I care about most, and the reason I write about Firearms Law and Policy is understanding Heller, and how the courts will apply it to state and local laws. I want to have some understanding of which ones might survive the next SCOTUS review.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:32:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  ASDF (0+ / 0-)

        The insurgents were prosecuted under a law against "conspiring to violate people's constitutional rights," or some such.  Among the constitutional rights violated was the right to keep and bear arms.

        The prosecution relied heavily on the 14th amendment giving the Federal government the power to enforce the Bill of Rights when individual states violated those rights, particularly the rights of black people.

        In order to achieve the desired outcome of letting the KKK do whatever they wanted, the Supreme Court said that the second amendment does NOT protect any right to keep and bear arms, except in the context of a well-regulated state militia.

        The Court also said that there IS a right to keep and bear arms, but the Federal Government is powerless to enforce it, because it's not a CONSTITUTIONAL right and the statute only covered constitutional rights.

        In other words, the Supreme Court in Cruikshank essentially nullified the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, in more or less exactly the same way they did in Plessy v. Fergusson.

        Notwithstanding
        The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
        Congress does not have the power to crack down on rights-crushing terrorists [Cruikshank]
        Notwithstanding
        No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
        States can impose different laws on different races [Plessy]
        In both cases the goal was to deny black people the rights the 14th amendment guaranteed to them.

        Cruikshank is where the collective rights interpretation of the second amendment was invented. (There might have been one lower level state judge who came up with it earlier, but even he admitted that the majority disagreed with him).  Anyone saying "The second amendment is so that states can keep a militia" is echoing Cruikshank, whether they realize it or not.

        Without Cruikshank, and cases based on Cruikshank, there is NO federal precedent for the second amendment being a collective right, and there is NOTHING for Stevens to whine about Scalia overturning.

        What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

        by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:15:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Weren't they prosecuted under the Enforcement (0+ / 0-)

          Act, which said you can not go together to intimidate...

          It's the backstory I want to understand... which currently is informed only by Wikipedia on Colfax, John Payton's remarks on Reconstruction, at an American Constituion Society event in 2009 and the diary linked below.

          John Payton's remarks on Reconstruction
          [The transcript is mine, first draft.]

          The historians wrote early histories of reconstruction, and I would say reconconstruction didn’t fail. It was destroyed. It was destroyed.

          The early histories of reconstruction, if you read any of them today, and you wouldn’t have occasion to do it, but if you do, they are really awful things to read.
          They are filled with racism. They don’t just say that black people shouldn’t vote. They say “They are incapable of serving as officers in a democracy.” “The’re inferior beings and we simply have to reorganized our society to deal with them as inferior beings.” The most prominent historian said that.

          One who taught at Columbia and was quite famous in his time was William Dunning. He controlled this field. And he said as a noncontroversial matter what I just said.

          The historians have, in essence, gone back and revised all that. Eric wrote a tremendous book called Reconstruction that tells the true story of reconstruction.

          The lawyers and the courts have not done a similar thing. So all of our cases from this really awful period remain, cases that, believe it or not, are still cited.

          I’m going to give you just one good example, and then I’m going to say how Thurgood Marshall looked back on this. And the example is a case that a lot of lawyers have heard and today, many other people have heard too.

          It is a case about the destruction of reconstruction. In 1873 on Easter day, a group of extremely well-armed former members of the confederacy surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana. Colfax is the name of the Speaker of the House whose name is on the Fourteenth Amendment. And they surrounded it because there had been appointed a black Sheriff, the first black Sheriff.

          And inside the courthouse were hundreds of black people defending their first black Sheriff. This is a defense of justice and the rule of law. They [the armed white insurgents] were well-armed. They attacked, laid siege to the courthouse. They blew it up, set it on fire and killed hundreds of black people. Three white people were killed.

          The result of that was, obviously, you can’t get any recourse from the local authorities; they were destroyed.

          The result of that was a year or so later, a federal grand jury indicted a hundred or so of the participants. That was whittled down to just the ring leaders. They were tried for violating the Enforcement Act, which says you can not go together to intimidate, you know the act.

