Rand Paul slams Cliven Bundy's racist rant

[Vanguard101]

Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Dean Heller on Thursday both denounced as “offensive” and “racist” Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s recent comments about African-Americans.
“His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Paul said in a statement, according to Business Insider.

“Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” Heller spokeswoman Chandler Smith said in a statement.
Both Paul and Heller have previously defended Bundy, the Nevada rancher who is in a standoff against the federal government. Heller has referred to his supporters as “patriots.”
But on Thursday, The New York Times reported Bundy using the word “Negro” and wondering if blacks were better off as slaves.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy said over the weekend, according to the Times. “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? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Appearing on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he hadn’t seen Bundy’s comments. The Republican called Bundy a “side story” in the greater issue of how the federal government deals with public and private land.
Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Thursday released a statement on her official blog: “Let me make this plain: I condemn what Cliven Bundy said about African Americans.” Van Susteren has devoted significant time on her program to the Bundy issue, interviewing both Paul and Carol Bundy, Cliven’s wife.

“Morning Joe” co-host and former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough on his program Thursday morning slammed Bundy and Republicans who have embraced him. He said that Bundy is demanding “a right that no other rancher in America has.”
The host appeared to be equally upset with conservatives that have championed Bundy over the course of the past few weeks. “There’s nothing conservative about this man,” Scarborough said. “This is where nihilism about the federal government gets you in trouble every time.”
Comparing Bundy to George Zimmerman, Scarborough continued: “They basically pick their friends based on who their ‘enemies’ are. In this case, a lot of people in conservative media have raced to this guy’s defense. They must be feeling very exposed this morning.”
Mo Elleithee, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, took to Twitter to criticize Paul for what he thought was a slow response. “So @SenRandPaul took 12 hours to condemn Bundy’s racist rant. 12 hours. I dunno about him, but my outrage was pretty instant,” Elleithee wrote.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the DNC, also condemned Bundy’s comments on Twitter, writing: “Cliven Bundy’s comments are abhorrent and should be condemned immediately by all sides.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus denounced the remarks, saying in a statement: “Bundy’s comments are completely beyond the pale. Both highly offensive and 100 percent wrong on race.”
The chairman also said in separate comments that he doesn’t anticipate that the statements by the Nevada rancher will have any impact on Las Vegas’s chance to host the 2016 Republican National Convention.
“The convention decisions are made in pretty much a vacuum,” he said on the “Coffee and Markets” podcast. “No matter where you fall on this issue, with regard to this land out in Nevada, I don’t think it has anything to do with whether Las Vegas is a worthy place for a convention.”



http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/rand-paul-dean-heller-cliven-bundy-105982.html#ixzz2zoYOPvvB

[twomp]

The media would LOVE to tie Rand Paul to anything remotely having the word race in it. If they could, they would call him a racist for attending an Indy or NASCAR event because it has to do with "races."

[cajuncocoa]

The media would LOVE to tie Rand Paul to anything remotely having the word race in it. If they could, they would call him a racist for attending an Indy or NASCAR event because it has to do with "races."
And that's why we shouldn't worry so much about the media. (I know, I know....gotta get elected). But when we worry what the media will say, instead of standing for what's right (in spite of what Bundy has said....remember, his words are NOT the issue here) we give them the power to assure that we will never succeed.

[twomp]

And that's why we shouldn't worry so much about the media. (I know, I know....gotta get elected). But when we worry what the media will say, instead of standing for what's right (in spite of what Bundy has said....remember, his words are NOT the issue here) we give them the power to assure that we will never succeed.

Exactly WE shouldn't but Rand Paul should tread lightly on this subject. It's okay to disagree with what he said but still agree that the government is over reaching yet again. Hopefully he can do this without throwing meat to the dogs.

[dannno]

Have they released any audio recordings on these statements? Bundy said he was slandered by the NYT reporter.

[Danke]

Have they released any audio recordings on these statements? Bundy said he was slandered by the NYT reporter.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450459-And-so-the-character-assasination-of-Cliven-Bundy-Begins!!!!!&p=5504166&viewfull=1#post5504166

[Mr.NoSmile]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450459-And-so-the-character-assasination-of-Cliven-Bundy-Begins!!!!!&p=5504166&viewfull=1#post5504166

That, pretty much. Though, brief aside, I did like the title of a Washington Post article that read "Rand Paul and other Republican leaders distance themselves from Bundy" or something to that effect.

[IndianaPolitico]

Come on Rand! Did you actually listen to them?

[Brian4Liberty]

Hold on one cotton pickin' minute (read that in old man voice)... I haven't had a chance to keep up with this story, but one thing I read earlier made it sound like this NYT reporter who heard the comment almost immediately called Rand Paul's office for a statement on Bundy's statement? There is no doubt they are using this to smear the Tea Party and associated politicians.

Knowing that their strategy is to smear Rand, he really doesn't have much of a choice but to react strongly to these types of contrived "outrages". Cultural Marxism, distraction and dirty politics are afoot.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Hold on one cotton pickin' minute (read that in old man voice)... I haven't had a chance to keep up with this story, but one thing I read earlier made it sound like this NYT reporter who heard the comment almost immediately called Rand Paul's office for a statement on Bundy's statement?

Where'd you read that?

[Brian4Liberty]

Where'd you read that?

Wish I had a link. I was in a rush, and was scanning several news articles. Couldn't even tell you which website it was.

I'll try a Google search...

Update:
If you read the original article, the first thing the original article says after the Bundy quote is a quote from a Rand spokesman. Contacting Rand's office and connecting him to this was obviously top priority for them.


A spokesman for Mr. Paul, informed of Mr. Bundy’s remarks, said the senator was not available for immediate comment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=0

[Brian4Liberty]

And the very next article from the same NYT "reporter" referenced Rand. This is the source of the whole story, and it is clear that a primary agenda here was to connect this to Rand.

Second headline:

After Supporting Rancher, Paul Denounces Him
Rand Paul Condemns Cliven Bundy’s Remarks on Blacks

hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/us/politics/after-supporting-rancher-paul-condemns-his-remarks-on-blacks.html

This is pretty much like a reporter asking someone "do you still beat your wife", and when the answer is "no", the next headline is "After wife beating question asked, Joe denies beating his wife" or "Joe stopped beating his wife."

[angelatc]

Exactly WE shouldn't but Rand Paul should tread lightly on this subject. It's okay to disagree with what he said but still agree that the government is over reaching yet again. Hopefully he can do this without throwing meat to the dogs.

Rick Perry seems to have a handle on it:
The Republican called Bundy a “side story” in the greater issue of how the federal government deals with public and private land.

[specsaregood]

Rick Perry seems to have a handle on it:

Maybe Perry can invite Bundy out hunting at "Niggerhead".

[CaptUSA]

Yep. This is all about discrediting the Tea Party - and Rand with it. I understand what Bundy was getting at, but damn people... We have to understand the world we are living in. Words will be used by these people.

[angelatc]

Yep. This is all about discrediting the Tea Party - and Rand with it. I understand what Bundy was getting at, but damn people... We have to understand the world we are living in. Words will be used by these people.

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?

Oh well. We knew they were coming after Bundy, and that they would probably win. But I sure did not see the racism card being trump, that's for sure.

[dannno]

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?


I personally think I disagree, I think I would rather be on welfare in the ghetto than living on a slave plantation but if you look merely at the incarceration rate of black males as well as the extreme cyclical poverty a good debate could be had.

[CaptUSA]

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?



It depends on what you are talking about when you say "better off".

The assumption that spending more of the taxpayers’ money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family—which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions—began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to “help.” - Thomas Sowell

[CaptUSA]

Guess it's different when it's him saying this.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/sowell2.bmp

[Feeding the Abscess]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.

There is a massive gulf between the two ideas, and they need to stop being conflated.

[Brian4Liberty]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.


Good thing that never happens... :toady:

[nobody's_hero]

This wouldn't have happened if he'd been more offensive, politically I mean.

If Rand had started landing haymakers into Reid's smug cheeks from the get go, no holds barred—what with all the ethically-defunct insider deals and BLM cover-ups (talk about a wasted opportunity)—and keeping Reid and the statist media occupied with trying to build a defense around father and son Reid, then there'd be no time to keep levying attacks on Bundy.

Once again, constitutionalists delayed. Spent too much time trying to fend off attacks instead of pinning the left in a corner for just once in a fucking lifetime. They built fixed fortifications on a political 'Maginot line' and the left just laughed and went around through Belgium, and now they're rolling tanks through Paris and trying to force Rand to surrender.

[klamath]

Comparing welfare to slavery is NOT the same. A person still has the freedom to get off the government slave tit a slave never had the opportunity. Using this argument kills us.

[James Madison]

Yep. This is all about discrediting the Tea Party - and Rand with it. I understand what Bundy was getting at, but damn people... We have to understand the world we are living in. Words will be used by these people.

The Tea Party is plenty good at discrediting itself, but I agree this will be used to demonize Second Amendment supporters and advocates of States Rights.

[Deborah K]

And the very next article from the same NYT "reporter" referenced Rand. This is the source of the whole story, and it is clear that a primary agenda here was to connect this to Rand.

Second headline:


This is pretty much like a reporter asking someone "do you still beat your wife", and when the answer is "no", the next headline is "After wife beating question asked, Joe denies beating his wife" or "Joe stopped beating his wife."


I think we need to seriously consider going after reporters with agendas, using their comments sections, and emailing/twittering them directly. They should be exposed.

[HVACTech]

"But on Thursday, The New York Times reported Bundy using the word “Negro”

how desperate is that? when did the word black, in Spanish become racist?

[Schifference]

Hard to keep up with the times. When I was young I was taught the term Negro was good and acceptable. Then came the term Black. I think nowadays it is African American. IDK. I had some friends that were very dark skinned when I was in nursing school. They were from Haiti. I wonder how they or a Jamaican or any dark skinned person that is not from Africa would like to be called African.

[anaconda]

Have they released any audio recordings on these statements? Bundy said he was slandered by the NYT reporter.

Great point. I hope Rand didn't jump the gun on this.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Comparing welfare to slavery is NOT the same. A person still has the freedom to get off the government slave tit a slave never had the opportunity. Using this argument kills us.

Thank you.

[cajuncocoa]

Comparing welfare to slavery is NOT the same. A person still has the freedom to get off the government slave tit a slave never had the opportunity. Using this argument kills us.
Why are we still allowing the media to set the agenda? Bundy's words are not the reason that the man is in the news. The abuse of the BLM is why he is in the news, and that's all we should be willing to discuss where Bundy is concerned. His opinions about other issues are his business.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.

There is a massive gulf between the two ideas, and they need to stop being conflated.

Which even their argument was bullshit to begin with considering slave families were separated by force all the time.

[Deborah K]

Comparing welfare to slavery is NOT the same. A person still has the freedom to get off the government slave tit a slave never had the opportunity. Using this argument kills us.

A lot easier said than done for many, many people in this country.

[juleswin]

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?

Oh well. We knew they were coming after Bundy, and that they would probably win. But I sure did not see the racism card being trump, that's for sure.

Yea it is, its better to just say that the state of the black family was more stable during Jim Crow than now. You will be stating a fact without insinuating that black maybe better off as slaves. Which is not true

[cajuncocoa]

This whole fiasco reminds me of

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg69/rainbow1320/look-a-squirrel.gif

[GunnyFreedom]

I actually agree that Bundy himself is just a side-story to the main event, the federal corruption of power. The federales are going to roust up who they will, and being human they will always find some flaw in us to distort and magnify. The federal government will abuse their power against everyone. They always start with the least desirable people until the public becomes accustomed to the new behavior and then they go for more normal people. If we don't stop this while they are still on the socially repugnant, than tomorrow they will find us, and do the same.

What we have to do is stop allowing the left to frame the debate. Nobody showed up to defend Cliven Bundy, people showed up to defend an idea that the federal government is now actively in the process of destroying: liberty, and the self-sovereign American.

When the left rants about Cliven Bundy, it's Cliven who? look at all the land Washington DC owns in Arizona. Is Arizona even really a State when they don't actually own their own territory?

[GunnyFreedom]

Great point. I hope Rand didn't jump the gun on this.

Even if he did there is no real harm in it. If another shoe drops, then everyone will know Rand as a US Senator was responding to the accusations of a whacko with a Media bully pulpit.

[klamath]

Why are we still allowing the media to set the agenda? Bundy's words are not the reason that the man is in the news. The abuse of the BLM is why he is in the news, and that's all we should be willing to discuss where Bundy is concerned. His opinions about other issues are his business.
Yes bundy was in the news for a good cause however it was Bundy that derailed the cause. You can run around forums screaming it is the BLM which it is, but you needed to tell Bundy that.

[Deborah K]

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?

Oh well. We knew they were coming after Bundy, and that they would probably win. But I sure did not see the racism card being trump, that's for sure.


I still think that if Phil Robertson can survive his comments, Bundy can survive this, as long as we don't buckle under the racist card tactic. If you watch the clip in its entirety, it's clear to anyone who doesn't view the world through politically correct lenses, that the man is not a racist.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes bundy was in the news for a good cause however it was Bundy that derailed the cause. You can run around forums screaming it is the BLM which it is, but you needed to tell Bundy that.
Bundy doesn't control this cause. It's bigger than one man. That's what people here need to understand.

This was never about a man. This was about abuse of the Feds.

Added on edit: this is why the Left cleans up on political issues. They understand these things. You don't see them throwing their icons under the bus when they make stupid comments. Issues are more important than someone shooting off their mouth.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Deborah K]

Bundy doesn't control this cause. It's bigger than one man. That's what people here need to understand.

This was never about a man. This was about abuse of the Feds.

Added on edit: this is why the Left cleans up on political issues. They understand these things. You don't see them throwing their icons under the bus when they make stupid comments. Issues are more important than someone shooting off their mouth.

We're not going to be able to decouple from his comments, unfortunately.

[cajuncocoa]

We're not going to be able to decouple from his comments, unfortunately.
And yet, the Left is able to do that all the time.

[klamath]

Bundy doesn't control this cause. It's bigger than one man. That's what people here need to understand.

This was never about a man. This was about abuse of the Feds.Don't tell me what the issue is. I have directly been in bundy's shoes. This isn't a new war, It has been going on for well over a hundred years.

Here is a little history.


Vulcan's Footprints on the Forest: The Mining Industry and California's National Forests, 1850-1950
Kevin Palmer
Modoc National Forest

Seventeen national forests blanket 20 million acres of California comprising about 20 percent of the land area. The state comprises a complex series of eleven geomorphic zones; ten of these cover national forest land and embrace provinces ranging from the semi-arid, chapparal covered slopes of the Transverse Range to the North Coast Range's humid hills. Eighteen mineral types rest within national forest land and range from antimony, chromite, and gold to tungsten. However, only seven of these substances are historically significant with gold being Region 5's [California] predominant element.

Mining in California began 12,000 years ago with Indian use of volcanic glass flows. Hematite and other deposits served as the local Indian paint store for rock and body art. Ironically, gold's soft nature made it useless to Indians and it held little attraction for them.

European immigrant extraction of minerals on what would become national forest land [1] began with the Spanish Colonial Era, establishing a tradition of titanic footprints which can be seen today on any national forest in the state. Mountains and deserts, coupled with a lack of navigable rivers and natural harbors, isolated California and forced the Spanish to limit their colonization efforts to the coastal corridor. This insularity also concentrated Spanish mining activity on the southern coastal portion of the state. Spanish immigrants focused their mining efforts on extracting building materials and gold. The lack of easily obtainable wood in southern California forced the Franciscan padres to substitute building stone, asphaltum, and adobe earth in the construction of religious and secular structures.

Contradictory evidence abounds over which national forest the Spanish mined first—local "fakelore" abounds. The Angeles National Forest's San Francisquito placer deposits, Los Padres National Forest's Antimony Peak and La Panza gold district vie for the Spanish Colonial Era honor. [2] Following the end of Spanish rule in 1822, extractive efforts began to increase on national forest lands. Early mining centered on the southern forests, specifically the Los Padres, Angeles, and San Bernardino national forests.

