Bundy and Racism

                Sixty-seven-year-old Cliven Bundy is in trouble again but not with the federal government.  This time it is the main stream media that tried to trip him up.  Mr. Bundy made some comments that were taken out of context by the New York Times and other news outlets.  Because of their bad reporting, he has been ostracized.  Major talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are distancing themselves from Mr. Bundy for what they deem to be racist remarks.  I consider his words to be the truth even though politically incorrect.

                Mr. Bundy’s statement is on a You Tube video and translated by truthrevolt.org.  If the main stream media had put Mr. Bundy’s words in context, there would have been no news item; so they took the middle of the statement and made him sound like a racist. 

                Here is the part of the statement printed by the New York Times and other news outlets:  “Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the Negroes.  I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.  When I go … to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch.  They didn’t have nothing to do.  They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do.  They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

                “And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do?  They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton.  And I’ve often wondered are they … better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things?  Or are they better off under government subsidy?

                “You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness – you could see it in their faces – they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk.  Down there they [were] probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.”

                It seems real plain to me that Mr. Bundy was talking about the freedom of Blacks and other minorities and was very correct in questioning if they are better off living on the government plantation of subsidies.  The above statement was taken out of context; it was preceded -- as shown by the YouTube video - with Mr. Bundy in mid-sentence saying:  “… and so what I’ve testified to you – I was in the Watts riot.  I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire.  What I seen is civil disturbance.  People are not happy; people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

                “We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back.  We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point.  We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point.  And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.”

                If this first part of his statement had been quoted, no one would even think he was a racist.  To me, he sounds very compassionate and concerned about the plight of his fellow human beings.  He sounds sincerely concerned with how minorities were treated in the past and definitely does not want “to go back to that point.” 

                The heavily-quoted words – taken from the middle of the statement - were followed by Mr. Bundy talking about Hispanics.  “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 [with] 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 structures 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.”

                How can any thinking person consider Mr. Bundy to be a racist?  Bumbling?  Yes.  Inarticulate?  Yes.  Opinionated?  Yes.  Racist?  No.  He showed great concern for the African-American people and even complimented the Hispanics.  He sounds to me like a man who is too aware that our government is taking over our lives and making them worse. 

                A black Marine that goes by the name of Charlie Delta wrote a letter defending Mr. Bundy:  “The media distorts information  to the point of social division.  This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy.  He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator.

                “One thing he definitely isn’t – a racist.  I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences.  Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?!  ….

                “Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight.  He posed a hypothetical question.  He said, `I wonder IF’ … ____, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family.

                “Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color.  Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example:  Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc.  He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government `assistance’ and the long term result of accepting handouts….”

                Marcus Lloyd, another American who happens to be black, came to Mr. Bundy’s defense:  “Any decent, fair-minded human being would understand that Bundy was condemning the slavery of government dependency in his comments regarding Negros.  The elderly gentleman is a rancher who is not media-savvy, nor is he schooled in the nuances of political correctness….

                “Mr. Bundy spoke the truth about cradle-to-grave government dependency wreaking havoc in the black community.  We all know this.  But when any white person who dares to acknowledge the huge elephant in the black community’s living room is vilified and branded a racist….  Meanwhile, black families continue to suffer and vote monolithically for Democrats who vow to fix their problems but never do.

                “Black relatives of mine (several died young) lived wasted lives because they were addicted to government dependency.  They were Democratic Party slaves, enslaved with chains far more powerful than steel.  They suffered mental and emotional slavery.  My relatives were robbed of the self-esteem, pride, and joy of individual achievement and earning one’s way….”

                I believe that Mr. Bundy is absolutely correct in saying that government subsidies do not help anyone – black, white, or brown – especially when given long term.  Government subsidies are merely making more and more people “slaves” to the U.S. Government.  The government is providing the daily needs for too many able-bodied people who should be working to provide their own necessities and luxuries.  I believe that most of these people would be much happier if they were working for their daily bread and paying their own way.  In my point of view, the federal government is not doing the people any favors but are simply buying votes for the Democrat Party.

Update on Nevada Showdown

                About three weeks ago the federal government decided to do something about Cliven Bundy’s cattle that has been grazing illegally on government property near Bunkerville, Nevada, for the past twenty years.  Federal officials showed up in force and began to round up Bundy’s cattle.  When militia groups came to stand with the Bundy family, the government officials backed down, claiming they were doing so to avoid violence.

                At the present time there are still groups of militia surrounding the Bundy ranch.  About fifty people are staying at the ranch and living in tents; they claim they are prepared to stay for a long time, maybe even months.  Many, if not all, of the supporters are members of the Oath Keepers, men who have pledged their lives and fortunes in their efforts to keep the oaths they made to protect and defend the Constitution.

                Now the militia members are worried that federal agents have infiltrated their group and are gathering information to make arrests.  Needless to say, this has caused an increase of tensions among the group.  Even with the increased tensions, the militia members have no plans to desert Bundy.

                With the spotlight on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) zealously defending its land in Nevada, it seems only fair to enlighten the nation on just how much land the federal government owns in Nevada.  According to data published by the Congressional Research Service

and reported by Terence P. Jeffrey at cnsnews.com,   “The acreage the federal Bureau of Land Management currently owns in the state of Nevada is more than all the land in all of the states of New England combined.”

                New England is comprised of the following states:  Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  The combined acreage in these six states totals 40,400,640 acres.  Together these states have zero number of acres of BLM land. 

                The State of “Nevada contains a total of 70,264,320 acres.  Of these, the federal government owns 56,961,778 acres, or 81.1 percent of the state.  That leaves only 13,302,542, or 18.9 percent of the state for owners other than the federal government.

                “The federal government, in other words, owns more than four times as much land in Nevada as all other land owners combined.

                “Of the 56,961,778 acres of Nevada owned by the federal government, the BLM controls 47,805,923 acres.  That is about 84 percent of the federally owned land in the state and 68 percent of all the land in the state.

                “The 47,805,923 acres that BLM owns in Nevada is 7,405,283 acres more – or 18.3 percent more – than all of New England.”  

        

                This information makes me wonder why in the world Harry Reid and the federal government are so determined to gain control of the Bundy ranch.  Don’t they have enough Nevada land without the Bundy ranch?

                According to Matt Shipley at canadafreepress.com, the incident in Nevada is not the only property grab the federal government has pulled.  There was “a similar incident between the U.S. Forest Service and Kit Laney in New Mexico, in which the Forest Service claims part of the Laney Ranch is on Federal property.  [It] has the same basic principle at stake and it has nothing to do with grazing rights or boundary disputes.  Those issues are moot points if we answer a more basic question:  what legal authority and for what purpose does the Federal Government have to `own’ property in the United States?”

                Shipley wrote a long article explaining why the federal government does not have the authority to “own” a very large percentage of the land in the Western United States.  He gives the actual source for his belief:  Property Clause from Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….”

                Shipley concluded his long article, “Without any foundation in American jurisprudence, Justice Marshall conjured up legislative power where there was none previously.  Along with the mythical legislative power came police power of the national government to enforce laws passed by Congress.  This erosion of limited government through judicial fiat has led to the charade in which we now find ourselves.  The myth of full legislative power over all public property in the United States has emboldened nationally elected politicians to reward their political supporters, through exclusive commercial access to public property, or attempt to enrich themselves as Harry Reid seems to be doing in the Bundy case.

                “This might explain why Harry Reid called Cliven Bundy and his supporters unpatriotic domestic terrorists at a televised event hosted by the Las Vegas Journal-Review on April 18, 2014.  When one cannot logically attack their opponent’s argument they attack their character, which is the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.  Perhaps Reid’s definition of a patriot is one who uses political power to enrich themselves and squash ordinary citizens trying to live their lives as their ancestors had for many years.

                “Make no mistake, the Bundy and Laney incidents are not about grazing rights or boundary disputes, and even though the government seems to put the welfare of `endangered’ species over the welfare of citizens it is not about that either.  It is about government control.

                “The more `We the people’ allow our national government to usurp power, the harder it will be for us to restore what has been unlawfully taken from us.  Please do not be fooled by mischaracterizations of what is happening, if `We the people’ allow this to happen to the Bundy’s and Laney’s of this world, it is just a matter of time before the government will be doing similar things to you.”

                “We the people” are in the unfortunate position of not knowing who or what to believe.  The President of the United States, the President of the U.S. Senate, and other national leaders have been caught in so many lies that we are leery to believe anything they tell us.  The main-stream media refuses to do the investigative reporting that is their duty.  “We the people” are left to dig out the truth in any way we can.  We need to be alert and well informed about the happenings in our nation and world.  We can no longer afford to sit back and let someone else take care of things.  We all need to be on the front lines-- right in the trenches – in defending our freedoms and liberties.  Are you doing your part?

Nevada Range War

                Good news came about the standoff in Nevada between the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy Ranch.  An announcement was made that the federal officers would pull out because the situation had become too dangerous for their employees and the public.

The decision was apparently made after information came out that a company backed by Communist China wanted the land for a renewable energy farm.

                I was seriously wondering if the U.S. Government was moving towards another disastrous showdown with American citizens.  It did not sound good to me to hear that more than 200 federal officers converged near a ranch located in Buckerville, Nevada.  The federal officers were there to enforce a mandate that Cliven Bundy remove his cattle from federal lands; they began to round up his cattle to sell them.  The forced cattle roundup was causing concern for many people besides the Bundy family.  Elected officials in several states weighed in, and militia members began to mobilize in support of their fellow Americans. 

                I could not help thinking about what happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, when the Government used power against American citizens.  Randy Weaver and his family, plus his friend Kevin Harris, were living at Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho.  Federal officers laid siege to the property and caused a deadly confrontation in 1992.  The confrontation ended with the death of Weaver’s wife Vicki, their son Sammy, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan.

                “At the subsequent federal criminal trial of Weaver and Harris, Weaver’s attorney Gerry Spence made accusations of `criminal wrongdoing’ against every agency involved in the incident:  the FBI, USMS, the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) for Idaho.  At the completion of the trial, the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility formed a Ruby Ridge Task Force to investigate Spence’s charges.  The 1994 Task Force report was released in redacted form by Lexis Counsel Connect and raised questions about the conduct and policy of all the agencies.

                “Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco siege involving many of the same agencies and even the same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement.  To answer public questions about Ruby Ridge, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information held a total of 14 days of hearings between September 6 and October 19, 1995, and subsequently issued a report calling for reforms in federal law enforcement to prevent a repeat of Ruby Ridge and to restore public confidence in federal law enforcement.”

                The Waco, Texas, siege or massacre took place at a compound owned by the religious group Branch Davidians.  Federal and Texas state law enforcement and military officers laid siege at the compound from February 28 until April 19, 1993.  The Branch Davidians sect separated from the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1955 and was led by David Koresh  They lived at Mount Carmel Center ranch in Elk, Texas, about nine miles east-northeast of Waco. 

                “The group was suspected of weapons violations and a search and arrest warrant was obtained by the U.S. federal agency Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  The incident began when the ATF attempted to raid the ranch.  An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians.  Upon the ATF’s failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days.  Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out.  During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center, and 76 men, women, and children, including David Koresh, died.

                “Much dispute remains as to the actual events of the siege.  A particular controversy ensued over the origin of the fire; a government investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire.  The events at Waco were cited as the primary motivation for the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing that took place exactly two years later in 1995.”

                Monica Morrell wrote an article suggesting that the Nevada problem could be about water rights.  Her article sheds even more light on why the government went after Bundy’s cattle. 

                “Bunkerville in Nevada is ensconced between the Virgin River and the main road, Riverside Road.  The Virgin River is a tributary to Lake Mead.  The river, along with other sources, discharges into Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States.  Both the Virgin River and Lake Mead are part of the Colorado River Basin.  In fact, Lake Mead is considered to be the largest surface water collection for the Colorado River.  Whoever controls the water controls the vast wealth that is distributed to a network of states at a crucial time during a water shortage?

                Doug Hagmann was so concerned about what might happen at the Bundy ranch that he called for the governor to send out the National Guard to protect the people.  “The current critical nature of the crisis cannot be understated.  In alleged response to a 20-year-old battle over `illegal cattle grazing,’ along with a more recent claim related to ostensibly protecting the allegedly endangered desert tortoise, the federal Bureau of Land Management has been dispatched to the Bundy ranch.  Do not be fooled by the innocuous sounding name of this federal agency, however, as the deployment now consists of some 200 heavily armed federal troops, transported by military troop carriers and equipped with sniper rifles and other military armaments.  It is an army by any other name.  [Obama’s civilian army?]

                “Meanwhile, in response to this show of force, armed members of patriotic militias are rallying around the Bundy ranch en masse to protect the rights of a rancher and his family.  Clearly, the lines of battle are being drawn.  Patriots and militias appear to be preparing to square off against this federal army who are present in numbers undeniably disproportionate to any perceived or actual threat.

                “As the scene of the battle begins to take form, the situation is needlessly and recklessly being permitted to escalate in words and deeds.  Today, Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins threatened the patriotic militia members rallying around the Bundys by publicly stating that those planning to travel to Nevada in their support `better have funeral plans.’  Clearly, these are fighting words and an obvious escalation to an already volatile situation.

                “As those words were being spoken, snipers equipped with high powered rifles with scopes continued to train their weapons on American citizens.  As that threat now begins to reverberate throughout the nation, federal troops are getting into position to launch whatever offensive that is being planned by federal bureaucrats, merely waiting for the `go’ signal.  The situation is deadly and deadly serious.”

                Judi McLeod shared information about other ranchers in Nevada and how the federal government treated them.  It sounds to me like the Bundy family has a right to believe the government is coming after them!

                Americans remember the results of force at Ruby Ridge and Waco.  I thought the range war might be the “crisis” the Obama Administration has been waiting for, the one they have been planning for, and preparing for with all their regulations.  Americans are fed up with their power grabs and are stressed by the economic situation of the nation.  I thought the fuse might be lit in Nevada but am relieved to hear the Government has backed off – for now.  Was this a test to see if Americans would stand up to their Government in spite of the odds against them? 

                There are still many questions about what happened in Nevada and why.  The Blaze did a story about seven questions people are asking.  There are probably many more.  The big question in my mind is whether or not the U.S. Government was right in using force in Nevada or are we just getting paranoid because of the many strange happenings in our nation.