          And at that trial, they are convicted.

          Riding circuit was Justice Bradley from the Supreme Court. He sat in on the trial, riding circuit. When they were convicted, in court he intervened and said that he found the trial unlawful and freed the ringleaders right there in court.

          In the Supreme Court the case is handled by Reverdy Johnson.  And Reverdy Johnson is the former Attorney General of the United States. But he is best known in this context as the man who argued for the slaveholders in Dred Scott. OK, that’s who he is.He wins that case. And they are exonerated.

          This is in every way the end of Reconstruction. That is the overthrow, by armed white insurgents, of a government in Louisiana. The case is Cruikshank. If you read Cruikshank, you will not be able to figure out a single thing I just said. It contains no history. OK. You won’t figure out a single thing!

          We have a parade of cases. Cruikshank, Slaughterhouse, the Civil Rights cases, Plessy, Mississippi vs. Williams, Giles vs. Alabama, on and on and on and on, that are using a history that is corrupted, and filled with racism. Those cases remain as cases, believe it or not some of them are still cited for things that matter today. The historians have gone back and done this and the lawyers haven’t.

          Thurgood Marshall, on the bicentennial of the Constitution gave a speech that turns into a [???] piece and it contains this quote.

          “While the Union survived the Civil War, the Constitution did not. In it’s place arose a new more promising basis for justice and equality. The Fourteenth Amendment.”

          The Fourteenth Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, it contains the clause that says everyone born in the United States are citizens of the United States. Those were intended to be revolutionary aspects of our government.

          And when he says “the Union survived and the Constitution didn’t,” the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were intended to do a revolution to how we actually exist as a democracy.

          The Supreme Court cases that originally interpret those things are part of the overthrow of reconstruction. OK. And we should shed those cases.  So, I’d say this opportunity now may be the first clear opportunity we have, to look at
          what those amendments were  intended to do, to see how are country aught to be organized? What did Privileges and Immunities really mean by the people who drafted that? What did Equal Protection mean? What did that concept of democracy actually mean for where we are?

          Unfortunately the first couple of decades afterward were filled with people who were running away from the promise of the 14th Amendment instead of running toward it. And I think we ought to

          Black History: Reconstruction
          Slates for local offices were certified by each candidate. In rural Grant Parish in the Red River Valley, freedmen fearing a Democratic attempt to take over the parish government reinforced defenses at the Colfax courthouse in late March. White militias gathered from the area a few miles outside the settlement. Rumors and fears abounded on both sides. William Ward, an African-American Union veteran and militia captain, mustered his company in Colfax and went to the courthouse. On Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, the whites attacked the defenders at the courthouse. There was confusion about who shot one of the white leaders after an offer by the defenders to surrender. It was a catalyst to mayhem. In the end, three whites died and 120-150 blacks were killed, some 50 while held as prisoners. The disproportionate numbers of black to white fatalities and documentation of brutalized bodies are why contemporary historians call it the Colfax Massacre rather than the Colfax Riot, as it is known locally.
          I've never argued that the 2A codifies a collective right, so you can continue preaching to the choir if that makes you happy.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:41:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My mistake. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            In that case, maybe you were happy when Cruikshank was overturned.  My apologies.

            What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

            by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:46:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have no opinion about Cruikshank and the 2A (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              because I think there is a pre-existing right to self defense that doesn't reside in the US Constitution.

              And I think the US Constitution, as interpreted in Heller, and the state Constitutions leave ample room for both federal and state regulations on time, manner, place as well as who can bear arms for self defense.

              Lefty Coaster wrote a persuasive diary that McDonald should incorporate the 2A under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and that's what Alan Gura argued. But Scalia stuck to the flawed Due Process line of arguments.

              I think eventually the flaws in the Due Process doctrine will cause that line to collapse and be replaced by protection under the P&I clause, and only then will there be a path to federal licensing and national reciprocity. As long as we stick with Due Process we are stuck with each state enacting their own process, as long as it doesn't involve total and lifetime bans for law abiding citizens.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:11:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  IANAL (0+ / 0-)

                my recollection seems to match Wikipedia: Privileges and Immunities, along with the rest of the 14th amendment section 1, was neutered in the 1870s, and the Due Process clause is basically the only part brought back to life.

