Alinskyizing the Courts

What to do about those judges

Say what you will about Donald Trump, his ability to keep things stirred up is perhaps unparalleled in our history. Further, he is uniquely suited to smoking out the bad guys. He might be right or wrong on any particular issue, but it is undeniable that he has all the right enemies. And now the scoundrel has provoked a Constitutional Crisis (!) by abiding by his oath of office and fulfilling his Constitutional Article II authority and power. HOW DARE HE!

In his first term the list of enemies included several blocs of unelected and unaccountable actors. The corrupt “intelligence community” (Russian collusion hoax), the “health care” monolith (Covid anyone? And remember, NIH funds virtually 100% of medical research in the nation), combined with thugettes Tish James and Fanny Willis et al, and a feckless and cowardly GOP Congress resulted in a legion of lost transformational opportunities. Despite that, thanks in great part to an irrepressible ego, Trump actually managed to be successful in many areas of his administration.

By his own admission, Trump was not well-enough versed in the perfidious climate of Mordor (Washington DC). That naivete’, combined with his submission to bullying by Covid bullshitters (a la Anthony Fauci, whose deceitful nefariousness is well documented back to his days as an AIDS researcher in the 80s) and weakness for flattery and pretty women (Debbie “Bedazzled” Birx) with his horrible personnel selections (Mike Pence? Jeff Sessions? Omarosa? Really?) got him rolled like a rube in Times Square.

In his second term he was much better with personnel but is facing a whole new slate of unelected and unaccountable enemies consisting of gubmint bureaucrats and the judges who support them in complete disregard of Articles II and III of the US Constitution. I must observe that one of two possibilities is likely (they might both be true). Judges may not actually know the Constitution, or they assume that WE do not know the Constitution.

The current state of the justice system, or “just a system” as coined by Doug McBurney, is that in the jurisdictions persecuting Trump, justice is simply not one of the outcome options. For either the presiding (or appellate) judges or any jury pools in Washington DC or Manhattan, no person of any political stripe is going to achieve legitimate justice. In these two preeminent districts the jury pools are roughly 95% leftists and it looks like all the judges are crooked. Regardless of the facts of the matter, the laws in question, or the US Constitution, in DC and Manhattan the outcome of virtually any legal proceeding is predetermined with a near 100% certainty. Liberal/Democrat? Not Guilty. Conservative/Republican? Guilty! Hardly justice either way.

There is little that can be done for a corrupt jury pool, other than to change the venue, but I believe the time has come to “Alinsky-ize” the judiciary populated by rabid revolutionaries.

Huh?

The two most effective political figures of the modern era are, unfortunately for us, doctrinaire Marxists Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky. Gramsci was the theoretician whose vision has become omnipresent in our age (the long march through the institutions) and Alinsky was the activist who I think was the most brilliant and successful political strategist of all time. His “Rules for Radicals,” dedicated to Satan (the original “radical”) in its first printing, has been the playbook for an uninterrupted string of successes in electoral and other politics for the past half century. At its core, the Alinsky political strategy rests on four pillars.

1. Identify the enemy

2. Isolate the enemy

3. Ridicule the enemy, leading to-

4. Paralyze the enemy

NB - I use the term “enemy” self-consciously even though the pantywaist “conservatives” will clutch pearls as using “enemy” is unseemly; these are not “enemies” in their eyes, they are “opponents” and esteemed colleagues and good friends. Well, when their explicit strategy is to steal your fortune, imprison you for life, and assassinate you, the enemy is precisely the correct word. You can see the effect of this strategy in the 90% of Republicans who cower with the thought of losing invitations to Georgetown cocktail parties or a criticism in the New York Times, that newsletter for Central Park communists.

Given that the judiciary is only the latest unelected, unaccountable institution to attack the Constitution, it is time to take them on with vigor. For far too long they have toiled malevolently in the shadows, darkness even, as they impose their own insidious preferences on the nation regardless of the law or Constitution, or the will of the people. Almost every malevolent and perverted new societal norm was first imposed by judges in opposition to the will of the electorate.

