On Thursday the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report claiming the “standoff” between heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents and supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy emboldened what the organization calls “an extremist movement” in the United States.
In the report posted on its website the SPLC reiterates an unverified claim that white supremacist and other fringe extremist groups “exploded when President Obama was elected” and now pose a threat to the country. The only racist who made headlines over the last few years for threatening the government was an FBI agent provocateur, Hal Turner.
“For those harboring deep hatred of the federal government, the BLM pullout was seen as a dramatic victory, one instance where the armed radicals of the right stared through their own gunsights at the gun barrels of law enforcement officials and won,” the SPLC argues.
This jaundiced description ignores the fact the federal government during the Bundy Ranch protest restricted exercise of the First Amendment to “free speech zones,” a violation underscored by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval who said the BLM establishment of a “First Amendment Area” trampled “upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.”
Sandoval’s support of the Constitution and the First Amendment strikes the SPLC as inexcusable. “Rather than being condemned, their actions garnered the support of numerous politicians, including the governor of Nevada and commentators like Fox News’ Sean Hannity — a truly repulsive spectacle.”
The SPLC does not mention the fact the government initiated the violence against Bundy supporters. As documented by Infowars and others, BLM agents used violence against peaceful protesters, including a cancer victim. They employed police dogs and tasers against demonstrators protesting the roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle on land the federal government unconstitutionally claims to own. (The BLM and the federal government are in violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.)
For the SPLC the fact the government did not react as it did during the Waco standoff is disconcerting. It believes “extremists” who hate Obama because he is black will now use the incident to engage in further provocative behavior.
“The fallout from the BLM stand down is very troubling: an even more emboldened antigovernment movement. Just in the months since the Bundy ‘victory,’ tense standoffs between the BLM and antigovernment activists have taken place across the West — in Idaho, New Mexico, Texas and Utah,” the SPLC writes.
In other words, the Bundy Ranch incident has somehow magically emboldened the states’ right movement in the West. Contrary to this fairy tale, and despite the SPLC’s heavily redacted version of history, the states rights movement is as old as the Constitution and the republic. It has surfaced with renewed vigor in Montana, Idaho, Arizona, California and elsewhere in the West over the last decade or more.
Josh Eboch of the Tenth Amendment Center writes “from the Fugitive Slave Act to REAL ID, American history is replete with examples of states successfully asserting their sovereignty in constitutional disputes with the federal government. And there is every reason to believe that they could do so again with regard to health care, should it prove necessary.”
The liberal version of history dwells on the Civil War — a conflict, liberal scholars insist, intended to free the slaves when in fact it was fought primarily over states’ rights – and they laud FDR’s socialist New Deal, the Civil Rights movement and other usurpations by the federal government while ignoring the long and continuing history of the states’ rights movement.
This battle has raged since at least the 1819 decision of McCulloch v. Maryland over interpretation of the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution and Andrew Jackson’s 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. SPLC and liberals in general – who have used segregation in an underhanded attempt to render the term states’ right as a racist prerogative – ignore a large area of American history dominated by the debate over states’ rights. This includes the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, California’s Specific Contract Act of 1863, federal laws outlawing the sale and possession of marijuana, federal legislation outlawing and criminalizing the possession of firearms, and other social and political issues.
In order to demonize proponents of the Constitution and states’ rights the SPLC hinges its argument on two mentally ill criminals — Jerad and Amanda Miller, who killed two police officers and engaged in a shoot-out with cops in a Walmart.
Portraying demented criminals as violent members of the liberty movement is the only trump card the SPLC has. In fact, supporters of Bundy rejected the pair and asked them to leave Bundy Ranch.
The SPLC continues its work with the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government to undermine the effort of patriotic Americans who understand the enemy is not Cliven Bundy and Sheriff Richard Mack but an out of control federal leviathan that grows larger and more poisonous with each passing year.
The latest jeremiad by the SPLC reeks of desperation following a less than acceptable resolution of the incident at Bundy Ranch. The SPLC will not be satisfied until the federal government realizes another Waco or manages to provide the it with an excuse to exercise its monopoly of violence against the most vociferous of its opponents.