                If you're looking for a deeper discussion, sorry to disappoint you.  I vaguely recall the Privileges and Immunities clause being a specific repudiation of Dred Scott, but AP history was a long time ago.

                What do the Defend-NSAers-at-any-cost hope for society to gain from Snowden turning himself in and standing trial? I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before any of them finally give a reasonable, coherent answer to that question.

                by happymisanthropy on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:53:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  An important distinction that's often missed: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener
                I think there is a pre-existing right to self defense that doesn't reside in the US Constitution.
                The right to self-defense has existed at common law for centuries.  That doesn't mean it's a constitutional right.  A lot of people seem unable to grasp the difference.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:56:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  and I think it includes an implicit right to use whatever means are at hand, when confronted with a mortal threat.

                  The foundation of self-defense is proportionate use of force, whether it's a 2x4, a stone, a lamp, a fist, a slingshot, a belt, a knife, a bookcase, a car... whatever is at hand, use it to repel an attacker, as long as you flee/escape as soon as you possibly can do so.

                  The difference between a gun an all those other potential defensive objects is that a gun is extremely deadly at a distance.

                  And correct me if I'm wrong, the issue with public carry is that there are not really any equitable remedies for gunshot injury or death.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Fri May 02, 2014 at 12:06:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder if Cliv is having to feed these thugs and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7

    loan them shovels to dig their latrines.

    I wonder what will happen when he gets tired of them and tries to run them off his property because they are messing up his landscape.

    What if they start a range war on his range?  (Think giant TeePeer cage match)

    Quick break out the Kentukie moonshine, I feel a severe karma attack coming on.

  •  Why are you giving this guy publicity? (0+ / 0-)

    His 15 minutes were up weeks ago.

    If you're so adamant about getting rid of  him, then petition the W H to have DOJ or DHS  raid the place and arredt him.

    You know, pretend  like he's an Occupy protedtor.

    Seriously, this guy's  story is old news. Stop pushing this junk  to the top  of the rec list. Either  make Obama raid  the place or drop it. Thanks.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:14:30 PM PDT

    •  You've totally missed the point. (9+ / 0-)

      The diarist is making an argument about what the Bundy incident tells us about how race affects the way we view and punish (or fail to punish) particular conduct.

      Bundy's 15 minutes may be over, but racism is going to be around for a good long while. And that's what makes this diary worthy of the rec list.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:46:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pfiore8

        But there have been dozens of diaries already on the racism angle to Bundy's actions.  We know. We get it.  But its time to move on and discuss other topics.  We went through the same experiences with other radical western landowners during Clinton's administration, too. Back then, IIRC, it was groups of farmers in Montana.  They do this every time a Dem POTUS is in office.

        I've yet to see anyone discuss the difference in the WH DOJ and DHS kid gloves response to racists like Bundy vs their brutal tactics against peaceful protestors during Occupy.  Sadly, I don't expect to see much discussion of that here.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:12:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are many racism angles here. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, travelerxxx

          And so far as I know, no one else has diaried about this one.  

          Your contention that it's time to move on and discuss other topics again shows that you've missed the diarist's point.  Why is it time to move on from the discussion of racism?  Why shouldn't we be discussing what the Bundy episode shows us about how powerfully race influences just about everything in this country?

          Here, the contrast between the treatment of whites and nonwhites is especially sharp.  As chauncey points out, no person of color could dream of getting away with what Bundy's done, much less of being turned into some kind of screwed up folk hero for doing it.

          So no, I don't think it's time to move on at all.  Especially since to "move on" we'd have to have had an actual discussion of this issue in the first place.  To my mind, that hasn't happened, largely because Americans would like to talk about anything other than race.  It'll be a long, long time before we will be ready to move on from that discussion.  I can assure you it won't happen in my lifetime.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The AIM at Wounded Knee (1973) is instructive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, WaryLiberal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    An armed group of supporters of the American Indian Movement occupied a building on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Armed Federal law enforcement with militarized weaponry laid siege to the facility for weeks.
    In the ensuing exchange of gunfire, three AIM supporters (and one Fed) were killed.

