He talks about freedom and “ancestral” rights, but grazes his cattle on public land—our land, not his homestead—without paying his share.... Too many conservatives have been charmed by the notion of a cowboy singing the anthem on horseback and threatening to turn guns on bureaucrats. They can’t just proclaim themselves stunned here....
२४ एप्रिल, २०१४
"Given his grand claims regarding what American freedom means, it is inadequate to call him historically illiterate or misinformed about the conditions of slavery..."
"... the constant, brutal violence that reinforced it and the way it robbed people of the ability to make the most basic choices about their lives...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२४ टिप्पण्या:
A characteristic of the chattering classes is that they rarely pick on anybody their own size: instead, political writers pen labored essays to refute interview comments made by ranchers, university professors demonstrate the inadequacy of candidates' town hall bromides, etc.
Bundy's an idiot, but let's keep in mind it's the bureaucrats pulling guns on the cowboys with the full approval of the left.
Agreed. I find this also applies to people who refer to themselves as "wage slaves."
I need to know every thought Cliven Bundy holds on everything.
If he holds some weird thought, then I'll know the BLM didn't overstep by bringing out snipers and killing his cattle.
You know David Koresh spanked children,right?
Fox news spent a great deal of time today excoriating Bundy for his comments about Blacks, as well as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for their past supportive comments. The discussion revolved around Paul's speaking in support of someone about whom he knew little.
People jump on some really stupid trains. What a stupid move during an election year.
"...or are they better off under government subsidy?" Well, Bundy certainly seems to think he's better off under his government subsidy, so he's fighting for it.
Poor Cliven, he's got a good point about government overreach and he was tapping on a deeper root based on some really terrible reasoning.
Then he goes and gives many folks the big racist club they need.
IT WAS ALL TRUE!
"Our land". As long as you mean Reid and Son.
Rogue sentiment is part of American freedom.
No one obeys the law. Having cattle eat grass seems harmless. Plus, Harry Reid is trying to use the land to further line his pockets. This isn't hard to understand at all.
I don't want to defend Bundy's speculation as to whether blacks were better off under slavery than they are as wards of the state. It may be a proper subject for exploration in an alt-history novel, but I don't think it advances the political conversation. I will defend him from the charge that Bundy wishes blacks were still slaves. To this end, I note that several prominent blacks have raised the same issue as Bundy. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and others have lamented the fact that the black family was stronger under Jim Crow than it is today. I doubt anyone believes that any of these people wished that Jim Crow (or slavery) still existed.
Cliven is an idiot, of course. Why, oh why, would the national press want his opinion on this topic? What does he think about the human genome project or the benefits of a number one pencil versus a number two? Could it be that his views on a topic he knows nothing about happen to distract from the government's overreach in Nevada? If you happen to support him you are a racist now. See? Easy. His musings on the human genome would not produce that happy result.
[...]two strangers had turned up in a small Western town and their actions had aroused the suspicions of a group of respectable citizens, who forthwith called on the sheriff to complain about the newcomers. The sheriff listened gravely for a while, got up and buckled on his gun belt, and said, ``Alors, je vais demander ses cartes d'identité!''
James Thurber reporting on a Western-genre novel, released in France.
Sending a swarm of armed government agents against a single homeowner to collect a debt appears to be a serious government overreach. Mr. Bundy's opinions about slavery and race is an entirely different issue which is just now coming out. One wrong does not justify another wrong in either direction.
The author goes on to say:
"This is where Bundy exposes more broadly held, and corrosive, assumptions: that poverty is a matter of laziness, or, as it is put in polite society, “a certain culture.” This, again, is where one cannot reassure oneself that Bundy is simply on the fringe."
Not only has the author taken Mr. Bundy's opinions about race to justify the Federal overreach but she has expand Mr. Bundy's statement to smear everyone who doesn't embrace her own leftist agenda. She claims that he is representative of all conservatives everywhere. Since she is a leftie she apparently doesn't think she needs to offer evidence that everyone supporting Mr. Bundy is supporting him because of his views on slavery or that most of them even knew his views on race. Lefty smears are so common that most of them go unrefuted.
Today, Glenn Beck was even more damning in his condemnation of Mr. Bundy's statements. I didn't hear what that Hannity had to say today, but, at least up to this point, he's been treating Bundy like some kind of hero.
sean,
"A characteristic of the chattering classes is that they rarely pick on anybody their own size,…"
Agreed - whites outnumber blacks, 6 to 1, and, still, won't stop talking about us as through we don't exist to refute them, or abusing us, as though we're not as human as they are - a fact they had to "decide" on, over time, as blacks "waited."
When the playing field is fair - as in sports like baseball and basketball - they can't do or say shit.
But, until then, they'll go on spinning lies about merit, and their innocence, and whatever the fuck they think 1776 means while the rest of it, like slavery, is framed as "ancient history".
It's truly a sick fucking place to grow up,...
Bundy is clearly a leftist.
Best comment currently at The Atlantic re Clive Bundy dust-up: "It's weird how nobody ever theorizes that white people on welfare might be better off as slaves."
"Well, Bundy certainly seems to think he's better off under his government subsidy, so he's fighting for it."
Would you mind explaining his "subsidy" that has existed since 1870 ?
No hurry. I know you need time to think of something.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/22/long-bundy-standoff-rancher-waged-land-war-feds
So how do justify the BLM's stealing of Shoshone cattle? Raymond Yowell is not the only case. Do we find some crazy statement they've made, and say the BLM and feds were therefore justified? Eveyone already knew Cliven was one french fry short of a happy meal. It doesn't erase the problem of federal abuse of powers.
Not racist because Harry Reid somethin somethin. Derp.
The NYT claims that it got the quote from an unnamed journalist and photographer. Really? A scoop this big and the journalist that got the quote didn't want a byline? Youtube video or it's a lie.
The NYT claims that it got the quote from an unnamed journalist and photographer. Really? A scoop this big and the journalist that got the quote didn't want a byline? Youtube video or it's a lie.
I confess some sympathy for being "charmed by the notion of a cowboy singing the anthem on horseback."
I am not charmed by the notion of the BLM with snipers collecting fees or running cattle with helicopters.
Bundy, however backward and uncouth, is no threat to anyone. The BLM and the Feds are a great threat to most of us.
I cannot in good conscience continue to contribute to the United Negro College Fund.
