The New York Times Discovers the Rule of Law

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   4/29/14
Leave it to The Gay Lady to be a day late and a few brain cells short. The New York Times recently published an article by some journalism-school retread about the Cliven Bundy situation, a piece containing all the usual talking points about how the “racist” rancher’s reasoning is really risible. Rinse, wash and repeat. What interests me right now are not the facts of the case, however, but one particular line in the Times commentary.

The sentence is a quotation from ex-superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area Alan O’Neill, a line that the Times writer, a Mr. Adam Nagourney, obviously felt was so powerful and profound that it warranted closing his piece with. Here’s the passage containing the line:

“He [Bundy] calls himself a patriot, and says he loves America,” Mr. O’Neill said. “And yet he says he won’t follow any federal laws. You just can’t let this go by, or everybody is going to be like, ‘If Bundy can break the law, why can’t I?’”

Wow, an example of not following the law. Shocking! Unprecedented! A threat to the republic!

All I can say about Nagourney is that, for sure, one of us has taken the blue pill.

Has it escaped the Times’ notice that the feds have been found wanting in the enforcement of immigration law for decades and that Barack Obama has basically cast enforcement to the winds? Has the paper ever heard of sanctuary cities? Have its editors gotten the memo about rule by executive order and Obama’s suspension of ObamaCare provisions he finds politically inconvenient? Have they noticed that Uncle Scam has been violating the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — for nigh on 100 years and that Obama wipes his feet on it?

Gay Lady, I hereby re-christen thee The Blue Pill Times.

The BPT is certainly right in assuming that unanswered lawbreaking makes people conclude, “If ______ can break the law, why can’t I?” But it isn’t “Bundy” that fills in that blank.

In point of fact, the reason we had troves of people rallying to Bundy’s side is the same reason why we’re seeing state nullification movements pushing back against ObamaCare, federal gun-control law and other central-government measures:

The blatant and criminal disregard the feds have shown for the Constitution — the contract the American people have with one another — and the feds’ continual overstepping of their bounds and aggregation of power, have caused people to say, “If the feds can break the law, why can’t I?”

It has further made citizens realize that they have a right and a duty to oppose federal law. Why a right? Well, if a party subject to a contract consistently and obstinately violates the contract’s terms for the purposes of advantaging itself and undermining the other parties subject to the contract, are the latter still bound by the now broken agreement?

It is rendered null and void.

As for duty, to sit idly by while the feds violate the contract and trample rights makes one complicit in the crime, an accessory perhaps before, and certainly during and after, the fact.

This, mind you, is the main reason I side with Cliven Bundy. The particulars of the case are irrelevant because the feds long ago demonstrated their ill will and illegitimacy. As for The Blue Pill Times, it’s great it has discovered the value of the rule of law. Now all it need do is reveal what entity truly undermined it and the manifold ways in which it has been done. Of course, this would mean actually presenting, for the first time, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (940 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The New York Times Discovers the Rule of Law

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I call them (sometimes) the New Barackum Slimes, since that best describes both the city (and its dedication to the Fascist Messiah) as well as the publication. (Of course, the city name is partly a pun on the Latin name for York, Eboracum.) Their problem is that liberals simply can’t allow themselves to understand opposing views. So they consider it quite correct for liberals to ignore laws they oppose, but the idea that those they hate for disagreeing with them might respond by doing the same thing is alien to them. Besides, they don’t think we should have any rights anyway.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    Bundy is the Daniel Shay’s of the 21st century, a rebellion in the wrong place, for the right reasons, but doomed to fail.


    Glenn’s point about the violation of contract and how it relieves the other party of his obligations under it is of fundamental importance. I had intended to make the same argument myself but never got around to it. We live in an era in which the Democratic Left refuses to be bound by the contract between them and us, and yet expects us to obey their legislative acts anyway – an extremely one-sided and unfair arrangement. To put it another way, they believe in unlimited majority rule (at least when they win an election) without the protection of minority rights the contract between us obliges them to respect.

    It is basically this line of reasoning that leads us to the right not only to disobey their laws, but also to rise up and replace the government through secession or revolution, and without a majority vote on our side. But the details must be left for another day.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Non-establishment conservatives basically understand this (the Establishment types won’t let themselves be aware of the implications of the lawlessness of the Obama Gang). That’s why, even as we realized that the law wasn’t on the side of Cliven Bundy, we supported his challenge to Barry’s Behemoth. And a few stupid comments made later don’t change that fact for those of us not forced to obey at least the minimum strictures of political correctness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *