Bundy Press Release: We are trading one form of slavery for another.

[Lucille]

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2014/04/press-release.html


We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. Bundy

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

whoa getting a little ahead of yourself there Bundy lol

[tod evans]

Twist that!

[Tod]

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2014/04/press-release.html

Sounds like he has found himself a writer? :D I've noticed in the videos that Ammon is a much better speaker than his dad.

[bunklocoempire]

That's what I thought he said -but in a manner apparently unintelligible by msm (an msm that can easily investigate and ask Bundy follow up question). Seems after this clarification I was totally right.

Putting the best construction on everything -or even asking questions to understand a position has been lost to the ages I guess.

It was fun to see Al Sharpton and others flattering themselves and imagining anyone would actually want them as a slave -well somebody other than government wanting them as slaves.

[Uriel999]

But but but he's racist! The tv told me so!

[pcosmar]

But but but he's racist! The tv told me so!

And so many here are quick to buy that shit.. :(

PT Barnum was right.

[juleswin]

Bravo, well written explanation of his case, the letter struck all the right tones and makes him look very reasonable than the way he had appeared/been portrayed so far by the media


But but but he's racist! The tv told me so!

Some people think he said something racist, this doesn't mean said people believing it thinks he is a racist. You can say something that sound misogynist without being a hater of women and people usually make some apology or clarification when such things happen. This whole thing would have died down a long time ago had he just given some sort of apology and/or rephrased his statement about blacks and slavery.

[matt0611]

Sounds like a very informed and rational man to me.

[William Tell]

I grew up around guys like Bundy, real genuine good old fashioned people.

[ProIndividual]

He's backpedaling...he used the word "Negro"...in 2014...and then all kinds of collectivist phrasing to describe black people in America (actually black people in Nevada). Too many wish to defend him by buying into this after-the-fact spin. He's a racist (a collectivist thinker on race), it's as plain as the nose on his face. He actually asked if black people were better off as slaves! Yeah, they were better off being legally raped and beaten, not being able to own property, and not having standing in court to nonviolently resolve abuses upon them, than BEING ON WELFARE. Enough hyperbole, they are CLEARLY better off now. We all hate the welfarism, but to compare slavery to welfarism in anything except the most tenuous way is bullshit. The culture of their dependency is individual; each person that is black should be taken as an individual, not as part of a group they belong to through no choice of their own (same as white people don't choose, or earn, to be white). He could have argued the culture of dependency among black Americans is linked to the history of their dependence as slaves...but even that ignores their individuality.

That said, it has nothing to do with the land issue. He still gets my support on that. His personal idiocy and ignorance on racial issues doesn't have anything to do with the land issue.

People sound ridiculous trying to defend him on the racial issue. I read the EXACT words he said, in total...it was racist, CLEARLY. And he can't say that isn't what he said...it's on tape.

Sorry, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Accepting he's racist (which is pretty freaking clear) shouldn't mean you can't support him on the land issue. Pretending he isn't racist is just making yourselves look sophistic (or worse, delusional).

[Weston White]

Up until a few years ago, the federal government was still using the term on its forms. It is not a derogatory term; it is descriptive of an ethnicity. It is not synonymous to the “N” word.

He was not stating the blacks should be returned to the condition of slavery, but reflecting on the fact that governmental social justice programs have beset blacks (e.g., minorities) into a virulent atmosphere that is so much worse than slavery. Being that at least with slavery they were provisioned with employable skills, respected by family, socially productive, and honorable in their heritage.

Now forwarding onto our present day, for most minorities, their best hopes to better themselves are pinned to the internalized interests of the ACLU and EEOC—for without either most minorities obtain no actual sense of justice when they have been wronged or victimized.

Is what Mr. Bundy had originally stated, really all that far from the uncomfortable, and yet realistic truth? Do not, blacks (e.g., minorities) now largely occupy our nation’s poorest neighborhoods, depend mostly to wholly upon subsistence from the government’s hands, readily abort their unborn, abuse drugs and neighborhood liquor stores, commit themselves to years of criminality, abandoning notions of self-respect and dignity, and avoiding social productiveness?

What is the causation for all of this? Is it merely Mr. Bundy’s reflections or could it be due to the democratic progressivism of the intermingling, mind-numbed left?

[agitator]

People confuse stereotyping with collectivism.

[pcosmar]

People confuse stereotyping with collectivism.