Crack Emcee said:
"Agreed - whites outnumber blacks, 6 to 1, and, still, won't stop talking about us as through we don't exist to refute them, or abusing us, as though we're not as human as they are - a fact they had to "decide" on, over time, as blacks "waited.""
The conversation about race does become rather tedious over time. Unfortunately the left has decided we don't talk about race enough so we will hear about it every day.
"It's truly a sick fucking place to grow up,..."
Does this mean that there is someplace which is better? I'm curious where that might be?
One of the most delusional parts of Bundy’s musing was the phrase “having a family life.” A great moral crime of slavery was depriving people of family. There was family love, because that can’t be defeated, but it was often violated. Slaves were denied the sovereignty of family ties.
Bundy indeed showed himself to be an ahistorical idiot when it comes to the depredations of chattel slavery.
But there is an argument whether the Great Society has been more destructive of the family unit -- black and white, but especially black -- than even Jim Crow segregation.
And it's not just critics of the welfare state on the right.
Only five days ago, Althouse pointed to a black writer actually arguing the sunny side of Jim Crow.
April 19, 2014
"We like to think of the men and women whose struggle led to Brown v. Board of Education as democratic idealists..."
"... but their motivations were more complex: if the efforts to upend Jim Crow reflected idealism, it was a cynical idealism," writes Jelani Cobb in a New Yorker article titled "The Failure of Desegregation."
The architects of Jim Crow were fixated by notions of white racial purity, but black people subjected to that dictatorship of pigment were concerned with a different question: In a hostile society, is it better to be isolated from those who view you with contempt or in close proximity to them?... In the thirties, W. E. B. Du Bois inspired rancorous debates within the N.A.A.C.P. by arguing, in his writing, that there were important economic benefits—the built-in market for black businesses, for instance—that came with segregation.... Black teachers in South Carolina, where another of the desegregation suits had been filed, worried, with some cause, that integration would end a state of affairs in which black children, though deprived of equal resources, at least benefitted from teachers who did not calibrate their expectations according to the color of their students’ skin.
Not expressing an opinion on Bundy's comments. There are plenty of others to do that.
But Amy Davidson?
The smug is strong in this one.
Cliven has some kooky views on history and the law for sure, but a lot of people bitching about the words of a fellow citizen that effect them zero have also spent the last couple of days decrying the inability for the State of Michigan to engage in racial discrimination.
Glass houses, people.
Bundy said some truly stupid things, but our government is still arrogant and out of control. Bundy's foolishness on matters of race does nothing to change that fact.
Bundy's situation is both dangerous and volatile. It also should be charging an interesting discussion about the federal government owning land and regulating its use. (Which is not to say Bundy and his supporters are doing the right thing.)
The mediaswine, led by the NYT, prefer instead to reduce the matter to the usual uncivil, mindless drivel about race, Republicans and old white guys in the hope it will somehow bolster Democrats. Too bad.
Of course, by now, the mediaswine have proven for the most part to be mindless, so perhaps they can no longer help themselves.
boxty woot said...Youtube video or it's a lie.
Here you go.
Amy Davidson, the New Yorker and the main stream media in general are big at yelling "Eeekh a mouse! and changing the subject,
Let’s see if I get this right, black people on welfare are not wards of the state, dependent on government subsidies for the very food in their mouths and the roofs over their heads.
Free spirits, that can’t be sold, …
but can be bought.
As the Wise Latina said, can we talk speak openly and candidly on the subject of race? Apparently not yet.
Maybe whites on government assistance would be better off as slaves. Like Cliven Bundy for instance. Let's shackle him and find out.
I'm sure Bundy has lots of dumb opinions and that our nation's media will make every effort to enumerate all of them. Don't expect a lot of in depth reporting on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright though......I haven't been following the affair closely, but, from what I've read here, his early supporters are making an effort to distance themselves from him. So that's something. If a black spokesman says something over the top about whites, his supporters and the media will struggle to put it in context.
"I don't want to defend Bundy's speculation as to whether blacks were better off under slavery than they are as wards of the state."
I won't defend Bundy either, because I am not sure what he said, and I really don't care enough to find out. But I could easily see how he might think that a person who is unable to better himself because he is held in slavery is less degraded and in many ways better off than a person who is uninterested in bettering himself as long as someone else will provide his necessities.
My understanding is that Clive Bundy produces beef. I expect some bullshit gets produced along the way. But with Davidson, it appears to be the primary product.
"as though we're not as human as they are"
Crack, I strongly recommend you read Amy Chua's book, Triple package and explain why Nigerians do so well in the USA.
I'll wait for you to read it. Not holding my breath, though.
What is dismaying is not that Bundy is an ignoramus. It is that almost every comment here that notes that fact then follows it with a 'but. . ."
I am sorry. That land is MY land and YOUR land, not Bundy's land. If anyone's property rights are being violated by his having his damn cows graze on it, it is MY property rights and YOURS. I willingly, along with my fellow citizens collectively, put that PUBLIC land in the trust of the government to supervise. It is absolutely a minimum demand, totally consistent with the concept of property rights, that this ignoramus pay his fees for using MY land and YOUR land. And confiscating his cows is the kindest, not the harshest, just response to his arrogance. For the talk radio right to make a hero out of him, even a yada yada yada BUT he's a hero" out of him, is a sign of how demented the talk radio right has become and how toxic to any real conservative movement.
Only the brainless fools who want to asset Wisconsin's right to secede are more insane. Great movement: a ticket of Clive Bundy and Jefferson Davis.
I think the comments made about slavery by Amy Davidson (at the link) and Martin Bashir (last December) are more significant than Bundy's moronic musing, since they are professional opinion-shapers, rather than ranchers.
Neither Davidson nor Bashir seem to have a problem with slavery's essential character, which is making people labor or seizing the fruits of their labor without their consent. They focus entirely on the incidents of slavery, such as abusive punishment or breaking up families. Yet these could be eliminated by mandating the humane treatment of slaves, rather than abolishing slavery per se.
I suspect that Davidson and Bashir fail to recognize this because they are ideologically predisposed to benevolent paternalism. Their political ideals are incompatible with genuine self-ownership.
The person who is "historically illiterate" is Amy Davidson. Between the time slavery ended -- nearly a century and a half ago! -- and the time Lyndon Johnson kicked off his War on Poverty -- a half century ago! -- the Blacks in this country had developed a strong culture centered on the church and the family. In the cities they built up a thriving middle class. Where is the Black middle class inside today's cities?
It isn't white men impregnating inner city Black teenage girls.