There are approximately a thousand Federal judges, appointed for life, and I would guess that 90% of them are dismissive (at best) of the US Constitution. And unless they went to one of the three law schools in the country who actually teach the US Constitution rather than case law (I do not believe this includes any Federal judge), they are steeped in the notion that the US Constitution is not what it says itself, but rather what previous judges prefer it to mean. Admittedly most judges at any level higher than traffic court are contemptuous of any limitations on their power so this is no surprise.

Even the status of the Supreme Court as a “conservative court” is preposterous fiction and psyop. Given the emerging block of the Five Girls – Brown, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barret, and Roberts – at the pinnacle of a dysfunctional system, there is little confidence in restraining any illegitimate findings by the Coven of Courts; that is, District (trial) and Circuit (appeal) judges. And, when the Chief Justice openly says that the judiciary is functionally unaccountable, a different strategy other than following the “regular order” of rulings and appeals must emerge.

Enter “Alinskyizing the Judges.” By the way, this does not include the practice of removing bad judges through impeachment and conviction. That is a futile consideration, and anyone suggesting otherwise is simply innumerate. Yes, the House can impeach with a simple majority, but the Senate only needs 1/3+1 to acquit. Impeachment is not a winning proposition in a world of omerta.

But what if instead we focus on the Four Pillars?

A good starting point is to assume every Federal judge is a bad one, until proven otherwise. The “identify the enemy” part is easy enough. It’s all of them.

Isolating the enemy is probably not realistic as a direct undertaking. They are already isolated into their own self-validating and self-aggrandizing priestly silo. Even so, it would be easy enough to name and document the corruptions of every judge with tools like those being developed by blogger and savant Datarepublican.

Who are the judges working perfidiously in the shadows, what are their backgrounds and connections? Who are their spouses and family and what are they connected to? (I am NOT talking about doxxing or threatening, but simply identifying and characterizing. For example, how many spouses and families of the presiding judges on all the DOGE lawsuits are direct or indirect beneficiaries of the funding that is being cut? Answer: a lot. One recent suggestion is to connect the dots to see how many judges are owned by the CCP, illegal or legal cartels, or are direct or indirect beneficiaries of Federal grant monies. I’m guessing the answer would be a lot closer to 100% than we might imagine.)

Ridiculing the judgements is like shooting fish in a barrel. Simply recite the truth, it is ridiculous enough. Defending barbarian gang members and terrorists? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side. Mandating unlimited invasions? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side. Protecting useless and unconstitutional bureaucracies and their population of bureaucrats and their lavish lifestyles and preposterous benefits and protections? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side. Defending commie colleges? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side. Boys in girl’s sports and locker rooms? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side. Mentally ill persons in the military? An 80/20 issue, and the judge is on the “20” side.

I’m sensing a pattern here.

Make it a simple drumbeat of truth and the ridicule will be the result. And never forget that the judiciary is the MOST political of the three branches of gubmint.

If we can do that relentlessly and in the aggregate, paralysis just might be the outcome. Otherwise the logical path is for this President to do on a grand scale what his immediate predecessor did and sneer at the rulings. Were he to say, “I too am a steward of the Constitution, I took an oath to defend it from enemies foreign and domestic, and by ruling in a matter you do not jurisdiction, I will disregard you and move forward with the agenda I was elected to execute.” In effect, mimic Andrew Jackson when he said, “the Court has rendered its opinion, now let them enforce it.” Given John Roberts’ recent preposterous assertion that the judiciary is accountable only to itself, a time of reckoning is at hand. If Trump can indeed put the judiciary back in its lane and re-invigorate its legitimacy, he just might deserve that fifth spot on Mount Rushmore.

As Steve Deace often says, “We are not a nation of laws and never have been. We are a nation of political will and always will be.”

Make no mistake, as a nation we are at the cusp of something monumental that will likely determine whether or not we recover our nation or continue the devolution into Hobbesian oligarchy.

Don Williams, Guest, The Barn on White Run