Truckloads of popular and academic histories have been published on the 1849 Gold Rush to California. The influx of prospectors and miners forever altered the character of the state and its forested land. Americans seemed blinded by an urge to tap the rich resources and quickly rushed to the task. The Mother Lode lay west of the Sierra Nevada's spine, consequently funneling early placering away from current Forest Service lands. As the numbers of miners began to swell and the easy placer gold deposits shrank, a torrent of miners began to stream eastward into future national forest lands in search of unclaimed riches. Miners quickly found the task unpleasant and extremely laborious. Cooperative mining companies formed rapidly to divide the labor.

Vernacular engineering, a trait dominant in mining world wide, came into play after California's initial gold rush. Hydraulic mining, a form of extraction originally unique to California, was used to process large-scale, low-grade placer deposits. Edward Matteson, working with Eli Miller and A. Chabot, invented a prototypical hydraulicking system on the Tahoe National Forest's American Hill District during 1852. [3] This water cannon system eroded hillsides and carried the gold bearing silt into sluice boxes.

Hydraulic mining is based on the premise of mass production. Despite the initial high expenditure of capital, once established, the cost of staffing is very low in comparison to other forms of alluvial mining except dredging. [4] A crew of six-to-seven miners could process 2,000-5,000 yards of gravel in a ten-hour day. This does not compare to the 1.5 yards of gravel processed by a placer miner panning in the same time period. As with any mining system, hydraulicking left its signature on the land. Water companies and miners scratched out thousands of miles of water ditches on varied terrain. Flumes, dams, and pits pockmarked California's timbered lands.

By 1857 gold production slumped, inspiring miners to look elsewhere. Prospectors turned their gaze eastward and opened up new excavation districts on eastern California Forests such as the Inyo and Toiyabe. By 1860 this "Rush in Reverse" sent miners scurrying into east-central Nevada and Colorado.

The bulk of mining activity during this time shifted northward from the southern woodlands and tended to be confined to the west slope of the Sierra Nevada and northwestern forests. The Plumas and Tahoe national forests dominated gold production in this period. Few early gold rush mining areas became established in the southern Sierra Nevada range. Northwestern gold mines began contemporaneously with the Sierra Nevada gold rush.

Mining on the northern California Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, and Six Rivers national forests had one bonding element: gold-bearing rivers flowed through those lands. Unlike the Sierra Nevada, hydraulic mining never slowed on these forests. The vocal down-stream farmers in the Sacramento Delta's rich farmlands successfully retarded hydraulicking and its gravel debris by-product. However, the north coast's rugged topography discouraged settlement and agricultural development along the drainages.

The 1872 Mining Law: A Pernicious Legacy

The location and development of rich mineral deposits spawned permanent habitation in formerly isolated areas of California. This happened because the support needs of miners and mining operations aided the introduction of railroads and communication lines, in addition to other social and cultural accoutrements. In the spirit of Manifest Destiny and the Myth of Overabundance, westerners viewed miners as a positive settlement force. The Mineral Land Act of 1866 placed few restrictions upon miners and mirrored legislative efforts to incite mineral development which westerners perceived as tied to national expansion. This act established the mineral patent proviso, further augmented by the ensuing 1872 Mining Law. This legacy dotted national forests with countless recreation residences located on patented claims.

As "Magna Carta" of the mining trade, the 1872 Mining Law has essentially hamstrung all public lands agencies, including the Forest Service. In all fairness, the act reflected the mining industry's inherent risks and acknowledged the difficulty and expense of establishing a mine—often in isolated locales. This statute merely put the laws that miners had developed at the mining district level into a forum covering federal lands. The system seemed appropriate in 1872, although multiple-use of forested land never entered the minds of the mining law framers—profit and growth served as their guiding principles.

Preservation Conservation, Nineteenth Century Style

Initial environmental regulation in California focused on hydraulic mining and its debris discharge, which fouled downstream agrarian and navigational needs. The amounts of water used for hydraulic mining operations are staggering. During the early 1880s, the Spring Valley Mine located at Cherokee Flat (just west of the Plumas National Forest), consumed 36 million gallons of water in a twenty-four-hour period, three times the City of San Francisco's daily water requirement at that time. [5]

When hydraulic mining reached its height in the mid-to-late 1870s, massive quantities of silt introduced into watercourse systems flowed downstream ruining farm land in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Farmers formed the Anti-Debris Association in an effort to shut down the destructive mining activity. The plaintiffs won the battle with the 1884 "Sawyer Decision" in the Woodruff vs. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company case, which put severe restrictions on hydraulic mining.

The Caminetti Act of 1893 created the California Debris Commission, which allowed hydraulic mines to operate with dams to contain hydraulic effluvia. Hydraulic mining nearly disappeared in the Sierra Nevada region, consequently leading to the dominance of lodegold mining in succeeding decades. Placer gold production dropped until the turn-of-the-century, when placer miners found an answer to their problem, the gold dredge.

The Forest Reserve Act

Mining played a duet with the nineteenth century "cut and run" mentality that despoiled countless acres of California timberland. Western forests fueled hungry locomotive steam engines hauling raw ore to smelters. These forests also provided the timber to construct bridges and rail lines, to help supply mining towns, to line mine tunnels, and to drive steam boilers for crushing mills. Certainly the relationship of the resource-rich West and the immense needs of the post-Civil War eastern industrial Gilded Age (1865-1890) encouraged the disfigurement of California's forests.

Comstock Lode chronicler William Wright wrote,


The Comstock Lode may truthfully be said to be the tomb of the forests of the Sierras. Millions on millions of feet of lumber are annually buried in the mines, never to be resurrected. [6]

Devastating spring floods followed this pillage. Although it may never be known how much timber Comstock mining operations stripped off the Sierra Nevada, an estimate of 600 hundred million board feet, along with 2 million cords of firewood, has been suggested.

Ironically, this anti-conservation appetite for timber ultimately promoted a call for watershed protection and regulation of timber cutting by urban sophisticates, resulting in the 1891 Forest Reserve Act. The act halted the widespread disposition of public timberland and established reserves to slow erosion. Virginia City's thirst for timber exemplifies why the act came into being. Nineteenth-century miners ignored their tracks on the environment and set the tone for generations to come.

High Grading and the Rise in Low Grade Ore Mass Production Technology

By the time the 1891 Forest Reserve Act created a new public lands administrative system, demands from the post-Civil War industrial boom had pared away the bulk of western high-grade ore bodies. The last great nineteenth century American gold rushes took place when the forest reserves were coming into being.

The national monetary standard specie issue snowballed during this time between the "goldbugs" and "silverites," typified by William Jenning Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" presidential campaign platform. Indeed, the deficiency of federal gold stores directly produced the Panic of 1893. The depletion of high grade, precious metal ore bodies promoted the development of low grade processing technology. Mining became increasingly sophisticated during this era to cope with the massive amounts of low grade ore that it was necessary to process to feed the eastern industrial boom.

For decades, California gold miners used the ancient mercury amalgamation gold recovery process, with its low efficiency rate of 75-80 percent. A conservation mentality simply did not exist within the mining industry because,


The backward state of the arts of mining and metallurgy in the United States was actually attributable to the fact that rich mineral outcrops were readily available. [7]

Mining engineers had to restructure their approach to one stressing the mass production of low-grade ore. Chemistry and new gold strikes worked to alter this lack of gold. The McArthur-Forrest cyanide leaching process, invented in 1889-1890, improved gold recovery significantly. [8] Demand for gold fostered yet another round of prospecting in previously unexplored regions, and this gold flood nearly doubled the world's supply by 1898. Previously worked out hard rock gold mines on national forest lands sprang back into production when miners began utilizing the cyanide technology.

Enter the Dredge

First developed in New Zealand in 1882, and introduced to California in 1898 at the Oroville gold deposits, the dredge greatly revitalized placer mining in the state. Dredging essentially strip mined river beds with a floating gold processing plant. A well designed dredge could profitably mine a gravel bar which carried nine cents of gold per cubic yard. [9]

Dredging in California concentrated in the upper Sacramento Delta and took place on Forest Service lands in northern California on the Scott, Klamath and Salmon rivers in Siskiyou County. The La Porte area on the Plumas National Forest served as the scene of Region 5's most intensive dredging activity, due to its proximity to the Oroville dredging fields. Dredge activity left a landscape behind which resembled the work of an elephantine burrowing mole. Dredging reached a peak during the 1930s and continued in California until 1968. [10]

Despite the hand writing on the wall that ore reserves had depleted, the mining industry did not make any attempt to conserve mineral resources other than improve ore processing and extractive techniques. Mining historian Duane Smith commented,


The mining industry would never be converted voluntarily to prudent use unless it could be demonstrated that the change would be economical. . . . This refusal meant that mining would pay the price of eventual public condemnation. [11]

The Organic Act and Pinchot's Forest Reserve "Chinese Wall"

While the Forest Reserve Act withdrew vast tracts of timber from former Government Land Office (GLO) holdings, administrative implementation required funding. Passage of the Forest Management Act in 1897, (now referred to as the Forest Service Organic Act) provided for the organization and management of the forest reserves. Lag time between the enactment of the Organic and Forest Reserve acts essentially produced a lock up of these tracts of land, resulting in an adverse reaction from traditional users of forested lands.

Miners became further antagonized by President Grover Cleveland's stealthy creation of the Washington's Birthday reserves—which established 21 million acres of additional forest reserves in 1897. Generally,


The mining industry, among others, watched with amazement and disgust this change in government philosophy, wishing to continue its business as usual with no interference, light or heavy. It did not like the way the wind was starting to blow off the Potomac. [12]

Corporations and prospectors alike girded to halt the trend and initiated a battle with the federal government which has endured for almost a century.

As a concession to miners' opposition to the creation of the forest reserves, the Organic Act


permitted mining entry on designated mineral lands of the reserves, it also directed the federal government to make and enforce rules and regulations which would 'preserve the forest thereon from destruction.' [13]

This proviso provided a component which has confounded the Forest Service for generations. The 1872 Mining Law forced the Forest Service into a subordinate relationship with the western mining industry. The Service has been harnessed with the duplicitous role of boosting mineral extraction while simultaneously preventing ecological abuses. Whether it liked it or not, the Forest Service entered into policing the mining business—an industry which held that it had a God-given right to pursue its business unimpeded.

Utilitarianism and Its Influence on Forest Service Minerals Policy

Gifford Pinchot, chief forester from 1898 to 1910 and architect of policies which have guided the Forest Service since 1905, had an approach to conservation with a twentieth century utilitarian bent. According to one author, Pinchot stressed


opposition to the domination of economic affairs by narrow "special interests" [a turn-of-the-century euphemism for large and often corrupt business firms] and a fundamental belief in rationality and science. [14]

This belief ultimately brought about Pinchot's downfall; his "trust buster" convictions fueled the Ballinger Alaskan coal field controversy. Pinchot had accused the secretary of the interior of improbity over Alaskan coal claims, and President Taft obliged the forester by firing him.

Pinchot strongly supported the position that mining fit into forest management. He held that the forest resources should be actively managed to satisfy the needs of those who would benefit most from their use. He said,


the object of our forest policy is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful . . . or because they are refuges for wild creatures of the wilderness . . . but [the object is] the making of prosperous homes. . . . Every other concern comes as secondary. [15]

Following Pinchot's 1898 appointment as chief of the Division of Forestry, he addressed the American Institute of Mining Engineers at Atlantic City. He attempted to appease the mining industry by explaining the federal position. Naturally, Pinchot's primary concerns covered the use of timber and water by miners as well as fire prevention. He summarized the Organic Act's regulations and how they applied to mining.


Where timber in large quantities has been taken without charge in the past, some share of the cost of caring for and preserving it must hereafter be borne by the men who benefit by such protection. . . . [The regulations] give without charge timber to the value of one hundred dollars on the stump to prospectors and miners whose claims do not furnish sufficient material for their own use, and they provide for the sale of timber in large quantities to meet the demands of larger operations. [16]

Pinchot stressed the need for timber management to supply a reliable source of wood for miners and provided examples where Colorado miners had stripped the slopes making it difficult for other prospectors to obtain timber. He coined the term "fire follows the prospector" in this presentation, and claimed


Cutting has done but little harm in comparison with the great damage caused by fire. The government is the only agent capable of attacking this giant evil, and even the government is helpless unless it can permanently control the areas with which it must deal. This is the first and most important meaning of forest reservations. [17]

The Unerring Mining Industry and Early Relations With the Forest Service

In a case typical of the confusion following the Forest Reserve Act, the Homestake Mining Company cut timber from the Black Hills Forest Reserve without obtaining permission from the General Land Office. This action resulted in an 1894 lawsuit against Homestake in which the Federal government sued for $700,000 in damages. [18] Perhaps in a conciliatory move a few years later, the federal government auctioned off its first timber sale to the Homestake Mining Company in the Black Hills Reserve.

As the new kid on the block, the Bureau of Forestry (renamed the U.S. Forest Service in 1905) had to barter with two elements of the mining industry in addition to a parasitic third party. Mining consisted of two factions: large corporate entities and the small time "snipers" or itinerant miners. Pinchot's "trust buster" attitude led him to favor the "everyman" mining enterprise rather than large corporate cabals. In the words of one conservation scholar, protection of the small-scale producer at the expense of big business and efficiency was a principal governmental dilemma of the era. [19] Land grabbers played the third part in this trio by milking every legal loophole with their "strawmen" or "dummy entrymen" who functioned as front men for the would-be land barons.

One case in northern California depicted this predicament with precision. At the turn-of-the-century, Henry H. Yard, a sub rosa representative of the Western Pacific Railroad, filled 265,000 acres of placer claims along the Plumas National Forest's Feather River drainage. Under the guise of the North California Mining Company, Yard's men claim jumped a large number of established miners in an attempt to slash a right-of-way for a new rail line.

Reform minded California State Mineralogist Lewis Aubury, along with Gifford Pinchot, initiated an investigation of Yard's claims in 1906. A horde of Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and General Land Office mineral examiners uncovered Yard's plan to establish a series of lumber camps on the placer claims. These camps would ferry out the lumber once the Western Pacific Railroad line became functional. Indeed, government mineralogists ascertained no mineral value existed on 24,000 of 25,000 of the Yard claims. GLO officials dethroned Yard in the 1908 decision, United States v. H. H. Yard, et al. [20]

Coal Lands and Petroleum—a Stab at Pinchot

Following reports of front men staking spurious mining claims in Alaska, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered 84 million acres of western coal and oil lands withdrawn from mineral entry between 1905-1909. This was Roosevelt's attempt to stymie corporate monopolization of mineral tracts through antiquated land laws. It ultimately translated into the well chronicled Pinchot-Ballinger controversy, when Pinchot accused the secretary of the interior of improbity over Alaskan coal claims.

Another Foreshadow of Environmentalism

Regulation of the California mining industry had its inception in the 1884 Sawyer Decision, and the Forest Service stance on this issue illustrates the Progressive Era's employment of scientific management principles. Californians had grown less tolerant of miners' impacts on their lands as the state's population diversified. Despite his reformist nature, state mineralogist Lewis Aubury typified the industry's haughty environmental stance when he wrote on fumes bearing sulphur dioxide wafting from a Shasta County copper smelter. In a 1905 report on California copper mining, Aubury noted that the vapors had killed vegetation over a large adjacent region, and this has given the company some trouble; but in justice to the industry it may be said that the destruction is less serious than it would be in many other districts, owing to the trifling extent to which agriculture is carried on in that particular neighborhood and to the small size and low value of the trees of the region. [21]

The Forest Service differed with Aubury over this position. Between 1910-1919 the Service prosecuted the Shasta Lake area copper smelters for smoke nuisance which denuded portions of the Shasta National Forest surrounding the mining towns of Kennett and Keswick. [22]

Industrial Needs in a Wartime Setting

The Panic of 1907 and ensuing financial depression became the primary economic issues influencing mining until July 1914. Increasing hostilities in Europe prompted the close of the London Stock Exchange, and financial institutions in the United States followed suit shortly thereafter. A recession precipitated by World War I in Europe combined with a labor shortage, which forced many gold mines to stop or reduce production. Gold mining remained at a relatively low level until the 1930s, when a...




http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec10.htm

[cajuncocoa]

Don't tell me what the issue is. I have directly been in bundy's shoes. This isn't a new war, It has been going on for well over a hundred years.

Here is a little history.



http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/Books/Origins_National_Forests/sec10.htmThen you should be able to recognize how the media will try to divert attention. Don't play their game.