He talks about freedom and “ancestral” rights, but grazes his cattle on public land—our land, not his homestead—without paying his share
Unless the writer is a Nevadan, the use of the phrase "our land" is inappropriate. Bundy has said he would have no problem paying the state government for grazing rights -- just not the federal government, since it isn't properly their land.
As a matter of law he's incorrect, of course. But morally, he's got a good point. By what right does the federal government claim such a large part of the western states?
garage mahal said...
Maybe whites on government assistance would be better off as slaves. Like Cliven Bundy for instance.
Bundy is living off the government if he is using US land without paying grazing fees.
Michael K asks:Would you mind explaining his "subsidy" that has existed since 1870?
Sure. Grazing cattle for free or vastly below-market rates. A subsidy he's captured for years (though how long his family has actually owned the land is unclear) that has helped prop up his ranching business, particularly compared with people who have to pay for grazing pastures over the past few decades. And it's a subsidy he apparently wants to keep, perhaps into perpetuity. Next question?
A necessary support of democracy is the view that people are the best arbiters of their own interests. While we often speak as if the validity of a person's choices is determined by their "happiness", at the same time we realize that a person who finds himself imprisoned as, say, a conscientious objector, can be unhappy with his situation, without being unhappy with the decisions of which it is clearly the result.
All of which is preamble to observing that Bundy did not say that anyone should in fact be enslaved. Whereas Leftists routinely assert that they know what is best for me, that my feelings in the matter are essentially immaterial, and that the government has not merely a right but a duty to force me to live according to their dictates, by employing whatever degree of force may prove necessary.
I'm struggling to see the point.
The dispute is over grazing fees and the attempted forced seizure of the cattle. The government has a point that they own the land and can charge grazing fees. Mr. Bundy has a point that his family was enticed to ranch this area on the promise of free grazing rights, which the government eventually reneged upon after many decades, and if he paid said fees he would be quickly bankrupted. And we all need to seriously consider whether the use of heavily armed government agents to seize his cattle is appropriate both as a solution to this dispute and in general.
The fact that he has some racist views is a non sequitur. Free country and all that. He's got the same rights as the rest of us. Shouldn't matter if he is a racist, or an anarchist, or a communist, or whatever. When people have different rights based on what they believe then no one has any rights at all.
There are two issues. First, there are the contractual terms set by the Federal government for land use. Second, there is the discussion of slavery, and present day conditions. Actually, there are three issues.
The first is, apparently, not about money, but about binding laws set forth by the Federal government.
The second is a settled issue. Neither involuntary exploitation nor constrained liberty without cause or due process are acceptable in America. This was firmly decided when the Confederacy was broken.
The third is a subject of ongoing debate. There are two perspectives. One where redistributive change serves as a long-term solution. The other where redistributive change is limited, focused, and accountable. One where population control is executed through abortion/murder. The other which recognizes intrinsic value. One where corruption is progressive. The other where progressive dysfunction is mitigated through moral behavior.
Today, the primary issue is a progressive consolidation of power (i.e. monopoly formation) by the federal government. It is a tendency of a minority to control people for the sake of special interests (e.g. environmentalists). It is the government's disposition to denigrate individual dignity to marginalize people by classes. It is the government's normalization of an unprecedented violation of human rights which annually denies around one million Americans their unalienable right to life.
Poverty is often the result of structural inequality. Most notably in high density population centers. This is why the Left has, not out of goodwill, but from necessity, demanded redistributive change (i.e. private capital capture). Unfortunately, their 1% and wealthy are unwilling to exclusively subsidized their democratic leverage (aka "clumps of cells"), which is why they need the federal government to harvest national wealth, and run trillion dollar deficits (i.e. progressive devaluation of capital and labor) to supplement their effort. This is why they need a population control protocol which reduces the problem set (i.e. "burden") through abortion/murder of around one million American lives annually.
Actually, they need abortion/murder for three reasons. One, to reduce the problem set. Two, to increase government revenue. Three, as an opiate (i.e. dissociation of risk) to placate the masses.
Qwerty-
Excellent point. I've been trying to figure out why this recent spate of "slaves were tortured all the time" rhetoric wasn't sitting well with me. You've nailed it.
You don't need any of that to say slavery was bad enough just because of the loss of freedom.
Too good a thought to pass up attacking in today's racial division politics, but The simple guy compared welfare state dependency life to a slave's life and wonders which is better.
that thought did not praise slavery. He just condemned welfare state dependent life as being worse than terrible slavery that was ended 150 years ago.
He is wrong. There is no comparison until you throw in North Korea and Cuba that Obama's party wants to see started here.
Bundy is a fool, and no hero of mine. He may be a racist or just an idiot, but either way I do not want to be associated with him.
That said, I want to comment on this passage:
One of the most delusional parts of Bundy’s musing was the phrase “having a family life.” A great moral crime of slavery was depriving people of family. There was family love, because that can’t be defeated, but it was often violated. Slaves were denied the sovereignty of family ties. Your children might be sold, and you’d never see them again. You might be raped, and not choose who the father of your children would be. Sexual violence had a broad brutality. The pattern of your life was set by the rhythm of someone else’s family—a death that broke up an estate or a marriage that turned your daughter into someone else’s wedding gift. And the great moral delusion of slave owners was that these transactions and acts of brutality built one big family household, simply by calling an old slave Auntie or Uncle.
This is a classic example of taking important facts and turning them into less than they are by isolating them from some larger truth. I can not tell if the isolation is due to the writer's ignorance, or her attachment to a certain narrative. Nevertheless she is insultingly wrong about slave family life.
The most astonishing thing about slave families is that they were so powerful and persistent in the face of the terrible realities of slavery. I have spent the last three years studying a group of black families from the Beaufort, South Carolina area. I now have good information on a group of families from a plantation numbering over 300 people before slavery ended. They lived in proximity during slavery, intermarried then and then spent several generations trying to navigate emancipation in a world that varied from indifference to hostility to their race. I have met and talked with numerous descendants of these original families, and learned more of their stories than the dry written records could ever tell.
The strength of these families is beyond remarkable. They managed to retain that strength during slavery, in some cases reuniting after they had been sold away by the owners or the owners' estate, and in all cases continuing to live in proximity, care for each other's old and young and assist each other through all kinds of trials. These families, though now grown large and scattered all over the country, still maintain a cohesion and pride.