    But unlike the white Bundy Patriots in Nevada, the Indians had no historical claim on the land...

    Oh wait...!

  •  good diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WaryLiberal, Catte Nappe, mallyroyal

    MOVE is what would happen. They'd have been drone-striked a long while ago. They would not get the privlege of being waited out like the Bundyites are. I'm glad (although, surprised!) a good number here got the answer right.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Fri May 02, 2014 at 04:47:39 AM PDT

    •  That was in 86. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Catte Nappe

      in 77/78 they did "wait" them out - ironically during Rizzo administration.  They waited out for about a year until that fell apart.  Not to say there wasn't some nasty at the end of the first standoff - only making it clear that the MOVE history did not begin in 1986.  In a twisted way I believe race did have an effect in 1986 - I believe that Goode's administration did not want to appear weak (DEM issue) or appear to treat MOVE favorably - possibly so as not to appear to be biased towards blacks.  Not that it mattered to the cops involved as I am sure they saw MOVE as the group that killed a fellow officer, Joseph Ramp.

      "I'm not left wing because i'm ideological, or passionate, or angry. I'm left wing because I'm informed." - Mikesco

      by newfie on Fri May 02, 2014 at 05:57:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1985 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newfie

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

        by terrypinder on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:27:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  After I wrote that I thought (0+ / 0-)

          wait was it 86 or 85?  Point being is that I don't think it necessarily makes the case as well as what I read above re: Colfax.  The MOVE-Philadelphia dynamic is (in my opinion) very convoluted.  It most certainly had racial aspects as I am sure that more than a few cops had racial motivations - at the same time it had a whole host of other features and history to the confrontations.

          "I'm not left wing because i'm ideological, or passionate, or angry. I'm left wing because I'm informed." - Mikesco

          by newfie on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:14:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  this really ticks me off (3+ / 0-)

    When the BLM "backed off" last month, I was in the minority around here expressing outrage that Bundy and his band of terrorists were allowed to thumb their nose at the US government, and get away with it.

    The majority were praising the BLM and the Obama Administration for "cool thinking" and 12 dimensional chess.

    What I understood is that this backing down sent a huge signal to rightwing fascist militias across the country that they could get away with defying the us government.

    This diary asks some very good and pointed questions.  To this day Bundy has been allowed his freedom while openly defying lawful court orders and threatening the lives of federal law enforcement.

    On what other level of reality I dont see where this would be allowed to occur.  And then to add insult to injury, Bundy's militia is allowed to patrol an american city and act like some kind of Russian gestapo acting as a defacto government.

    This cannot be allowed to continue.  I really do not know what the feds are thinking, they are going to have to go in and enforce law and order eventually, they might as well get it over with.

    •  Totally agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

      If Bundy Bunch was growing medical marijuana then the Feds would have raided his sorry ass a long time ago.

      In fact, we've had the most raids on medical marijuana dispensaries under this administration than any other.  

      Guess the Feds are too busy with pot raids than armed terrorists.

      I'm seething.  I can't not believe the complete hypocrisy or blind eye to these terrorists.  

      "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

      by Damnit Janet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:08:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  FYI (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7, RobertInWisconsin

    'Democrat' is a noun.  The adjective is 'Democratic'.  

    Tom Frank was a pseudo that I coined before I found out about that guy who writes books.

    by Tom Frank on Fri May 02, 2014 at 05:57:48 AM PDT

  •  Not even sure if it's all about the color of your (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RobertInWisconsin, pfiore8

    skin anymore.

    Remember Occupy?  
    I've seen people taken down because they have a fucking t-shirt with a peace slogan on it.
    Veterans told to leave VA grounds because they have a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

    Scott Olsen who was shot in the head for standing peacefully in  his uniform.

    Raging Grannys arrested for jaywalking.

    My own son gets stopped at least once month on public transit by some security piece of shit because he's disabled and doesn't look right.

    WTF!!!!!!  

    And these assholes are threatening the government and federal agents with guns??????!!!!!!!!

    Justice is fucking dead.  Always has been.

    Free for all.  Gun fucking nuts country.  

    Guess the National Guard is only good for shooting unarmed students.  Because if ever there was a reason for them... I'd say Bundy was at the top.

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

    •  It might not just be about (4+ / 0-)

      the color of your skin, but that's a big part of it.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, not discounting it (0+ / 0-)

        Just noting that many are run over by the wheels who shouldn't be.

        Truly can you imagine if he had marijuana plants instead of cattle?  If Bundy was a pro-medical marijuana "radical" who was healing people on his ranch with a flower?

        Or if Bundy was providing alleged "illegals" with free ESL classes?

        Just seems to me that all it takes to get impunity from the law is to be a screaming jackass and carry a big gun.

        But yes, if he wasn't white and plastered all over Faux News.... he'd be dead already.

        "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

        by Damnit Janet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:21:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sat. Diary: Why They Think They Have A Million Men (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, travelerxxx

    Because for RWNJs, wingnut urban legends never die, no matter how many times they have been debunked.

    And they are convinced that as many as 2,000,000 Tea Partiers were at the 2009 9-12 rally, held at the base of Capitol Hill.

    The problems is this space is about the same size as a Super Walmart parking lot, so it might hold 30,000 people.

    You tell me, does this crowd that barely reaches back to the edge of the mall look bigger than the entire  population of Delaware (pop. 925,000)?

    You can compare that crowd to the Comedy Central Rally To Restore Sanity, which was actually on the Mall and completely filled several sections of the Mall with a tightly packed crowd.  This small sea of people probably totaled 200,000 people, and they didn't need to offer charter buses and box lunches to bring people in, like Freedom Works did with the Tea Party.

    Compare it to the Comedy Central rally in 2010.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:11:15 AM PDT

  •  Cliven Bundy And His Thug Friends (0+ / 0-)

    are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. They're also pathetic cowards who hide behind their women and children. Bundy's supporters are simply apologists for a common thief who needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  •  So, is Human hunting legal in Nevada? (0+ / 0-)

    No? Guess the NRA has been sitting down on the job.

    How about "stand your ground", does Nevada have that?

  •  what if a white Republican congressman wrote.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bronxboy47

    If Bundy was black, he would be dead or in jail by now, there is no way armed black men would be allowed to be breaking the law like this.

  •  Actually, we do know... MOVE, Philadelphia (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burlydee, Positronicus

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    MOVE or the MOVE Organization is a Philadelphia-based black liberation group founded by John Africa. MOVE was described by CNN as "a loose-knit, mostly black group whose members all adopted the surname Africa, advocated a 'back-to-nature' lifestyle and preached against technology".[1] The group lived communally and frequently engaged in public demonstrations related to issues they deemed important.

    Since their founding in 1972, MOVE has been in frequent conflict with the Philadelphia Police Department. A major incident occurred in 1978, when the police raided their Powelton Village home. This raid resulted in the imprisonment of nine group members, now known as the "MOVE 9."[2] After this, the group relocated further west to a house at 6221 Osage Avenue.

    In 1985 the group made national news when police dropped a bomb on the Osage house from a helicopter in an attempt to end an armed impasse. The explosion and ensuing fire killed 11 people, including five children and the group's leader, John Africa. Only two occupants survived—Ramona, an adult and Birdie, a child. In addition, approximately 60 other (non MOVE-affiliated) homes were destroyed as the entire block burned.[3]

  •  Send in the 82nd Airborn Division (0+ / 0-)

    and some APC's

  •  I can see the spin already: (0+ / 0-)

    The government's hesitation in acting with force is all part of Obama's and Holder's scheme to make the "white privilege' meme seem legitimate.  Might as well just hand this to the haters.  They would have come up with it eventually anyway.