[Deborah K]

And yet, the Left is able to do that all the time.

Yes, which is why we need to expose the double-standard.

[cajuncocoa]

We're not going to be able to decouple from his comments, unfortunately.
Deb, I love ya....but the thing is, the media wants us to spend the next few days trying to defend or justify Bundy's comments (or try to show that there is a double standard, which most people already know exists...but the Left doesn't care!)

The only way this becomes an issue is if WE run, duck, defend, cajole, and otherwise dance to the tune the media set for us. Stay focused, stand your ground. Ignore them....do exactly what they do when Reid or Biden make racist comments. Brush it off and stay focused on the issue.

[klamath]

Then you should be able to recognize how the media will try to divert attention. Don't play their game. Absolutely, he stepped right fucking into their trap when he should have known better. How many freaking times has he heard.. "militia's are white supremacists, Tea party is racist, libertarians are racist, republicans are racist, westerners and southerners are racist, rural people are racist." That is exactly what they were looking for and bundy gave it to them. He derailed the issue. Trying so hard not to be a racist he came off as a racist with very little word twisting by the liberal media.

[Deborah K]

Deb, I love ya....but the thing is, the media wants us to spend the next few days trying to defend or justify Bundy's comments (or try to show that there is a double standard, which most people already know exists...but the Left doesn't care!)

The only way this becomes an issue is if WE run, duck, defend, cajole, and otherwise dance to the tune the media set for us. Stay focused, stand your ground. Ignore them....do exactly what they do when Reid or Biden make racist comments. Brush it off and stay focused on the issue.

That didn't work for Dr. Paul when they trashed him over the newsletters. And as I've pointed out, Phil Robertson's supporters and fans backed him up, and pushed back, and A&E buckled under and put the show back on the air.

I intend to expose Reid for the snake that he is on this and other matters, and I intend to come to Bundy's defense in the social media. I'm probably going to go after writers who try to tie this Rand as well. I understand that my tactics don't appeal to everyone, that's okay. I just believe that if enough of us publicly dismissed Bundy's remarks as those of an old man using old-fashioned analogy ALONG with refocusing the issue back to government overreach, ALONG with exposing the double-standard by posting quotes and clips from the other side doing the same thing, I really think we could win this battle. Robertson's case is the precedent here.

[angelatc]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.

There is a massive gulf between the two ideas, and they need to stop being conflated.

Well maybe I am wrong, but I thought that slaves were often sold away from their families. So to me, the discussion (as absolutely absurd as it is) is as far as families go, the welfare state breaks them up just like slavery did.

[cajuncocoa]

That didn't work for Dr. Paul when they trashed him over the newsletters. And as I've pointed out, Phil Robertson's supporters and fans backed him up, and pushed back, and A&E buckled under and put the show back on the air.

I intend to expose Reid for the snake that he is on this and other matters, and I intend to come to Bundy's defense in the social media. I'm probably going to go after writers who try to tie this Rand as well. I understand that my tactics don't appeal to everyone, that's okay. I just believe that if enough of us publicly dismissed Bundy's remarks as those of an old man using old-fashioned analogy ALONG with refocusing the issue back to government overreach, ALONG with exposing the double-standard by posting quotes and clips from the other side doing the same thing, I really think we could win this battle. Robertson's case is the precedent here.

It's not that your tactics don't appeal to me, they do....I even helped to look for information for you, so I DO support what you're doing.

I just don't want us to get pushed back because of this. I want us to stay focused and to realize, this is bigger than Bundy...whether he's a racist or not.

[FloralScent]

Deb, I love ya....but the thing is, the media wants us to spend the next few days trying to defend or justify Bundy's comments (or try to show that there is a double standard, which most people already know exists...but the Left doesn't care!)

The only reason Trotsky pulled the word 'racist' out of his syphilitic asshole was for this very purpose; to beat those who oppose the NWO over the head with it. It's truly disheartening to see so-called liberty advocates falling for it....yet again. The number one thing people respect is strength, even if they're not aware of it. Backpedaling, apologizing, groveling are all are signs of repulsive weakness and absolutely the wrong way to respond. In fact there doesn't even need to be a response, but if we must, it should be a reaffirmation that this man has a right not to be murdered or have his property stolen or destroyed for defying the Federal beast, no matter what his personal beliefs.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm going to post this in a few places, and maybe make a new thread for it:


OATH KEEPER STATEMENT REGARDING NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE: (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/24/oath-keeper-statement-regarding-new-york-times-article/)



“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there is 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?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because 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? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”


If the above quote is accurate, of course we vehemently disagree with that viewpoint as it is entirely inconsistent with our values. No one is ever better off as a slave under any circumstances. We stand for the liberty of all Americans at all times and we stand for the liberties of all mankind of every race, creed, and color. Our stand at the Bundy Ranch is about liberty and freedom from government oppression for all Americans.


In fact there are black Oath Keeper veterans standing watch at Bundy Ranch. Among them was Navy veteran David Berry.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyaxEwOrUyY
Dave Berry attended our first conference in Las Vegas in 2009 to see for himself whether the smear attacks of SPLC were true. He found that we were simply Constitutionalists defending everyone’s rights. That is what we will continue to do, which is why he was here with us at the Bundy Ranch.


Our Bylaws are very clear that this organization is open to all Americans and that we oppose all racism.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/bylaws-of-oath-keepers/


We are awaiting clarification by Mr. Bundy and if he makes that clarification we will post it here.


However, regardless of what he said and what his position is the stand we are taking is not just about the Bundys, but about the whole west and the methodical attack on the west to impoverish rural America and drive us off the land.


Using the endangered species act as a weapon of mass destruction against us to kill the livelihood of ranchers, farmers, loggers, etc., and to crush rural America as explained by Montana State Senator Jennifer Fielder in “Taking Back Our Lands”.


http://northwestlibertynews.com/News/tabid/771/ID/1562/Taking-Back-Our-Lands.aspx


That is why Oath Keeper founder, Stewart Rhodes has helped bring the Coalition of Western States Legislators and Sheriffs together to form the Coalition of Western States (C.O.W.S.) led by Washington State Representative Matt Shea.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/10/coalition-of-western-state-legislators-sheriffs-and-veterans-stand-vigil-in-support-of-embattled-nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-%E2%80%98to-prevent-another-ruby-ridge-or-waco%E2%80%9D/


In addition, Stewart is working closely with Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore to organize resistance by Nevada County Commissioners and Sheriffs. Stewart and Michelle Fiore will be attending the Nye County Republican Party Central Committee meeting this Saturday [Saturday, 26 April 2014] at the invitation of the Chairman to discuss strategy for Nye County to resist BLM abuse. We will be doing this across the west calling on and assisting all rural Americans and asserting their rights just as we were answering the call in Connecticut and New York where the 2nd Amendment is under assault. Our strategy is to get those who have sworn the oath both inside and outside government to honor it by defending all the Constitution for all Americans.


As two time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler said:


“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”


Note: See General Butler’s biography here:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/1900s/p/Banana-Wars-Major-General-Smedley-Butler.htm


Signed: Oath Keepers

[Deborah K]

I'm going to post this in a few places, and maybe make a new thread for it:


OATH KEEPER STATEMENT REGARDING NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE: (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/24/oath-keeper-statement-regarding-new-york-times-article/)


[COLOR=#232323][FONT=Verdana]

I keep trying to +rep ya and I keep getting that f'kn nasty gram. Will someone rep Cocoa for me?

[GunnyFreedom]

Then you should be able to recognize how the media will try to divert attention. Don't play their game.

Truth here. You have to give the media and the left the material to work with. They are trying to evoke that operation. Do not let them. THEY are the ones changing the subject from the proper balance of federal power to some guy in the desert the feds tried to pillage.


Dude was probably in the desert for a reason - it don't give the feds no extra rights. Now do please get back on topic Miss Maddow.

Waaah waaah wha whhhhaaaa racism.

Well, bless your little heart, but you only seem to be able to think about one thing at a time. You draw up some quotes from a septuagenarian trying to be politically correct for the first time in his life and failing miserably, and then want to paint an entire people with a paintbrush that was broken from the start.

That is a perfect example of how allowing the federal government to regulate everything that belongs to the States, like land use and ownership for example, creates distortions that lead to crazed people and eventually bloodshed. Please tell me that you don't support bloodshed Miss Maddow?

Wah wahahha whatta whaaahaha you people are the violent ones.

(Start counting on fingers) Robert Stack, liberal. LAPD Dorner, liberal Obamaphile. yadda yadda yadda. All these mass shooting lunatics are lefties, Miss Maddow, and Lee Harvey Oswald, as I am sure you know, was fighting for the communist cause. You call us the violent ones, but why is it always your side flinging lead?


Reframing the debate. It's why the left kills the right, because the right doesn't generally understand framing.

[GunnyFreedom]

That didn't work for Dr. Paul when they trashed him over the newsletters. And as I've pointed out, Phil Robertson's supporters and fans backed him up, and pushed back, and A&E buckled under and put the show back on the air.

I intend to expose Reid for the snake that he is on this and other matters, and I intend to come to Bundy's defense in the social media. I'm probably going to go after writers who try to tie this Rand as well. I understand that my tactics don't appeal to everyone, that's okay. I just believe that if enough of us publicly dismissed Bundy's remarks as those of an old man using old-fashioned analogy ALONG with refocusing the issue back to government overreach, ALONG with exposing the double-standard by posting quotes and clips from the other side doing the same thing, I really think we could win this battle. Robertson's case is the precedent here.

Cliven Bundy is not running for President. Letting him become the issue is how we lose this fight, whether he has anti-social viewpoints or not.

[Brian4Liberty]

Absolutely, he stepped right fucking into their trap when he should have known better. How many freaking times has he heard.. "militia's are white supremacists, Tea party is racist, libertarians are racist, republicans are racist, westerners and southerners are racist, rural people are racist." That is exactly what they were looking for and bundy gave it to them. He derailed the issue. Trying so hard not to be a racist he came off as a racist with very little word twisting by the liberal media.

Agree. The irony here is that if you listen to Bundy's entire monologue, the actual intent was exactly the opposite of what the media is saying. He was talking about freedom, and that he doesn't want the situation for black (or any) people to go backwards to the Watts riot era, he wants to move forward. He wants people to have jobs and families, and he wants to provide more freedom by removing overbearing bureaucracy. He wants to help everyone, calling them all his brothers. He basically called for immigration Amnesty. He was sounding like Jeb Bush, who the media loves.

He was trying his hardest to please the politically correct left while also expressing his values (about freedom). The problem was that he sounded like an old, white Mormon from the Great Depression when he did it.

Lesson learned: don't let the left drive the conversation. Don't try to please them, especially in areas that are famously "gotchas" and red herrings. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of establishment media.

The full video:

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915?v=m

[Deborah K]

Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity denounced the remarks but continue to stand against government overreach according to their reporting of this latest incident.

[klamath]

Truth here. You have to give the media and the left the material to work with. They are trying to evoke that operation. Do not let them. THEY are the ones changing the subject from the proper balance of federal power to some guy in the desert the feds tried to pillage.


Dude was probably in the desert for a reason - it don't give the feds no extra rights. Now do please get back on topic Miss Maddow.

Waaah waaah wha whhhhaaaa racism.

Well, bless your little heart, but you only seem to be able to think about one thing at a time. You draw up some quotes from a septuagenarian trying to be politically correct for the first time in his life and failing miserably, and then want to paint an entire people with a paintbrush that was broken from the start.

That is a perfect example of how allowing the federal government to regulate everything that belongs to the States, like land use and ownership for example, creates distortions that lead to crazed people and eventually bloodshed. Please tell me that you don't support bloodshed Miss Maddow?

Wah wahahha whatta whaaahaha you people are the violent ones.

(Start counting on fingers) Robert Stack, liberal. LAPD Dorner, liberal Obamaphile. yadda yadda yadda. All these mass shooting lunatics are lefties, Miss Maddow, and Lee Harvey Oswald, as I am sure you know, was fighting for the communist cause. You call us the violent ones, but why is it always your side flinging lead?


Reframing the debate. It's why the left kills the right, because the right doesn't generally understand framing. Hey Gunny did you get a chance to read the material I posted in post 43? Though it isn't without it's bias as I think it was written by a USFS person it does give a broad picture of the mining and logging history in the west. The ranching history follow closely with these events.

[Vanguard101]

Guess it's different when it's him saying this.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/sowell2.bmp

Well, since I'm black, I think I see a difference in Thomas Sowell saying there is a correlation between black families dividing and more government intervention versus a white person calling blacks negros and saying we were better off as slaves...

[cajuncocoa]

Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity denounced the remarks but continue to stand against government overreach according to their reporting of this latest incident.Good for them! That's exactly how it should be.

[cajuncocoa]

Well, since I'm black, I think I see a difference in Thomas Sowell saying there is a correlation between black families dividing and more government intervention versus a white person calling blacks negros and saying we were better off as slaves...
All I see is a diversionary tactic.

[Deborah K]

Well, since I'm black, I think I see a difference in Thomas Sowell saying there is a correlation between black families dividing and more government intervention versus a white person calling blacks negros and saying we were better off as slaves...

He never said that, please watch what he said in it's entirety. If anything, he is inarticulate, and old dude using old terminology and old analogies:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI

I agree with Brian's assessment here as well:

Agree. The irony here is that if you listen to Bundy's entire monologue, the actual intent was exactly the opposite of what the media is saying. He was talking about freedom, and that he doesn't want the situation for black (or any) people to go backwards to the Watts riot era, he wants to move forward. He wants people to have jobs and families, and he wants to provide more freedom by removing overbearing bureaucracy. He wants to help everyone, calling them all his brothers. He basically called for immigration Amnesty. He was sounding like Jeb Bush, who the media loves.

He was trying his hardest to please the politically correct left while also expressing his values (about freedom). The problem was that he sounded like an old, white Mormon from the Great Depression when he did it.

Lesson learned: don't let the left drive the conversation. Don't try to please them, especially in areas that are famously "gotchas" and red herrings. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of establishment media.

The full video:

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915?v=m

Edit: I didn't post the tube. Posted now.

[klamath]

Agree. The irony here is that if you listen to Bundy's entire monologue, the actual intent was exactly the opposite of what the media is saying. He was talking about freedom, and that he doesn't want the situation for black (or any) people to go backwards to the Watts riot era, he wants to move forward. He wants people to have jobs and families, and he wants to provide more freedom by removing overbearing bureaucracy. He wants to help everyone, calling them all his brothers. He basically called for immigration Amnesty. He was sounding like Jeb Bush, who the media loves.

He was trying his hardest to please the politically correct left while also expressing his values (about freedom). The problem was that he sounded like an old, white Mormon from the Great Depression when he did it.

Lesson learned: don't let the left drive the conversation. Don't try to please them, especially in areas that are famously "gotchas" and red herrings. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of establishment media. He was in control of the federal lands debate and was stirring more debate on it than I have heard in decades. The media was for the most part talking about his issues and federal overreach was losing. Now every damned media story is about comparing negro welfare to slavery. Like you said. Hopefully lesson learned.

[Deborah K]

Another black perspective on the cause of torn black families:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMyV9632PZA

[Deborah K]

and another black man's perspective:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/black-leader-says-bundy-remarks-not-racist/

[NoOneButPaul]

So let's say he wasn't slandered, which i'm going to bet he was, the fact is what he said was true.

Black people used to be slaves - this is a fact - the point he was making is they are still slaves now because of what the government has done to them. Clearly that's all he was trying to say... I did not get the impression he was being racist.

[James Madison]

So let's say he wasn't slandered, which i'm going to bet he was, the fact is what he said was true.

Black people used to be slaves - this is a fact - the point he was making is they are still slaves now because of what the government has done to them. Clearly that's all he was trying to say... I did not get the impression he was being racist.

It wasn't racist; it was definitely not PC, but it wasn't racist, either.

Comparing physical bondage to welfarism, however, is ridiculous. It's the difference between a water pistol and a Desert Eagle.

If you escape from one, you get a nice house in the suburbs. If you escape from the other, you're kidnapped and return to your master.

[cajuncocoa]

Put the shovel down and stop digging. Trying to justify these comments is a lose-lose situation. The issue that put Bundy in the news had nothing to do with slavery or race.

[AuH20]

It wasn't racist; it was definitely not PC, but it wasn't racist, either.

Comparing physical bondage to welfarism, however, is ridiculous. It's the difference between a water pistol and a Desert Eagle.

If you escape from one, you get a nice house in the suburbs. If you escape from the other, you're kidnapped and return to your master.

That's where I disagree. It all leads to the same place ultimately. Sure, slavery is more brutal and grueling, but the generational poverty perpetrated by the welfare state often leads to life shortening factors like incarceration, family negligence and other grave social ills. The welfare mentality is far more subtle but it's still destroying generations of African Americans.

[nobody's_hero]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.

There is a massive gulf between the two ideas, and they need to stop being conflated.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but I tend to subscribe to an idea that, to borrow an old quote:


None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

If indeed we were witnessing public auctions of human life, the physical whips that break a man's body, and the chains that physically bind him, then it would be far too easy to label what we continue to see in society as 'slavery.' But the slavery of the 21st century is far more subtle and therefore all the more sinister.

In the antebellum period, in southern states, it was as punishable a crime to teach a slave to read than it was to arm that slave with a firearm. You might say, 'well, what is the harm in learning to read? Why is the sentence for giving a slave a firearm as strict as teaching a slave to read? Could they not do more harm with firearms?'

The answer: Knowledge sets a man free. Mental slavery is the key to maintaining control.

Give a man a firearm and without the knowledge that he is enslaved, and he might as well be armed with mittens, for he will do nothing to free himself from a state of obliviousness. But at that very moment a man is capable of recognizing he is enslaved, all he then needs are the tools to free himself. From the moment of his mind's awakening, he is a true threat to power.

What pisses me off the most is that only blacks are capable of making this argument in front of blacks. ANY time it comes from a white man, such as Bundy, it becomes an issue of race rather than intellectual debate.

[James Madison]

BTW, I couldn't care less about him using the word 'negro'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojTKkfgvwvU

Been part of my vocabulary ever since!

[klamath]

That's where I disagree. It all leads to the same place ultimately. Sure, slavery is more brutal and grueling, but the generational poverty perpetrated by the welfare state often leads to life shortening factors like incarceration, family negligence and other grave social ills. The welfare mentality is far more subtle but it's still destroying generations of African Americans.
But they still have their own free will. That is freaking huge.

[AuH20]

Alex Jones stated that in the 1930s the resident black populations had a LOWER CRIME RATE (before the CRA I might add) than their white counterparts. Fast forward to 2014 and their crime statistics are nothing less than an epidemic.

[James Madison]

Alex Jones stated that in the 1930s the resident black populations had a LOWER CRIME RATE (before the CRA I might add) than their white counterparts. Fast forward to 2014 and their crime statistics are nothing less than an epidemic.

I don't think you'll find anyone on here that believes the 'Great Society' has been anything other than a disaster, but give me 2014 over the 19th Century. I can make my own path.

[Peace&Freedom]

Put the shovel down and stop digging. Trying to justify these comments is a lose-lose situation. The issue that put Bundy in the news had nothing to do with slavery or race.

True, it's lose-lose, but not because the comments were undefendable. Bundy erred (as he is rancher, not a media-saavy politician or pundit) by parking the conversation back in race-land. Regardless of the merits, the cultural left and MSM control the framework on such issues like they're the crown jewels. The "whites who insensitively touch on race/welfare = backward racists and rubes" meme is the chief club they use to control the perceived mainstream, or to marginalize/blackout discussion of anything else.

[AuH20]

I don't think you'll find anyone on here that believes the 'Great Society' has been anything other than a disaster, but give me 2014 over the 19th Century. I can make my own path.

I think there are pros and cons to both eras. What I was trying to state is that something transformative happened along the way. The cultural fabric that defined African Americans was altered in some way from 1930s and on. We're talking about a stark difference in behavior in a very short amount of time. At one time, blacks on average were less belligerent and more law abiding than Whites!!

[cajuncocoa]

True, it's lose-lose, but not because the comments were undefendable. Bundy erred (as he is rancher, not a media-saavy politician or pundit) by parking the conversation back in race-land. Regardless of the merits, the cultural left and MSM control the framework on such issues like they're the crown jewels. The "whites who insensitively touch on race/welfare = backward racists and rubes" meme is the chief club they use to control the perceived mainstream, or to marginalize/blackout discussion of anything else.
All true, but if we fail to continue to support this man (especially now) we are sending the message that it's fine (and approved by us) to grab the land and/or harass, by media and Federal government agencies, anyone for Liberal-sanctioned thought-crimes and words. That's a really bad message to send. We cannot back down.

Remember, they think all of us are just as bad, or worse. Harry Reid recently called us "domestic terrorists".

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well maybe I am wrong, but I thought that slaves were often sold away from their families. So to me, the discussion (as absolutely absurd as it is) is as far as families go, the welfare state breaks them up just like slavery did.

You are correct, that did happen. Sowell and others who have made that argument state (and seem to have evidence to prove this assertion) that the black family has been divided even more effectively under the welfare state than it was under slavery.

My point, which probably wasn't made well, was that there is a massive gulf between saying the unity of the black family has been assaulted to a greater degree under welfarism than slavery and saying that blacks were better off under slavery; people who bring this issue up tend to drift from the former idea and jump right into the latter. It's entirely wrong, and is a dumb thing to say.

[MRK]

*“So @SenRandPaul took 12 hours to condemn Bundy’s racist rant. 12 hours. I dunno about him, but my outrage was pretty instant,” Elleithee wrote.

How much meth does this guy put in his breakfast cereal bowl to able to respond to every newspaper article in the country with his third party opinion within 12 hours?

[devil21]

Weigel and his Journo-list friends have already declared war on Rand. They are TRYING to wrangle him into racial topics!!!! It's all they have to smear him!

RAND, FOR THE LOVE OF THE CREATOR PLEASE STOP FALLING FOR IT!! A bunch of Israel-firsters in 'DC journalism' have made it clear they will do everything they can to bring you down. There was a post on RPF earlier about Rand's office being the first called by the NYT after they edited the video, seeking comment. STOP BEING REACTIONARY! YOU WILL BE ABOVE IT BY WAITING FOR THE WHOLE PICTURE TO COME OUT AND YOUR OFFICE STAFF BETTER THINK THE SAME!

[S.Shorland]

The comment above mine on facebook saying 'although Bundy's comments were racist,his property rights still need to be protected' got 259 thumbs up.Mine saying that Bundy was making an anti-government point and that it's a shame supposedly intelligent people can't stand up to this race baiting catch-all crap,got none.Anyone who hears his comments or reads the transcript can see what he is saying INCLUDING Rand Paul.If your leaders don't stand up to this most often used statist tool,who the feck will?

[Vanguard101]

He never said that, please watch what he said in it's entirety. If anything, he is inarticulate, and old dude using old terminology and old analogies:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI

I agree with Brian's assessment here as well:


Edit: I didn't post the tube. Posted now.

Smh. "The nigga" "They abort their children" He asked were they better off. Are you really defending this person? Whatevs

[S.Shorland]

The 'They' are the government.Can't you understand English?

[cajuncocoa]

Smh. "The nigga" "They abort their children" He asked were they better off. Are you really defending this person? Whatevs
Not for the words he said, no. For his right to say them? Yes (First Amendment). Against the abuses of government, yes....definitely.

[Root]

Not for the words he said, no. For his right to say them? Yes (First Amendment). Against the abuses of government, yes....definitely.
+ rep

[S.Shorland]

What did he actually say that was racist?

[Carlybee]

What did he actually say that was racist?

The perception is that he inferred black people might be better off picking cotton and he called them negroes. All people heard was negro and cotton.

[angelatc]

You are correct, that did happen. Sowell and others who have made that argument state (and seem to have evidence to prove this assertion) that the black family has been divided even more effectively under the welfare state than it was under slavery.

My point, which probably wasn't made well, was that there is a massive gulf between saying the unity of the black family has been assaulted to a greater degree under welfarism than slavery and saying that blacks were better off under slavery; people who bring this issue up tend to drift from the former idea and jump right into the latter. It's entirely wrong, and is a dumb thing to say.