People confuse common (though perhaps outdated) descriptors as derogatory,, when all they are is a descriptor.

I remember my Grandfather wanted to travel through the south and meet some "Darkies".
There was nothing derogatory in it. He had never known a black man and wanted to meet some. The term was descriptive. nothing else.

[DevilsAdvocate]

He's still toast. It's kind of sad, if he had played it right, him or his sons could potentially have found themselves in high office.

He seems like a nice old guy, head of his household, big name in his community. A little bit rough spoken, but that's just because he's not censoring his thoughts like so many of us are trained to do.

[pcosmar]

He's still toast. It's kind of sad, if he had played it right, him or his sons could potentially have found themselves in high office.



What makes you thing any of them even desire (much less deserve) that fate?
I would not wish it on them.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

He's backpedaling...he used the word "Negro"...in 2014...and then all kinds of collectivist phrasing to describe black people in America (actually black people in Nevada). Too many wish to defend him by buying into this after-the-fact spin. He's a racist (a collectivist thinker on race), it's as plain as the nose on his face. He actually asked if black people were better off as slaves! Yeah, they were better off being legally raped and beaten, not being able to own property, and not having standing in court to nonviolently resolve abuses upon them, than BEING ON WELFARE. Enough hyperbole, they are CLEARLY better off now. We all hate the welfarism, but to compare slavery to welfarism in anything except the most tenuous way is bullshit. The culture of their dependency is individual; each person that is black should be taken as an individual, not as part of a group they belong to through no choice of their own (same as white people don't choose, or earn, to be white). He could have argued the culture of dependency among black Americans is linked to the history of their dependence as slaves...but even that ignores their individuality.

That said, it has nothing to do with the land issue. He still gets my support on that. His personal idiocy and ignorance on racial issues doesn't have anything to do with the land issue.

People sound ridiculous trying to defend him on the racial issue. I read the EXACT words he said, in total...it was racist, CLEARLY. And he can't say that isn't what he said...it's on tape.

Sorry, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Accepting he's racist (which is pretty freaking clear) shouldn't mean you can't support him on the land issue. Pretending he isn't racist is just making yourselves look sophistic (or worse, delusional).

THIS.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Posted by fellow intelligence "community" agent Rudi Dekkers over at EPJ:


The transcript from the 3 minute clip is not the full video and tells us nothing about why Bundy was talking about blacks in the first place, and is missing the essential lead up to what is said in the 3 minute clip. Why is no one asking the question: "Why was Bundy talking about blacks at all?"

Why is nobody wondering about this? Perhaps NYTimes reporters hectored Bundy with questions about Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard like they did Walter Block to try to trip him up?

Well now that I have y'all suddenly interested in the full context of Bundy's remarks about the Watts riots and blacks, here's a link to the full 60+ minute press conference:

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915

Bundy begins as he usually does by talking about his #1 issue: Dis-arm the feds! He's one of the very very few constitutional conservatives on the planet who understands that the purpose of the American Revolution was to disband the central government's standing army. Even libertarians like Ron Paul who must understand this are afraid to bring it up anywhere in a nation that worships the military and the police.

Then he looked out on those that had showed up for the press conference and lamented how they were all white and then he tried to make a plea for inclusiveness and diversity. (Strike 2 for being insensitive to the feelings of some conservatives).

Then he tried to explain why Negroes, Mexicans, and even Chinese are also being oppressed by the leviathan state and should all be out their with them making a stand.

And that explains why he went on to imply that we should ignore what he thinks the Constitution and laws prescribe as to rounding up Mexicans (Strike 3!)

So Bundy's remarks about the Watts riots, North Las Vegas, and Mexicans having superior family structures were tangent to his main theme which was an invitation to oppressed blacks and browns to come out to his ranch, swim in the river with them, enjoy a bbq, and join the resistance.

I'm mainly amazed at how so many libertarians can take a 3 minute clip that starts out with an eye witness description of the 1966 Watts riots and instead of wondering why in the world that would be Bundy's subject of discussion, the libertarians are all scrambling around in a panic accepting Rachel Maddow's premise that the 3 minute clip stands on its own. You might as well accept JW's premise that the full extent of Walter Block's statement to the NYTimes was that "slavery wasn't so bad." After all that's all they printed. Why wonder about the context?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/breaking-cliven-bundy-issues-statement.html