  •  Just Who's Unconstitutional? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travelerxxx

    A lot of people may not realize it, but the US Constitution defines the scope of local militia (and, yes,it's the same "militia" referred to in the second [originally the fourth] amendment) and places said militia clearly under the authority of Congress, as set forth in Article I (which enumerates the powers and duties of the Legislative Branch) Section 8:

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Hence any militia which is not under the direction and authority of congress is, de facto, illegal and seditious.  Can you spell u-s-u-r-p a-u-t-h-o-r-i-t-y, Mr. Bundy?
  •  That's "Democtratic" Congressman... n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Extremist (0+ / 0-)

    The scenarios mentioned in this article are very, very implausible. Civil militias are in fact Constitutional and should be organized state by state. They need not be state controlled but should have the discipline of a pseudo military organization with responsible leadership. They also should be sworn to uphold the Constitution.

  •  If the bundy group were unarmed occupy, they (0+ / 0-)

    would all be dead or seriously wounded. There is something to be said for a lot lf firepower. But the people with the guns seem like ignorant children. It's really sad. Also, it's surprising to see so many people who can uproot themselves from jobs, lives, children, responsibility to hang out at the bundy ranch for an indefinite length of time.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Fri May 02, 2014 at 12:27:07 PM PDT

  •  Here's an idea... (0+ / 0-)

    Why don't we take Bundy's example as proof that our government isn't going to do anything?

    We socialists outnumber these teabaggers.  If we weren't so gun shy, maybe they'd think twice about their lax gun laws!

    I say we change tactics.  We should take a page from their book and win by intimidation.  We need to start neutralizing the Tea Party threat in our own stronghold cities by a show of force and the express willingness to defend ourselves.  

    It's clear that these monsters aren't going to stop and our military is unwilling to help.  We're on our own and it's time we realize that.

  •  This has gone way past local jurisdiction (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry but enough is enough.  This is way past a bunch of gun nuts threatening the locals.  This is an armed insurrection and it's time to put it down with the military.   Fire up the drones!!!!

    •  All they understand is force. . . (0+ / 0-)

      Like all bullies, these demented, gun-crazed thugs understand and will respond only to a massive show of force.  If the government things sending ground troops is too risky, they should send in a hundred bombers and bomb the lot of them into the Stone Age.

  •  The truth (0+ / 0-)

    How pathetic it is that this idiot Bundy is still going on, he should have been dealt with at the beginning of this stupidity! If he was a different nationality or race, he would have been dealt with in the first few minutes and abruptly.!!! There should be no difference, this guy is an ignorant, worthless, pathetic, lazy, welfare, POS, deal with him like the piece of trash he is!

  •  These nuts took up arms against the U.S. govern- (0+ / 0-)

    ment.  That makes them traitors, terrorists, insurgents, etc.  Doesn't Obama have some drones laying around near there?  I'm not condoning the use of drones here or abroad.  I think the answer or solution will be more subtle sort of like the 60 year embargo of Cuba and N. Korea; confiscating their bank accounts, infiltrating their ranks, and arresting them quietly one by one.  We don't need any blood spilt over this, they're not worth it.  

  •  SEND IN THE BRADLEY TROOP CARRIERS (0+ / 0-)

    This country saw fit to shoot and kill many people of color during the Vietnam War protests... they even gassed, shot and killed unarmed, white students at Kent State University. Maybe if all of these people were touting AK-47s the National Guard would have turned tail and allowed the rioters and students to take over the cities of Cleveland and Kent in Ohio? I doubt it very much. So why is it that these thugs, protecting a deadbeat, freeloader, get away with threatening civil authorities with guns and occupying the small town of Bunkerville, NV.? These jerks are not heros or patriots... they're thugs, outlaws and opportunist cowards.   "Put the women and children up front." Some moto for a patriot !

  •  Fox freaked over the New Black Panthers (0+ / 0-)

    precisely because they were obviously there to try to protect the voters from harassment and intimidation, not to cause it. Precisely the thing Fox News didn't think ought to be prevented.

    As for Bundy, set your watch. Sooner or later some local citizen who's pulled over at one of those kangaroo check points while exercising his 2nd amendment Right To Bear Arms will decide to Stand His Ground. I don't wish anybody dead, I'm just saying it will happen. And then won't the NRA have to tapdance fast to figure out who was the "good guy with the gun!"