I agree. But we spent enough time dealing with Ron's newsletters that we should already know how this is going to go. The left isn't looking to be ideologically consistent and therefore they don't care what Harry Reid said. They aren't looking to build strong families, so they don't care if underlying statistics support even a fraction of the point Bundy was trying to make.

They know only that he just handed them a bludgeon, and they will absolutely use it to beat him to death with it.

But there is a ray of hope in this, and that is seeing neocons like Pat Dollard who were happy to throw Ron under the bus now supporting Bundy for worse.

[asurfaholic]

I think we need to seriously consider going after reporters with agendas, using their comments sections, and emailing/twittering them directly. They should be exposed.

Good idea

Lets start writing strongly worded letters and end this travesty.

[KingNothing]

Maybe Perry can invite Bundy out hunting at "Niggerhead".

Birds of a feather lynch together.*


*this was an attempt at humor and I am not saying the Perry and Bundy are racist, but they might be pretty racist.

[KingNothing]

It is probably just me but I think it is social suicide to assert that black people were better off as slaves. I don't think anybody actually believes that, do they?

Oh well. We knew they were coming after Bundy, and that they would probably win. But I sure did not see the racism card being trump, that's for sure.

There are posters here who do very much believe that the overt slavery of the past was better than what we have now. Without pointing them out, you already know who they are.

[Deborah K]

True, it's lose-lose, but not because the comments were undefendable. Bundy erred (as he is rancher, not a media-saavy politician or pundit) by parking the conversation back in race-land. Regardless of the merits, the cultural left and MSM control the framework on such issues like they're the crown jewels. The "whites who insensitively touch on race/welfare = backward racists and rubes" meme is the chief club they use to control the perceived mainstream, or to marginalize/blackout discussion of anything else.

Agreed. And ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

[Deborah K]

Good idea

Lets start writing strongly worded letters and end this travesty.

If you meant that as sarc, then what would your idea of 'push back' be? I've had enough of just letting these asshole writers have free reign over viable candidates.

[asurfaholic]

If you meant that as sarc, then what would your idea of 'push back' be? I've had enough of just letting these asshole writers have free reign over viable candidates.

I agree. I have no idea what the best solution is... Other than working hard as a movement to support journalists like Ben swann. But that does nothing for now, and doesn't address the media bias and power wielded by those who control it in the immediate sense.

I've wrote a few emails to offending authors before, but its not going to fix the problem. You can't advocate violence, and wouldn't help if you could

Btw wasnt trying to be disrespectful...

[Deborah K]

I agree. I have no idea what the best solution is... Other than working hard as a movement to support journalists like Ben swann. But that does nothing for now, and doesn't address the media bias and power wielded by those who control it in the immediate sense.

I've wrote a few emails to offending authors before, but its not going to fix the problem. You can't advocate violence, and wouldn't help if you could

Btw wasnt trying to be disrespectful...

No problem. I've been a part of massive emailings that have been very effective. The problem is getting enough people to do it with you. Aaron Russo was a pro at it. Everyone always says doing something like that with libertarians is like herding cats. Well, how do you herd cats? With TUNA! What's our tuna?

[Brian4Liberty]

There are posters here who do very much believe that the overt slavery of the past was better than what we have now. Without pointing them out, you already know who they are.

Quotes please.

[Peace&Freedom]

Agreed. And ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

To change the now 'race-land' contaminated framework, find some black, latino or Indian ranchers who have been robbed of their lands by the feds, and have them speak out. That could neutralize the race-baiting and put the focus back on federal tyranny.

[Deborah K]

To change the now 'race-land' contaminated framework, find some black, latino or Indian ranchers who have been robbed of their lands by the feds, and have them speak out. That could neutralize the race-baiting and put the focus back on federal tyranny.

No minority ranchers found yet, but several black people have spoken out against this. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450506-Looking-for-articles-radio-shows-etc-in-response-to-Bundy-s-remarks

[Deborah K]

There are posters here who do very much believe that the overt slavery of the past was better than what we have now. Without pointing them out, you already know who they are.

This is trollish, and off the subject completely.

[KingNothing]

This is trollish, and off the subject completely.

Really? Trollish? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450459-And-so-the-character-assasination-of-Cliven-Bundy-Begins!!!!!&p=5503748&viewfull=1#post5503748, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450459-And-so-the-character-assasination-of-Cliven-Bundy-Begins!!!!!&p=5503744&viewfull=1#post5503744, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450459-And-so-the-character-assasination-of-Cliven-Bundy-Begins!!!!!&p=5503760&viewfull=1#post5503760

I don't think any of the people on our end are racist. I think they sincerely hate all forms of collectivism. I do think, however, that they're being careless with their words and are conflating support with Cliven's fight with support for Cliven.

[Anti Federalist]

Usually, when Sowell and others are talking about blacks being better off under slavery than under welfare, they're talking about the stability of the family. Nobody in their right mind would honestly say that slavery, which is the equivalent to being jailed for no just cause at all, is better than welfarism.

There is a massive gulf between the two ideas, and they need to stop being conflated.

Millions of people in prison.

Many of them black.

Many of them totally innocent.

Either way, you're locked down.

[Tod]

"Damnit, Rand, I'm a rancher, not an orator!"

[GunnyFreedom]

When issue = "Cliven Bundy" we lose.
When issue = "federal power" we win.
Stop letting the left frame the debate.

[GunnyFreedom]

and that's not cold to Cliven either. The best hope Bundy's got is we turn this ship around, or that we be in place to fix it once it goes over Niagara.

[cajuncocoa]

When issue = "Cliven Bundy" we lose.
When issue = "federal power" we win.
Stop letting the left frame the debate.quoted, emboldened, and enlarged....for truth.

[Brian4Liberty]

Millions of people in prison.

Many of them black.

Many of them totally innocent.

Either way, you're locked down.

"What y'all yackin' about over there?"

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2010/10/15/1287151888202/O-Brother-Where-Art-Thou-006.jpg

[Terry1]

Rand's actual words and opinion here:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/04/22/sen-rand-paul-harry-reid-versus-rancher-cliven-bundy-we-need-tone-down-rhetoric-governmen

[Feeding the Abscess]

When issue = "Cliven Bundy" we lose.
When issue = "federal power" we win.
Stop letting the left frame the debate.

The issue runs deeper than that. The issue we should be championing is that of property rights. When you subscribe to hare-brained theories like 'public land,' you're going to run into trouble. Add several layers of bureaucracy from several competing layers of government, and it's going to get messy pretty quickly.

[GunnyFreedom]

The issue runs deeper than that. The issue we should be championing is that of property rights. When you subscribe to hare-brained theories like 'public land,' you're going to run into trouble. Add several layers of bureaucracy from several competing layers of government, and it's going to get messy pretty quickly.

As the case may be and quite regardless, the issue is not actually about some semi-random rancher who happened to have the stones to hijack his own herd back from the federal rustlers.

[francisco]

...Everyone always says doing something like that with libertarians is like herding cats. Well, how do you herd cats? With TUNA! What's our tuna?

Great quote! clever thinking, too

[Deborah K]

Great quote! clever thinking, too

Can't take the credit. It belongs to my friend Ernie Hancock. Founder of Freedom's Phoenix: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Front-Page.htm?EdNo=001

[Feeding the Abscess]

The 'They' are the government.Can't you understand English?

Whatever Vanguard's grasp of the English language is isn't my concern. I can say, however, that Cliven Bundy doesn't have a firm grasp on the English language, or is at the very least incoherent in his speech. Strictly taking his words as they are, it is hardly clear that the 'they' is referring to government. In fact, from his use of the word, the 'they' is black people. Any misunderstanding of Bundy, if there is one, is on Cliven Bundy and his terrible use of the English language.

I can't fault Cliven Bundy too much for being incoherent, though. He's uneducated and has been faced with mass media exposure. He was and is totally unprepared for that level of attention and scrutiny. He's a rancher, not a lawyer, politician, or any occupation that requires eloquence or even coherence as an essential function of the profession.

[NewRightLibertarian]

There are posters here who do very much believe that the overt slavery of the past was better than what we have now. Without pointing them out, you already know who they are.

Nope, nobody here supports slavery and nobody here is making that comparison. Maybe you should take your horseshit to the Rachel Maddow Forums. You would really be more comfortable there.