Family and religion were all these people had in slavery, and for a long time thereafter. They kept these foundations strong and persevered. Certainly they were victims, and in important ways the effects of that victimization remain. Yet they were not powerless. Their power had to be internal, spiritual and emotional, and it was very powerful indeed. They were able to creat and sustain the family ties that I have can still see and hear with my own eyes and ears.
It is really a disservice to the former slaves and their descendants to assert, as this author impliedly has done, that they were destroyed by slavery. The amazing thing is that they were not. Indeed the plight that many black persons have in this country today are much more a function of 150 years of systematic (and later more subtle and insidious) racial discrimination than they are of slavery. The deepest trials for the black family have come since 1960, in a time of so called progress. Why is a complicated subject, but it's far more than an artifact of slavery.
60 years ago when I first came to this country, there were a lot of old timers who would talk like Cliven Bundy. I would guess black people are fairly scarce in Nevada back country, so he still talks like his parents or grandparents did.
But mostly this was just different language. Bundy evinced no animosity toward black people. He was just talking about what he reads in the paper and sees on TV and comparing it to what hisold-timers told him "the good old days" were like.
I am more than a little disgusted with the media and political "personalities" promptly throwing Mr Bundy out of the sled and expressing their absolute horror at his statements. This is totally phony. What Mr. Bundy said was much less "racist" than some of the things they routinely say and do on the air, without even realizing what they really are saying.
The other thing is that the MSM is taking the ooportunity to yell, "Squirrel!!!" and get our attention diverted from this administration's energy and political policies, and the great misbehavior on the part of Harry Reid & Sons, the AGW scamsters, and the Federal agencies involved in this cock-up.
All he's trying to say is that a lot of black Americans still have a lot of problems. Hear about the awful gang violence in Chicago recently?
He also recognizes the humanity of Mexican immigrants. What does that make him?
The issue isn't Bundy, his actions or his speech.
The issue is that the U.S. government used armed agents as bill collectors.
Take a minute to find out how many agencies in the government have the equivilent of SWAT teams. I hear the next one is going to built by the bureaucrats who run the free lunch program.
If the rumors of Sen. Reid's involvement are true, this then becomes a politician using armed agents of the federal government for personal gain.
Grazing cattle for free or vastly below-market rates.
There is no such thing as a "market rate" for government-owned land. Thus, it is impossible for use of government land to be "below market rate".
If you want to have market rates, privatize the land.
Grazing cattle for free or vastly below-market rates.
There is no such thing as a "market rate" for government-owned land. Thus, it is impossible for use of government land to be "below market rate".
If you want to have market rates, privatize the land.
The federal govt. got people to settle the area by promising them grazing rights. After the creation of the BLM, they have slowly been run out of the ranching business one by one, by ever more restrictive regulations and fees. Bundy was the last holdout in his county. But then, the federal govt. has only rarely been known to keep its promises, whether we are talking about Indian treaties, or settlers, or foreign countries giving up nukes for our worthless promises of protection i.e. Ukraine.
Yeah, the irony here is that this same twat would most likely argue the other way on another day. Specifically, she'd argue that mere freedom to starve means very little -- that real "liberty" includes a right to eat, get good medical care, get a nice house and Obamaphone, et cetera. That's how the Soviets used to sniff when we bragged about our civil liberties. The "negative" right to be free from coercion -- sell your labor as you please, marry whom you want, live where you want -- means very little without "positive" rights.
Very amusing to see a leftie arguing the other side: that liberty qua liberty is of immense value, and no sane person would trade it away for a mere three square meals a day and a roof over his head.
If these people had any sense of irony, they'd spontaneously combust.
There is a song called pierce my ear that is about becoming a willing slave to God. In ancient Jewish tradition, slavery wasn't based on race and was therefore not considered a racist institution. However, it wasn't necessarily for life either. You could earn your way out of slavery.
But sometimes, a slave was treated so well and had more as a slave then if they were free. So when released, they could pierce their ear and freely go back into slavery. Hence the song, pierce my ear, showing that we want to serve God.
In America we believe slavery is a racist institution. Therefore, any talk of slavery isn't separated from race. We also believe that freedom is the highest ideal. Even if it means living a life of squalor, or prostitution, or theft, or whatever else one could imagine going through in order to maintain freedom.
But as C.S. Lewis wrote many years ago, if we elevate any single ideal above all others, we become demons. We ought to have justice, but if we elevate justice to the highest ideal, we no longer have mercy.
And in America we are now starting to see what happens if we put freedom above everything.
The truth is, some people would be better off as slaves. I think we all know this to be absolutely undeniable. But so what? There is a lot more bad under slavery than possible good that could come from it.
So instead of thinking Bundy is some racist who has backwards thinking, perhaps we should attempt to make the argument that even though some good can come from slavery, it is so heavily outweighed by the bad that its not worth considering.
Michael K,
"Crack, I strongly recommend you read Amy Chua's book, Triple package and explain why Nigerians do so well in the USA."
They don't live with their oppressors?
"I'll wait for you to read it. Not holding my breath, though."
Nope, I don't read pop psychology garbage, though I'd expect you'd be just the type to do so and think you sound so intelligent you should pat yourself on the back for it.
Really, Mike, you're a piece o' work,...
Illuninati,
"Does this mean that there is someplace which is better? I'm curious where that might be?"
Zimbabwe.
Duh.
It is amazing how many people are doubling down on the Bundy, unwilling to accept that he is no longer a good figurehead nor that this cause is a losing one.
Do you forget there is an election six months away? Do you realize that outside of the old white male contingent that armed antigovernment sentiments are not popular?
This is as smart electorally as Wisconsin's secession vote coming up. Don't take eggs and smear them all over yourself if you care about elections.
And for god sakes, check out a person out before holding them up as a figurehead for your movement. The lack of judgement shown does not lend itself towards seeing Bundys supporters as well thought or careful individuals.
AReasonableMan said...
garage mahal said...
Maybe whites on government assistance would be better off as slaves. Like Cliven Bundy for instance.
Bundy is living off the government if he is using US land without paying grazing fees.
Yep. He owes the government money. It's a matter for the courts not SWAT.
Would you mind explaining his "subsidy" that has existed since 1870 ?
Bundy has been alive since 1870?! No wonder dude looks so old.
Bundy, however backward and uncouth, is no threat to anyone.
He has an army of thousands of armed men & women, ready to rise up and strike out against any who dare to oppose his idea of freedom and you say he is no threat to "anyone"?
Crack. "It's truly a sick fucking place to grow up,..."