  •  New (0+ / 0-)

    Bunkerville is the price we pay for having a reaction based justice system. Someone unfortunately is going to have to die before the justice department is going to get off it's ass and send the US Marshall down there and take Bundy to court and dare any one to stop them. Actually the governor of Nevada could do it too.

  •  Militias (0+ / 0-)

    Here in Chicago armed groups who terrorize areas of the city are called "gangs" and their members are called "thugs" and criminals.

    Cliven Bundy and his supporters are not patriots or militias. They are gangs of armed thugs, thieves, and criminals. They should be treated as such, and, while so many of them are conveniently gathered together, the real, Constitutional militia (the National Guard) should be called in to disarm, incarcerate, and, if necessary, kill these subversive domestic terrorists before they do any more damage.

    And all of Cliven Bundy's property - the fruit of his long-term criminal enterprise - should be confiscated to repay the American taxpayers from whom he has stolen so much money.

  •  Time (0+ / 0-)

    to put an end to Bundy and his b.s.

  •  DON'T CALL THEM CONSERVATIVES (0+ / 0-)

    CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE:  FASCIST STORMTROOPERS.

  •  The first thing I thought of. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicksilver2723

    As soon as the right, and Fox, started cheering this traitor on I posted all over the pace the very question you ask.

  •  The anti-gun Reagan (0+ / 0-)

    Back when he governed California, Reagan and his Repub pals in the state house were confronted by a similar scenario, a real one this time.  Black Panthers were demonstrating in conspicuous public places in the bay area with semi-auto rifles prominently displayed.  As a protest against police brutality in the ghetto, they followed police cars as observers.  The Repubs demanded stricter gun control in the state.  Panthers demonstrated for gun rights.  The proposals were never passed.  But it goes to show that the 2nd amendment, on that occasion at least, did not  apply to uppity black folks.  

  •  Cliven Bundy's Forces Run Amok (0+ / 0-)

    Send in Federal troops and watch these "militia" pee themselves and the "Oath Keepers"  keep their oath to change their Depends when return to their fortified homes.

  •  militias not defending property rights (0+ / 0-)

    ....of individuals against the XL Pipeline fiasco either.

    They're FRAUDS, not patriots.

  •  AND STEALING FOOD?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lastamendment

    Cliven Bundy’s GANG

    Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial, Multigender and MiddleClass

    by LOrion on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:03:23 PM PDT

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    I was just thinking the same thing. Apparently when white racist anti-government people brandish weapons and threaten violence, it's freedom. If black people did the same thing, they'd be shot on sight.

  •  Well, well... (0+ / 0-)

    ...somebody finally said it. If the current president wasn't who he is, these idiots wouldn't be getting away with this stuff, mostly because they wouldn't even be trying it. The fact- or at least belief- that this particular president shouldn't respond to these people in the way any other president would have is just one more illustration, albeit an especially striking one, of the apparent limits of black citizenship.

  •  For an answer to that question (0+ / 0-)

    One only has to look at the 1985 MOVE disaster in Philadelphia.

    http://articles.philly.com/...

  •  There is now a Whitehouse.gove petition (0+ / 0-)

    Text reads: Enforce the law of the land, and arrest the unlawful 'militia' in southeastern Nevada.

    The Federal Government and the Government of the State of Nevada must act to arrest the "militia" currently occupying Clark County, Nevada. Congressional Representative Steven Horsford has already asked for assistance in addressing this unlawful occupation. Allowing these men to continue to stop motorists, harass citizens, defy the laws of the land at gunpoint, and persist in their in seditious activities sets a dangerous and illegal precedent. It is becoming clear that these self appointed "militia" will not simply grow bored and disperse. The situation is dangerous, unacceptable to the rule of law, and must be dealt with before it escalates further.

    It's here is anyone wants to sign: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

Meteor Blades, Thumb, paradox, Angie in WA State, Sylv, vicki, RF, fcvaguy, Chi, sny, Phoenix Woman, Geenius at Wrok, Gooserock, Emerson, cotterperson, genethefiend, Troutfishing, eeff, TracieLynn, whenwego, joe pittsburgh, chimpy, Nate Roberts, splashy, navajo, Cedwyn, high uintas, wader, k9disc, jdmorg, Texknight, kharma, Subversive, Dr Colossus, ranger995, Damnit Janet, Steven Payne, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, papercut, samoashark, Major Kong, Sembtex, KayCeSF, Black Max, Frank Vyan Walton, oortdust, harlinchi, Dirk McQuigley, maybeeso in michigan, radarlady, ichibon, jiffypop, newfie, Tonedevil, democracy inaction, terrypinder, dewtx, EJP in Maine, Laurence Lewis, Kevskos, reflectionsv37, owlbear1, SaraBeth, skyounkin, Eric K, Sandino, kaliope, mph2005, FindingMyVoice, bunsk, jilikins, MrWebster, peacestpete, mightymouse, bently, ThatSinger, begone, Knucklehead, poco, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, edwardssl, dopper0189, Yellow Canary, raptavio, mooshter, AoT, KenBee, kck, philipmerrill, katrinka, anninla, lastamendment, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, Ian Reifowitz, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, timewarp, Habitat Vic, Loudoun County Dem, devis1, edsbrooklyn, jeanette0605, Matt Z, shesaid, newpioneer, HCKAD, SeaTurtle, bobswern, skeyewalker, millwood, carpunder, I am a Patriot, Wreck Smurfy, Got a Grip, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, mconvente, ivyleaguesnob, 6412093, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, Aureas2, Laughing Vergil, Sharon Wraight, tofumagoo, TokenLiberal, Quicksilver2723, Jeff Y, matching mole, TexanJane, billybam, Diogenes2008, JBL55, legendmn, LaFeminista, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, Ran3dy, cybrestrike, J M F, Throw The Bums Out, spacecadet1, Carol in San Antonio, Nebraskablue, shopkeeper, mkor7, jmknapp53, glitterlust, Denise Oliver Velez, jfromga, Wendy Slammo, citisven, Larsstephens, cassandraX, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, Christy1947, FogCityJohn, The Jester, gramofsam1, Crabby Abbey, tubacat, LOrion, mookins, Man from Wasichustan, ATFILLINOIS, cordgrass, Kristina40, DiegoUK, Yasuragi, Jaimas, kenwards, science nerd, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, slice, Onomastic, praying manatheist, pajoly, Front Toward Enemy, Bluefin, Sal Bovoso, bgblcklab1, slowbutsure, vahana, FarWestGirl, mikejay611, deeproots, NormAl1792, marleycat, laurnj, sethtriggs, BarackStarObama, RfrancisR, aoeu, PhilJD, Caddis Fly, Hayate Yagami, Eric Stetson, ratcityreprobate, StepLeftStepForward, Rashaverak, caryltoo, DEMonrat ankle biter, Laurel in CA, Mathazar, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, Pinto Pony, i saw an old tree today, WaryLiberal, Liberal Granny, OldDragon, anodnhajo, IndieGuy, Jakkalbessie, wjhamilton29464, AnnieR, Joieau, a2nite, swampyankee, 2thanks, CA ridebalanced, chicagobleu, Free Jazz at High Noon, oldpotsmuggler, stvnjon, Glen The Plumber, peptabysmal, Windowpane, Robynhood too, Hammerhand, Illinois IRV, countwebb, remembrance, twocrows1023, Tim DeLaney, HedwigKos, Alhambra, Jollie Ollie Orange, howabout, Jon Sitzman, Homer177, Mannie, Smoh, furrfu, Hey338Too, LilithGardener, Jim Domenico, tubaguy, TheDuckManCometh, Gardener in PA, R rugosa alba, The Marti, Rich Lyles, panzergeek, MarthaPeregrine, jbsoul, old mule, Tony Situ, Gurnt, thanatokephaloides, theBreeze, LiberalLoner, dialysisterLCO, Medde, bonnybedlam, Prickly Pam, mercedeslackey, cjtjc, writeofwinter, sgailey, wiggin01, dcnblues, Tascoma, kobaltkween, upstatefrantic, J Williams, From Outer Space, BlueDuPage

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site