I don't know about where you live but here in Atlanta we have a large population of immigrants from Africa who have fled their home countries for a better life. You say that America was a horrible place to grow up, they vote with their feet. You whinge about the past, they leave the past behind. They view America as paradise in comparison to the places where they grew up. They would view Compton as I view Beverly Hills.
The airplanes they arrive on also return to Africa.
Crack. "It's truly a sick fucking place to grow up,..."
I don't know about where you live but here in Atlanta we have a large population of immigrants from Africa who have fled their home countries for a better life. You say that America was a horrible place to grow up, they vote with their feet. You whinge about the past, they leave the past behind. They view America as paradise in comparison to the places where they grew up. They would view Compton as I view Beverly Hills.
The airplanes they arrive on also return to Africa.
You can tell a lot about how comfortable someone is in his position by whether he attacks his opponent's strongest arguments or his weakest.
Liberals consistently go after the weakest and pretend the strongest don't exist.
"You don't need any of that to say slavery was bad enough just because of the loss of freedom."
Well, if at heart you don't value human freedom, then it is easy to see why loss of freedom was not considered a major horror of slavery. Every other horror of slavery, and they are legion, built on this loss of freedom.
Wow - Ann you're trolling your own blog...
I didn't hear Bundy talk about the slavery period. I heard him talking about the pre-lbj period.
The Crack Emcee said...
sean,
"A characteristic of the chattering classes is that they rarely pick on anybody their own size,…"
Agreed - whites outnumber blacks, 6 to 1, and, still, won't stop talking about us as through we don't exist to refute them, or abusing us, as though we're not as human as they are - a fact they had to "decide" on, over time, as blacks "waited."
When the playing field is fair - as in sports like baseball and basketball - they can't do or say shit.
But, until then, they'll go on spinning lies about merit, and their innocence, and whatever the fuck they think 1776 means while the rest of it, like slavery, is framed as "ancient history".
It's truly a sick fucking place to grow up,...
I nominate this for stupidest thing Crack has ever written. And there's plenty of competition.
First, he's wrong about baseball. Take a closer look.
Second, he wants to say that blacks are better at basketball. Fine. Whites are better at math. Back to you.
Are we speaking openly and candidly on the subject of race yet?
Mark: Do you forget there is an election six months away?
Well, duh, Mark. You can tell because the left and the RINOs have put their 24/7 racism! sniffing patrol into overdrive. As they should, because it invariably works like a charm - conservatives take the bait every goddamned time.
Ever see the left (or RINOs) backing down, apologizing for, or distancing themselves from the vermin in their own ranks? Nope, they just brass it out and stay on the attack. But all the left has to do is get the the MSM to keep churning out these squirrel! pieces, and conservatives will obligingly neuter themselves.
Cliven Bundy is more like Arthur Dent, having his own little problems with the Highway Dept., when the Vogons arrive to blow up the Earth to make room for a galactic interplanetary interchange.
For the rest of us citizens, the Vogons and their galactic overlords is the problem, Arthur Dent's house is not a major concern for us.
Harry Reid said that this wasn't over. Some thought that meant that there would be some kind of midnight raid at the ranch or a Waco style attack. They underestimated Harry. It was obvious from the outset that Mr. Bundy was not very articulate. Someone who spends 12 hours a day on the back of a horse is not likely to moonlight as the captain of the debate team. He certainly holds some views of the relationship between the federal gov. and the state that are not holding water in court.
Harry & co. knew all this, so they sent in their most trusted, most dangerous agent: A news reporter. I believe what Mr. Bundy was trying to say had more to do with the destruction of the family under the welfare state than anything about race or slavery. Once said, they were able to use his own ego and code of honor (I said it and I stand by it!!!) to cement the image of him as some racist crank.
I don't know, like or care about him and his quixotic stand against the BLM. It is more instructive to see how the establishment will destroy someone who dares to speak out against them, right or wrong and how cunning they can be at it.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
Ok Mark, let's posit your sincerity. This Bundy is a flawed vessel. I think this was known before his latest quaint pronouncements, but arguably an archaic expression of the dysfunction he sees in black culture is more important and negative than the dysfunction he sees in the federal reach of power.
The problem is, Bundy still has the argument he had before. The BLM and Harry Reid are still doing whatever the hell it is they are doing. I am not sure it is sound to suddenly be ok with that because their target just sprouted some hair on his heels. Why would it be? Lawyers don't dump their clients because they're scum. Leftists never do.
But, were his comments true?
The freeloading of folks like Bundy is a real issue. Why he turned into a hero for the right is beyond me.
I do believe even people with politically incorrect and even racist views have the same exact rights as anyone else. Knucklehead vs criminal government? Hmmmm......
Also seeing not so long ago when Harry Reid called Obama was "light-skinned" and noted that the President didn't use a "Negro dialect." Oops! Of course, quick apology is all that took to disappear.
Even racist idiots have property rights under our constitution. They also have 1st amendment rights. The constitution protects idiots, racists, and saints alike. That is the beauty of the constitution.
Trey
And for god sakes, check out a person out before holding them up as a figurehead for your movement
Tell that to Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton. Ted Kennedy and Wendy Davis.
Is it possible for TWANLOC to understand that"the right" is not picking these people for show? Is that why the Left is picking on them, because they are ripe and juicy?
Don't you understand that this will all end in blood and fire? Or is that the idea?
Nichevo, I fail to see Bundy's case as a hill worth dying on.
Not recognizing the Federal Government (or the part of the Nevada Constitution that deals with Federal issues) is a non-starter. As is losing his case in court repeatedly. As is taking up arms in opposition to court decisions.
Perhaps there are white men of a certain demographic that are all for that, but this could hardly play into stereotypes more.
The fact that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz ran to the cause, the way Hannity championed this just makes it clear that these guys will jump into bed with anyone to advance their agenda. Good luck trying to demonstrate how thoughtful and considerd their governing is.
The staggering thing is that some random guy says something insane and the Democrats immediately try to turn it into a national race issue. Their contempt for Black people is truly boundless. But, as Crack illustrates, this stuff works on the paranoid and ignorant.
I am sorry. That land is MY land and YOUR land, not Bundy's land. If anyone's property rights are being violated by his having his damn cows graze on it, it is MY property rights and YOURS. I willingly, along with my fellow citizens collectively, put that PUBLIC land in the trust of the government to supervise. It is absolutely a minimum demand, totally consistent with the concept of property rights, that this ignoramus pay his fees for using MY land and YOUR land. And confiscating his cows is the kindest, not the harshest, just response to his arrogance.
And, you did what for the land? Exactly squat. Bundys have been ranching this land for well over a century now. Many decades before there was ever a BLM (run now by Harry Reid's protégé). Before my long dead grandparents were born.
In the west, there is are legal theories about prior use and best use. Somewhat akin to adverse possession. And, under adverse possession, the Bundys would have owned this land a century ago. It was tokenly owned by someone at the time they started ranching, and, because no one else had any use for it, it was the federal govt. But, the feds had a handful of people in the entire state, and rarely, if ever, set foot on the land the Bundys were ranching for most of the next century. To them, it was merely a bookkeeping entry. And, ultimately, most of a century later, it became a small source for revenue.
As I pointed out the other day, the basic problem is that the federal govt. pushed for many years settling the country, and civilizing the wilds in this country. They did this with, among other enticements, the Homestead Acts. But the Homestead Acts were designed by easterners, who had no concept of how little water there was out west. None. A quarter section was though fine for farming. Ultimately, it got expanded to a full section (1 mile square) as you got into the western Plains, and that wasn't really enough to make a living farming. Best it got for ranchers was a half a section. But, that was fine, because there was open range all around that could also be ranched, to make a living. THIS WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for many decades. This is "your" land that you are so covetous of, but will never get closer to than the casinos in Las Vegas. It is dry as a bone, and the only possible use for the land for better than a century, was ranching. The Bundys couldn't own it, because they could never homestead more than a half a section per family member, and needed tens, if not hundreds of sections to make a living.
The land had no other use by anyone, period, until the Dems pushed their "stimulus" through the 111th Congress, run by Harry Reid (and Nancy Pelosi) and included a lot of money for "green" energy, which translates here into taxpayer funding for solar panels for a Chinese company which is, not coincidentally, represented by Rory Reid's law firm. The Bundy cattle are interfering with the Reid client solar panels. That is why the BLM (run by Harry Reid's former chief land use staffer) SWAT was called out to round up the cattle.
So, where were you during that time? How do you justify claiming it as your land? What did you do to earn it? Bundys have worked it for more than a century, what is your claim?
The constitution protects idiots, racists, and saints alike. That is the beauty of the constitution.
Bundy says he doesn't recognize the Federal government's right to exist, which would also mean he doesn't recognize the US Constitution.
You can tell a lot about how comfortable someone is in his position by whether he attacks his opponent's strongest arguments or his weakest
What exactly is his "strong" argument?
That there is no Federal US government and only state laws have to be followed? Or that since his great-grandfather didn't have to pay any grazing fees then he shouldn't have to pay either? Or perhaps you think his whole "We have the guns so we can do whatever we want to" shtick is his strongest argument?
"Negro" is not a derogatory term. It just means black in Spanish, or, I guess in this case, Portuguese. In anthropology, it is a term used for the largely Bantu-speaking peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, keeping in mind that all Bantu-speakers are not Negro and all Negro peoples do not speak Bantu.
Somehow, in rather recent times, "Negro" became associated with "nigger" in the PC minds of the MSM, and they went to "Afro-American," which Jesse Jackson took exception to, and stated that he preferred "African-American," which then duly became the accepted term in USA MSM usage.
However, note that it makes no sense whatever for people not citizens of the United States.
Let me also point out, the issue with the Bundys has never been about the money. It is about the increasingly onerous conditions that the BLM has attached to the grazing rights. Bundy hasn't paid for the grazing rights, because the BLM won't accept them until and unless he signs acceptance of their terms, and he can't do that without going out of business. Part of the problem are those tortoises, which are apparently "endangered", despite coexisting for better than a century with cattle on the same range. The same tortoises that the BLM is now killing because they don't have enough money to "protect" them anymore.
The BLM has managed, through the policies that the Bundys have not accepted, managed to push ALL of the rest of the ranchers in Clark county (bigger than 3 states and almost as big as New Jersey) out of business. The other ranchers signed the new BLM leases, and ultimately were forced out. They couldn't survive ranching when policy was being made by easterners thousands of miles away, by people who only come to the county to gamble, or, on occasion, raise campaign funds, and don't come near the near desert that the Bundys have been using to make a living for so long.
But, reiterating my point. It has never been about the money. It is about the BLM driving the ranchers off the land, that until the Dems massively subsidized solar energy, had no other use, through ever more onerous conditions attached to their grazing allotment contracts. That is why the Bundys weren't paying - because the feds wouldn't accept their money. You may think that Rory Reid's client's massively federally subsidized solar panels are a better use of the land than growing cattle to feed Americans, but many do not.
Oh, and before anyone talks about the ranchers being subsidized, let's compare the subsidies involved - the "green energy" subsidizes, or the "below market" grazing fees. That people are making millions on failed "green" energy projects (thanks to the massive federal subsidies that Harry Reid, among others, pushed through), and no one is making money ranching should be a dead giveaway here.
He's pretty nasty to those Mexicans too:
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.
And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.
Pretty harsh.
Finally, a lot of people talk like Bundy. Out of the mouths of babes... Or, the emperor with his set of new clothes. It is fairly commonly held knowledge throughout much of flyover country - that LBJ, and the Dems, descendants of slave owners and Klan members, permanently subjugated the Black race through their dependence on welfare. Every generation, more Blacks are born out of wedlock, and grow up in fatherless households in poverty and violence. And, now, the cycle is reinforced through feedback. They vote for Democrats who promise them more free stuff, get the free stuff, want more, and vote again for the Democrats who impoverished them and broke up their families, causing much of their poverty in the first place.
I am sure that if you were privy to what the people in Harry Reid's church in Searchlight said, they would say exactly the same thing that Bundy said. Or, in town bars and cafes all across the country, late at night (can't say that about the Mormons - because they (mostly) don't drink alcohol, and shouldn't drink coffee, which is why I used Reid's church).
You just don't hear it on the news, because it isn't politically correct, and a good part of the national news these days is enforcing political correctness - which means not telling the rest of the country why poverty and violence have grown so endemic in the inner cities over the last half century, because that would embarrass those in power in this country, and esp. the Democratic leaders and politicians that engineered it, and benefit so greatly as a direct result of that dynamic of trading freebies from the government for votes. Almost all of the people in the MSM who have the power to expose this exploitation of Blacks are registered Democrats, and by exposing that their party, in particular, has maintained its power through this exploitation, and, really, utter destruction of the Black family throughout much of this country, would work to diminish the power of their party, and their friends in high places. They view what has happened to Blacks as a result of progressive policies as collateral damage, and the purpose of political correctness here is to keep the masses from questioning it.
As I started out here, the emperor has no clothes, and much of America knows it. But the press, like the sycophants in the fable, are the last to tell, and the first to point out how fine the new clothes are.
Illuninati,
"Does this mean that there is someplace which is better? I'm curious where that might be?"
Anywhere oppressors aren't still clueless to their own cluelessness.
Tank,
"Whites are better at math. Back to you."
Which is why Neil deGrass Tyson is America's top astrophysicist - also railing against American racism - and you ignore him just like you do the other facts of American life.
Whites are better at math - which is why the Arabs invented it.
Just clueless.
Back to you.
Anglelyne,
"Conservatives take the bait every goddamned time."
Because they're so SMART!!!
madisonfella said...
Bundy, however backward and uncouth, is no threat to anyone.
He has an army of thousands of armed men & women, ready to rise up and strike out against any who dare to oppose his idea of freedom and you say he is no threat to "anyone"?
Boo!
jill,
"Not so long ago when Harry Reid called Obama was "light-skinned" and noted that the President didn't use a "Negro dialect." Oops! Of course, quick apology is all that took to disappear."
Apologies work for a lot of things - your parents told you so - conservative racists should try it sometimes.
It's over for this guy as far as public opinion goes. He had a hard case to make to start with. Its not clear to most people why he should not obey the law. He has had his day in court and lost.
Now he's totally changed the subject and looks like a racist and an arrogant guy who is full of himself.
Gahrie said...
And for god sakes, check out a person out before holding them up as a figurehead for your movement
Tell that to Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton. Ted Kennedy and Wendy Davis.
Are they "a figurehead for your movement"?
That empty, knee-jerk, point-at-the-Left reaction is going to bury you guys,...
Mark,
"The fact that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz ran to the cause, the way Hannity championed this just makes it clear that these guys will jump into bed with anyone to advance their agenda. Good luck trying to demonstrate how thoughtful and considerd their governing is."
They "jump into bed with anyone" so fast they could lead the so-called Gay Lobby.
Hannity already looks like he'd fit right in,...
persiflage mahal,
"The staggering thing is that some random guy says something insane and the Democrats immediately try to turn it into a national race issue."
Yeah - staggering - the Democrats really tricked "some random guy" (promoted by the Right and FOX News endlessly) into this one. They made the issue, not him casually bringing up blacks in a dispute over grazing rights, as white conservatives seem to do over just about anything.
I'll tell "the Democrats" to knock it off,...
Hagar,
"Note that it makes no sense whatever for people not citizens of the United States."
As arguments go, you did read that "liberals consistently go after the weakest and pretend the strongest don't exist," didn't you?
Stick to the Right-Wing Rules!!!
I left out a step in my post above. The MSM first went to "black," or "Black," and then that became un-PC, so they came up with "Afro-American."
Anyway, the point is that "African-American" is just an invention of Jesse Jackson's - a person who has taken advantage of being a Negro, or Black, or at least partly so, to become a multi-millionaire, and then some, by playing this sort of games with their little minds.
Personally, being Norwegian, I have always resented being referred to as a "Caucasian," and I hope that a side effect of the Boston bombing, which was perpetrated by a pair of real Caucasians, from Dagestan, will be to make this term also un-PC. "European," or just "white," will be just fine with me.
Bruce -
The Bundys have not worked this property for a century.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.
------------
My daughter is an 8th generation Wisconsinite on her mother's side, but that doesn't mean I can call something ancestral land because one of our parents bought it when I was young and grew up in that part of the state.
Tank,
"He's pretty nasty to those Mexicans too"
Because it's only racist to refer to whites as a group - as I'm told daily - but those "Spanish people"? Whites can talk about them, and "those people" and anyone else ("the Negro") and they're not racists - they're proud white American free speech advocates because only those suffering white racism can be racist.
"You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders."
Says Tank's hero - the man who doesn't recognize the government.
"But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them."
He meant to say "over them" but whatever.
"Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes."
Yeah, only blacks have the "bad culture" made from talking about us like we don't exist - just like the government doesn't.
"And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people."
Yeah, whites suck when it comes to family - disowning your kids is horrible and something I'd never heard of before meeting whites. Divorce was pretty new, too. Real pioneers, you white folks.
"When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people."
As long as you're in charge.
"And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party."
And you're just the kind of guys they'd want to hang with - which is why they vote for the OTHER guys.
"Pretty harsh."
You don't know the half of it,...
Bruce Hayden,
"Finally, a lot of people talk like Bundy,...It is fairly commonly held knowledge throughout much of flyover country,..
I am sure that if you were privy to what the people in Harry Reid's church in Searchlight said, they would say exactly the same thing that Bundy said. Or, in town bars and cafes all across the country, late at night,...
You just don't hear it on the news,,…"
But I'm wrong about race in America?
Man, you guys are confused,...
@Crack
So someone else is railing about racism and Arabs did something thousands of years ago.
We're talking America today. I got math, you got basketball. What else you got besides running backs?
When are you going to tell us about the great "other" places in this world for blacks.
Crack - Mr. Avoid the question.
Bruce Hayden,
"Finally, a lot of people talk like Bundy,...It is fairly commonly held knowledge throughout much of flyover country,..
I am sure that if you were privy to what the people in Harry Reid's church in Searchlight said, they would say exactly the same thing that Bundy said. Or, in town bars and cafes all across the country, late at night,...
You just don't hear it on the news,,…"
That is such an accurate picture it's mind-blowing:
Whites outnumber blacks, 6 to 1, but they deliberately lie to everyone but each other "late at night" (or online) because, to do otherwise, would expose them as racists.
Meanwhile, they're trying to make the folks they oppress lie - to whites - so whites can accuse others of the racism whites are guilty of.
And blacks are expected to be happy to be part of the white's centuries-old psychological dysfunction under these circumstances.
Yep - that about nails it:
Great job!
but grazes his cattle on public land
"Cliven Bundy's Grandfather purchased grazing rights from the General Land Office in the 1880's."
Purchased, not rented or leased, before the BLM was created. Then the BLM ignored the purchase after they took control of the land in the 1930s and 40s.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/cliven-bundys-justifiable-defiance-part-i
Ironically, it is Civil Rights Incorporated, which has made it impossible to discuss civil issues without qualifying them with selective past treatments. Worse, Democrats have denigrated individual dignity in order to marginalize and divide a population (or perhaps they're just being vindictive) for leverage, and forced political discussions to address classes of people, rather than individuals.
Anyway, while Bundy made an error to frame his argument with slavery, he was correct that the progress of abortion/murder, dysfunctional families, community violence, drug consumption, etc. are real problems which should call into question a solution fit for the short-term which ultimately ignored the causes in favor of treating symptoms in perpetuity.
He also unnecessarily narrowed the field of affected. The consequences of the solution (e.g. redistributive change, denigration of individual dignity, devaluation of human life) designed to submerge the problem, and secure political capital, has been a progressive dysfunction, which affects every American, from conception to death, to varying degrees, and challenges reconciliation of existing and emergent moral hazards.
Crack said Arabs invented math. Left out, Arabs were slave traders. Ouch.
Crack wants to live where the oppressors are not clueless to their cluelessness. What?
Perhaps this is the talk about race that Eric Holder wants us to have but I have better things to do with my life.
But I'm wrong about race in America?
Man, you guys are confused,...
Don't know quite what you are driving at there. Maybe a good part of the country is mistaken when it comes to race. Here is the thing though - most of them live places like I have tended to, which are historically and currently fairly lily white. They Blacks they know are probably good people - but there probably aren't a lot of them. What they do see is that Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, who, in turn vote for more largess for the poor, which turns out to be a higher percentage of Blacks than most other groups. And, they see in the news, and in the statistics, that the same groups that are benefiting the most from the poverty programs, are becoming the most dependent upon them, and are in a cycle of interdependence, fatherless childrearing, and violence.
Sure, I also hear about how Blacks are more violent and not as smart. But, that is belied by the success of Blacks whose families were not subject to slavery in this country, and to LBJ's War on Poverty a century later. Two quickly come to mind - Barack Obama and Colin Powell. There are many others.
Yes, maybe they are all mistaken as to racial relations. As I said, they are mostly non-Black, and mostly don't know very many, if any, inner city Blacks from dysfunctional homes that appear to have become the majority of your race in the last half century.
And, yes, I do cringe when hearing some of the stuff I hear. But, I also understand why I hear it.
Tank,
"Whites are better at math. Back to you."
It's always funny when the people who kept blacks from an education - by threat of death - then decide to claim they're smarter.
Keeping someone behind will definitely make you look good in your own eyes.
Your white forefathers, like Andrew Jackson, would be proud,...
Mary Frances Barry, the former Chairwoman of the US Commission on Civil Rights, lets the liberal mask of lies slip explaining the Democrat strategy, not just on Bundy but on many issues: ""Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/07/30/left-wing-black-activist-acknowledges-race-attacks-tea-party-are-bog
@Crack
My people came here in 1910; they about 10 cents between them. They did not stop anyone from doing anything.
Stop being a whiny crying titty baby.
Back to you
madisonfella: What exactly is his "strong" argument?
That there is no Federal US government and only state laws have to be followed? Or that since his great-grandfather didn't have to pay any grazing fees then he shouldn't have to pay either?
Maybe he's just been picking up those superior values from the illegal immigrants he praises (see Tank @9:27 AM). You know, "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me!" "This territory wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction in my great-great grandfather's day, why should I have to respect the border now?" "Housing codes don't apply to us." That sort of thing.
Hey, why should some people get to pick and choose which laws are convenient for them to obey, and not others?
Bad thing about selectively tolerating or encouraging lawlessness - it eventually gives the wrong people ideas. Wrong people meaning "those people I expect to carry on respecting the law so I can profit from not doing so but still get all the benefits of a reasonably stable society". (Not saying Bundy is one of the "wrong right" people; don't know. Just pointing out how hollow appeals to law-abidingness are sounding to a lot of decent people these days.)
Or perhaps you think his whole "We have the guns so we can do whatever we want to" shtick is his strongest argument?
Colonel Colt, the affordable lobbyist.
Does anybody wonder why the BLM just didn't get a court judgment for the amount of the grazing fees it says Bundy owed, and then simply file a lien against his property?
I guess the BLM bureaucrats thought it was a much better idea to finally be able to use their private army to kick ass, take names and steal cattle.
"Public land"--land the State has seized.
mtrobertsattorney:
That's a reasonable assessment. We know that the federal government demonstrates its power periodically through a demonstration of overwhelming force. This time, however, it's been a fairly tame presentation. Perhaps they've had their fill with creating oversea's man-caused disasters.
Actually, there is one other possibility. At this time, more people have a heightened awareness, and more people are on edge, because of the excesses of Treasury and its IRS agents. A physical confrontation may actually be less disruptive, than a confirmation of further abuses executed with revenue powers.
I'm sure Bundy has lots of dumb opinions and that our nation's media will make every effort to enumerate all of them.
I'd be more interested in learning what was in Gosnell's mind. Gosnell? You know, that abortionist shops of horrors.
Oh but that was a "local" story, so the MSM prob won't cover it...
@ mtrobertsattorney:
The court process with liens, etc. takes time.
They need the land for the "wildlife mitigation waiver" thing right now in order to collect the subsidy moneys for the solar plant down the road, and Harry Reid put the pressure on the agencies to see that they got it.
And that was the emergency.
If you are a Fed, and Harry Reid tells you to jump, you had better jump, if you value your expected pension.
Never heard of Bundy before this brouhaha, and I'm sure they are trying to pin everything Bundy says on all republicans.
However, It seems like they took some stuff he said out of context and withheld stuff that would make him look less like the virulent racist.
Why did they withhold the information? Makes me think that the left is running it's usual game. So, even though I have no real reason to defend Bundy I do feel the need to attack the left's agit prop.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/unedited-tape-bundy-emerges-sheds-light-racist-remarks
Hagar, you're pretty well educated especially for a foreigner, so I'll ask you what you mean here. You say: BLM is afraid for their pensions and so obeys the Senate. I thought the bureaucracy was pretty much immune to political interference. They can have their budgets cut and so forth but civil service protections make their own money , status inviolate...we're concerned that, when Republicans finally get in, the bureaucracy won't obey their wishes to rollback progressive horrors. Is all they have to do to get the presidency Congress and Senate and then they can make the 'crats do whatever they want? With pension threats? Calloo callay! I suppose it can be done somehow but have always understood it would be tough as nails.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा