What Cliven Bundy Really Said

The United States government owns approximately 85 percent of Nevada, according to the U.S. General Services Administration Federal Real Property Profile.  That’s the greatest percentage of any state in the union.  Alaska is next, with 69.1 percent of its land federally owned.  Alaska is a greater land mass, though, and while 69 percent is a lower number, it may actually be a greater amount of federally-owned property.

After that comes:  Utah (57.4 percent), Oregon (53.1 percent), and Idaho (50.2 percent).

Talk about government overreach.  Arizona comes in under the wire at 48.1 percent and California at 45.3 percent.

Where is the outrage at this Federal ownership of land?  What part of the Constitution are we ignoring here?  The states are only prohibited from doing three very basic things without the consent of Congress:  coining money, imposing taxes, and forming armies/navies.

That’s it.  And Congress does allow the individual states to impose taxes and host state national guard units.  Other than making war and money (and taxing that money), all the other rights are supposed to belong to the individual states.  Nowhere in the Constitution is it implied that the Federal government can own an entire state – at least not for any other purpose than building military establishments.

Even there, when the Army owns more than 50 percent of a state, you have to begin to wonder where we went wrong.  What the Constitution does prohibit states from doing is selling their land to foreign powers.  Without the consent of Congress, that is.  There’s the loophole for the federal government and U.S. Senator Harry Reid, who’s busy selling off great chunks of Nevada to the Chinese for solar farms and factories.  All in the name of the environment.

All the noise over Clive Bundy and his racist statements, referring to Blacks as “Negros,” apparently the latest political correct offense, stating that they would have been better off as slaves, has been shoved off the Media radar by L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling who publicly objected to his then-girlfriend bringing black boyfriends to the Clippers’ games.

Someone needs to get Bundy a public relations spokesperson.  Bundy is seriously afflicted with hoof-in-mouth disease.  To give him the benefit of the doubt, it sounded like he might have meant that they’re no better off now than when they were on welfare. 

But what that has to do with the federal government seizing his cattle only Bundy knows for sure, and he isn’t talking anymore.  Thank goodness.  Glenn Beck has been leading the charge against Bundy’s aggression against the government, beginning with the illegality of refusing to pay the federal permit fee to have his cattle graze on “federal” land.

Nevada ranchers don’t have any choice but to pay the federal government, considering how much land it owns.  Or go to jail.  Eighty-six percent of the state’s a whole lot of land and it takes a whole lot of land to graze cattle.  Some of that land belongs to the military.  Some of it belongs, now, to China, thanks to Harry Reid.  The rest belongs to the environmentally-correct Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency that is part of a long history of environmental politics, beginning with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is one of dozens of U.S. environmental laws passed in the 1970s. Signed into law by President Nixon on Dec. 28, 1973, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a “consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.” The U.S. Supreme Court  found that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA ‘was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.”

 The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the property clause at least insofar as it was applied to prohibit the New Mexico Livestock Board from entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.

Estray, in law, is any domestic animal found wandering at large or lost, particularly if the owner is unknown.

Under early English common law, estrays were forfeited to the king or lord of the manor; under modern statutes, provision is made for taking up stray animals and acquiring either title to them or a lien for the expenses incurred in keeping them. A person taking up an estray has a qualified ownership in it, which becomes absolute if the owner fails to claim the animal within the statutory time limit. Whether the animal escaped through the owner’s negligence or through the wrongful act of a third person is immaterial. If the owner reclaims the estray, he is liable for reasonable costs of its upkeep. The use of an estray during the period of qualified ownership, other than for its own preservation or for the benefit of the owner, is not authorized. Some statutes limit the right to take up estrays to certain classes of persons, to certain seasons or places, or to animals requiring care.

When public officials, such as a county sheriff impound stray animals, they may sell them at auction to recover the costs of upkeep, with proceeds, if any, going into the public treasury. In some places, an uncastrated male livestock animal running at large may be neutered at the owner’s expense.

Kleppe v. New Mexico, (1976), was the U.S. Supreme Court decision, which unanimously held that the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971), passed by Congress to protect these animals from “capture, branding, harassment, or death,” was a constitutional exercise of congressional power.  The New Mexico Livestock Board claimed the federal government did not have the power to control these animals unless they were items in interstate commerce or causing damage to the public lands.  In February 1974, the board rounded up and sold 19 unbranded burros from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. When the BLM demanded the animals’ return, the state filed suit claiming that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was unconstitutional.

The Supremes, at the time were:  Chief Justice Warren E. Burger; and Associate Justices:  William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackman, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens

Although the lower court found for the state, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision. It wrote that the “‘complete power’ that Congress has over public lands necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there.” In addition, the Supreme Court said that Congress may enact legislation governing federal lands pursuant to the property clause and “when Congress so acts, federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the supremacy clause.

The Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico that “the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding.”  Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America is pushing a “hunting” bill (Sportsmen’s Act of 2012) that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes. Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday. ACTION: It is imperative that liberty lovers and land owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525. Tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.  This bill was defeated in the Senate in 2012.

So, the EPA came to the BLM’s rescue, declaring in 1994 that the dry-land tortoise was an endangered species.  That’s when Cliven Bundy stopped paying the fee.  Over 20 years, the dry-land tortoise prospered and now is not only not endangered, but over-populated.

Cliven Bundy did not go to a federal courthouse, along with his supporters, and aim rifles at any federal officials.  When it was clear that Bundy would not abide by the infamous 9th Circuit Court’s ruling and either pay the fee or remove his cattle, the feds showed up with their armored personnel toting some sophisticated weaponry, dogs, helicopters, and trucks and proceeded to seize Bundy’s property.  He may not have owned the land, but he owned the cattle.

Still, the cattle were considered estray and the federal government had the “right” to seize them.  Bundy had broken the law, even if the law was an unconstitutional overreach.  That was Glenn Beck’s take on things.  Adding the stupid comments only made Glenn angrier.

He was a rancher, he said, and he paid the fee (even though he knew it was a bad law).  He wasn’t going to go against the government.

First, we should make clear what the tongue-tied Bundy actually said. 

This is from the website Truth Revolts:

A new, unedited version of comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has emerged, and it sheds some light on the context of his remarks, universally condemned on Thursday as horrifically racist.

The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad — and his use of “negro” and “colored” considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) — he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.

 

 In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence. 

 

“… and so what I’ve testified to you — I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

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

 

Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and “we sure don’t want to go back.”

 

Here are the heavily-quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.

 

“Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

 

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

 

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

 

But Bundy went on after saying that — and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.

 

“Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

 

“Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

 

So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that “we sure don’t want to go back.” As always, there’s more to the story than what the New York Times says.

 

So that’s what Clive Bundy had to say.  Let’s hope he stays away from the microphone from now on.  But what about Glenn Beck?  He was not only upset (rightly) about Bundy’s comments but about his use of guns to protect his cattle.  What does Glenn have to say about owning guns and the 2nd Amendment?

 

Well, it’s right here in his 2013 book, “Guns:  Exposing the Truth About Guns.”

 

On page xv, in the introduction to the book, he writes, “In my view, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution for three main reasons:  self-protection, community protection, and protection from tyranny.”

 

 

Then a few paragraphs down, on the same page, he explains why he wrote this book:

 

“It’s my hope that you’ll read it and then p ass it on to others, especially those who may be susceptible to trading away their liberty in a time of crisis.

 

Furthermore, he writes, “I believe firmly that our Bill of Rights is not merely a list of suggestions, but a road map to freedom.  When we stray from that map even a little, and even for what seems to be a very good reason, we are certain to face the consequences.”

 

Reasons such as protecting a dry-land tortoise that no longer needs EPA protection, or selling state lands to a foreign country, vis-à-vis., China, to build solar panel farms and factories that we don’t need?  Or are those reasons too little?

 

Glenn Beck then gets into the main text of his book.

 

“Here in the United States,” he tells us on page 5, “the Second Amendment has seemingly gone from being a God-given natural right to a privilege that must be defended.  Yet the moment anyone dares voice those concerns, they are usually met with mockery and dismissed as a bloodthirsty, paranoid freak who is bitterly clinging to their guns even as the mainstream of society passes them by.”

 

When Bundy and his gang pulled out their rifles, in self-defense, Glen Beck loudly clamored to his audience to “stay away from that guy” and that he was bad news.  Don’t stand next to him!  Apparently talking about gun rights is one thing, but actually practicing those rights is another matter entirely.

 

Glenn spends some considerable time discussing using guns for self-protection, particularly in light of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.  But he eventually comes back to the argument for American protecting themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

“Two hundred and twenty-one years,” he writes on p. 54, “(and no monarchs, kings or dictators) later, the idea that Americans would ever need to bear arms against a tyrannical government is used quite literally as a punch line.  Those who talk about it are usually mocked, belittled, and ridiculed by the controllists.  And since government tyranny is now a thing of the past, they argue, what possible reason could there be to own a ‘killing machine’ like an AR-15?”

 

Who was that on Glenn Beck’s show that was mocking, belittling and ridiculing Clive Bundy?  Was it Glenn’s evil twin?

 

But there’s more, still on page 54:

 

“…As comical as the idea may seem to you guys as you sit in your Manhattan office towers, the primary objective of gun rights is to protect American citizens against a tyrannical government.  You can laugh all you want-but the unarmed and vulnerable masses in the former Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany weren’t laughing as they and their friends and families were sent to their mass graves.  (Yes, I did get the memo that talking about genocides allegedly makes you sound even crazier-but I shredded it.)”

 

But he had a back-up copy on his computer just in case he changed his mind, evidently.

 

Glenn answers a rhetorical question:  “You want an assault rifle so that YOU can take on the entire United States military?  That is ridiculous!”

 

His response is:  “I completely agree, that is ridiculous.  I would definitely not be able to defeat the United States military in battle.  In fact, if disaster strikes and Rachel [Maddow], Jon [Stewart] and Joe [?] evacuate Manhattan and come take refuge on my ranch, I probably won’t even be able to protect them from roving bands of gangs looking for food.  But the best part about the Second Amendment is that, as long as it exists, I will probably never have to try.  Any government would be certifiably insane to overrun a country composed of 80 million people owning 300 million firearms.  [But I]f a government is someday dumb enough to attempt it, at least citizens stand a fighting chance.”

 

Unless they live in Nevada, where the government already owns 86 percent of the state.  Glenn will advise you to abide by the law – as he does, in Texas – in that case.

 

Continuing on page 56, he writes, “…For the rest of us, the Second Amendment is the ultimate deterrent, a German shepherd sitting on the front porch, frothing at the mouth and barking like mad.”

 

In the Bundy case, the German shepherds were held by federal agents and Glenn accused the protesters of tormenting the dogs.  Well, he was right; that’s what they were doing.  Even I agree that the supporters were acting like jerks.  Still…who brought them to the fight?

 

“If we continue to stand for our rights, none of us alive today will ever have to pick up a weapon against our government.  The bad news is that if those rights are watered down or taken away, the risk of tyranny will increase with each passing generation.”

 

Gee, I hate to break the bad news to Glenn, but that tyranny is already here.  When the Federal government owns 86 percent of any state, obviating the ability of ordinary Americans to own any large tracts of land in that state to, say, own a herd of cattle, that tyranny is already here and in place. 

 

That tyrannical government is using the excuse of protecting wild animals to seize state lands from the people.  The EPA could go into any state, and make the excuse of protecting any animal (especially one hard to track) and confiscate the land.  Even the science writers of Scientific American think it’s crazy to place the rights of animals over the rights of humans.

 

Glenn Beck also cites an unusual source of American entrepreneurship – Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin, which ironically (according to Glenn himself) made the plight of the black slaves even worse (because the cotton gin could process more cotton, the plantation owners needed even more slaves to pick the cotton).  Here in his book, Glenn notes that in 1798, “…Whitney became the first American industrialist to secure a government contract for mass production of firearms…using interchangeable parts.”

 

Clive Bundy may not be the smartest man in American.  In speaking, he may shoot from the hip.  But he knows tyranny when he sees it.  We say that tyranny should be fought in the voting booth not at the rifle range.  Tyrants, however, when they gain enough power through corruption and deceit, take no account of the voters.

 

We have enough federally-mandated bureaucratic laws to paper the entire state of Nevada.  Where are the people willing to say “enough is enough” and put responsible people back into power?  You certainly won’t find them in the Democrat Party and the Republican Party is virtually strangling the voices of dissent within its own ranks.  A Republican president passed the Endangered Species Act, not a Democrat.  He may have meant well, but the law has had disastrous consequences for property ownership here in the 21st Century.

 

Might does not make right.  Federal might does not make right.  Federal might does not make federal laws right, in the moral sense of the word.  The Federal laws that everyone from Fox News to Glenn Beck declare to be right, even when their wrong, will make vassals of us all.

 

Our choice is to surrender to tyranny, take some political action against it (for all intents and purposes, that time has passed; the train has left the station, pardners), or stand up and fight, as Clive Bundy did (note, he only did so in self-defense).  Those words are illegal in this country; it’s considered sedition to instigate violent action against a legal government, even one that is tyrannizing over us ruthlessly and without check.

 

The Founding Fathers knew that.  Their actions were considered seditious and illegal.  There was a price on the heads of those who led the revolt against Great Britain.  At the end of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

 

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

 

During the stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, Glenn Beck, author of “Guns:  Exposing the Truth About Guns,” blinked.  Mike Wallace, of Fox News, blinked.  Thankfully, the U.S. government blinked and withdrew its armed personnel, returned Bundy’s cattle, and sought a more peaceful resolution through the courts.

 

Clive Bundy, certainly no diplomat, did not blink.

 

 

 

 

What Cliven Bundy Really Said

The United States government owns approximately 85 percent of Nevada, according to the U.S. General Services Administration Federal Real Property Profile.  That’s the greatest percentage of any state in the union.  Alaska is next, with 69.1 percent of its land federally owned.  Alaska is a greater land mass, though, and while 69 percent is a lower number, it may actually be a greater amount of federally-owned property.

After that comes:  Utah (57.4 percent), Oregon (53.1 percent), and Idaho (50.2 percent).

Talk about government overreach.  Arizona comes in under the wire at 48.1 percent and California at 45.3 percent.

Where is the outrage at this Federal ownership of land?  What part of the Constitution are we ignoring here?  The states are only prohibited from doing three very basic things without the consent of Congress:  coining money, imposing taxes, and forming armies/navies.

That’s it.  And Congress does allow the individual states to impose taxes and host state national guard units.  Other than making war and money (and taxing that money), all the other rights are supposed to belong to the individual states.  Nowhere in the Constitution is it implied that the Federal government can own an entire state – at least not for any other purpose than building military establishments.

Even there, when the Army owns more than 50 percent of a state, you have to begin to wonder where we went wrong.  What the Constitution does prohibit states from doing is selling their land to foreign powers.  Without the consent of Congress, that is.  There’s the loophole for the federal government and U.S. Senator Harry Reid, who’s busy selling off great chunks of Nevada to the Chinese for solar farms and factories.  All in the name of the environment.

All the noise over Clive Bundy and his racist statements, referring to Blacks as “Negros,” apparently the latest political correct offense, stating that they would have been better off as slaves, has been shoved off the Media radar by L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling who publicly objected to his then-girlfriend bringing black boyfriends to the Clippers’ games.

Someone needs to get Bundy a public relations spokesperson.  Bundy is seriously afflicted with hoof-in-mouth disease.  To give him the benefit of the doubt, it sounded like he might have meant that they’re no better off now than when they were on welfare. 

But what that has to do with the federal government seizing his cattle only Bundy knows for sure, and he isn’t talking anymore.  Thank goodness.  Glenn Beck has been leading the charge against Bundy’s aggression against the government, beginning with the illegality of refusing to pay the federal permit fee to have his cattle graze on “federal” land.

Nevada ranchers don’t have any choice but to pay the federal government, considering how much land it owns.  Or go to jail.  Eighty-six percent of the state’s a whole lot of land and it takes a whole lot of land to graze cattle.  Some of that land belongs to the military.  Some of it belongs, now, to China, thanks to Harry Reid.  The rest belongs to the environmentally-correct Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency that is part of a long history of environmental politics, beginning with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is one of dozens of U.S. environmental laws passed in the 1970s. Signed into law by President Nixon on Dec. 28, 1973, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a “consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.” The U.S. Supreme Court  found that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA ‘was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.”

 The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the property clause at least insofar as it was applied to prohibit the New Mexico Livestock Board from entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.

Estray, in law, is any domestic animal found wandering at large or lost, particularly if the owner is unknown.

Under early English common law, estrays were forfeited to the king or lord of the manor; under modern statutes, provision is made for taking up stray animals and acquiring either title to them or a lien for the expenses incurred in keeping them. A person taking up an estray has a qualified ownership in it, which becomes absolute if the owner fails to claim the animal within the statutory time limit. Whether the animal escaped through the owner’s negligence or through the wrongful act of a third person is immaterial. If the owner reclaims the estray, he is liable for reasonable costs of its upkeep. The use of an estray during the period of qualified ownership, other than for its own preservation or for the benefit of the owner, is not authorized. Some statutes limit the right to take up estrays to certain classes of persons, to certain seasons or places, or to animals requiring care.

When public officials, such as a county sheriff impound stray animals, they may sell them at auction to recover the costs of upkeep, with proceeds, if any, going into the public treasury. In some places, an uncastrated male livestock animal running at large may be neutered at the owner’s expense.

Kleppe v. New Mexico, (1976), was the U.S. Supreme Court decision, which unanimously held that the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971), passed by Congress to protect these animals from “capture, branding, harassment, or death,” was a constitutional exercise of congressional power.  The New Mexico Livestock Board claimed the federal government did not have the power to control these animals unless they were items in interstate commerce or causing damage to the public lands.  In February 1974, the board rounded up and sold 19 unbranded burros from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. When the BLM demanded the animals’ return, the state filed suit claiming that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was unconstitutional.

The Supremes, at the time were:  Chief Justice Warren E. Burger; and Associate Justices:  William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackman, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens

Although the lower court found for the state, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision. It wrote that the “‘complete power’ that Congress has over public lands necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there.” In addition, the Supreme Court said that Congress may enact legislation governing federal lands pursuant to the property clause and “when Congress so acts, federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the supremacy clause.

The Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico that “the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding.”  Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America is pushing a “hunting” bill (Sportsmen’s Act of 2012) that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes. Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday. ACTION: It is imperative that liberty lovers and land owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525. Tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.  This bill was defeated in the Senate in 2012.

So, the EPA came to the BLM’s rescue, declaring in 1994 that the dry-land tortoise was an endangered species.  That’s when Cliven Bundy stopped paying the fee.  Over 20 years, the dry-land tortoise prospered and now is not only not endangered, but over-populated.

Cliven Bundy did not go to a federal courthouse, along with his supporters, and aim rifles at any federal officials.  When it was clear that Bundy would not abide by the infamous 9th Circuit Court’s ruling and either pay the fee or remove his cattle, the feds showed up with their armored personnel toting some sophisticated weaponry, dogs, helicopters, and trucks and proceeded to seize Bundy’s property.  He may not have owned the land, but he owned the cattle.

Still, the cattle were considered estray and the federal government had the “right” to seize them.  Bundy had broken the law, even if the law was an unconstitutional overreach.  That was Glenn Beck’s take on things.  Adding the stupid comments only made Glenn angrier.

He was a rancher, he said, and he paid the fee (even though he knew it was a bad law).  He wasn’t going to go against the government.

First, we should make clear what the tongue-tied Bundy actually said. 

This is from the website Truth Revolts:

A new, unedited version of comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has emerged, and it sheds some light on the context of his remarks, universally condemned on Thursday as horrifically racist.

The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad — and his use of “negro” and “colored” considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) — he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.

 

 In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence. 

 

“… and so what I’ve testified to you — I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

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

 

Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and “we sure don’t want to go back.”

 

Here are the heavily-quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.

 

“Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

 

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

 

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

 

But Bundy went on after saying that — and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.

 

“Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

 

“Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

 

So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that “we sure don’t want to go back.” As always, there’s more to the story than what the New York Times says.

 

So that’s what Clive Bundy had to say.  Let’s hope he stays away from the microphone from now on.  But what about Glenn Beck?  He was not only upset (rightly) about Bundy’s comments but about his use of guns to protect his cattle.  What does Glenn have to say about owning guns and the 2nd Amendment?

 

Well, it’s right here in his 2013 book, “Guns:  Exposing the Truth About Guns.”

 

On page xv, in the introduction to the book, he writes, “In my view, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution for three main reasons:  self-protection, community protection, and protection from tyranny.”

 

 

Then a few paragraphs down, on the same page, he explains why he wrote this book:

 

“It’s my hope that you’ll read it and then p ass it on to others, especially those who may be susceptible to trading away their liberty in a time of crisis.

 

Furthermore, he writes, “I believe firmly that our Bill of Rights is not merely a list of suggestions, but a road map to freedom.  When we stray from that map even a little, and even for what seems to be a very good reason, we are certain to face the consequences.”

 

Reasons such as protecting a dry-land tortoise that no longer needs EPA protection, or selling state lands to a foreign country, vis-à-vis., China, to build solar panel farms and factories that we don’t need?  Or are those reasons too little?

 

Glenn Beck then gets into the main text of his book.

 

“Here in the United States,” he tells us on page 5, “the Second Amendment has seemingly gone from being a God-given natural right to a privilege that must be defended.  Yet the moment anyone dares voice those concerns, they are usually met with mockery and dismissed as a bloodthirsty, paranoid freak who is bitterly clinging to their guns even as the mainstream of society passes them by.”

 

When Bundy and his gang pulled out their rifles, in self-defense, Glen Beck loudly clamored to his audience to “stay away from that guy” and that he was bad news.  Don’t stand next to him!  Apparently talking about gun rights is one thing, but actually practicing those rights is another matter entirely.

 

Glenn spends some considerable time discussing using guns for self-protection, particularly in light of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.  But he eventually comes back to the argument for American protecting themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

“Two hundred and twenty-one years,” he writes on p. 54, “(and no monarchs, kings or dictators) later, the idea that Americans would ever need to bear arms against a tyrannical government is used quite literally as a punch line.  Those who talk about it are usually mocked, belittled, and ridiculed by the controllists.  And since government tyranny is now a thing of the past, they argue, what possible reason could there be to own a ‘killing machine’ like an AR-15?”

 

Who was that on Glenn Beck’s show that was mocking, belittling and ridiculing Clive Bundy?  Was it Glenn’s evil twin?

 

But there’s more, still on page 54:

 

“…As comical as the idea may seem to you guys as you sit in your Manhattan office towers, the primary objective of gun rights is to protect American citizens against a tyrannical government.  You can laugh all you want-but the unarmed and vulnerable masses in the former Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany weren’t laughing as they and their friends and families were sent to their mass graves.  (Yes, I did get the memo that talking about genocides allegedly makes you sound even crazier-but I shredded it.)”

 

But he had a back-up copy on his computer just in case he changed his mind, evidently.

 

Glenn answers a rhetorical question:  “You want an assault rifle so that YOU can take on the entire United States military?  That is ridiculous!”

 

His response is:  “I completely agree, that is ridiculous.  I would definitely not be able to defeat the United States military in battle.  In fact, if disaster strikes and Rachel [Maddow], Jon [Stewart] and Joe [?] evacuate Manhattan and come take refuge on my ranch, I probably won’t even be able to protect them from roving bands of gangs looking for food.  But the best part about the Second Amendment is that, as long as it exists, I will probably never have to try.  Any government would be certifiably insane to overrun a country composed of 80 million people owning 300 million firearms.  [But I]f a government is someday dumb enough to attempt it, at least citizens stand a fighting chance.”

 

Unless they live in Nevada, where the government already owns 86 percent of the state.  Glenn will advise you to abide by the law – as he does, in Texas – in that case.

 

Continuing on page 56, he writes, “…For the rest of us, the Second Amendment is the ultimate deterrent, a German shepherd sitting on the front porch, frothing at the mouth and barking like mad.”

 

In the Bundy case, the German shepherds were held by federal agents and Glenn accused the protesters of tormenting the dogs.  Well, he was right; that’s what they were doing.  Even I agree that the supporters were acting like jerks.  Still…who brought them to the fight?

 

“If we continue to stand for our rights, none of us alive today will ever have to pick up a weapon against our government.  The bad news is that if those rights are watered down or taken away, the risk of tyranny will increase with each passing generation.”

 

Gee, I hate to break the bad news to Glenn, but that tyranny is already here.  When the Federal government owns 86 percent of any state, obviating the ability of ordinary Americans to own any large tracts of land in that state to, say, own a herd of cattle, that tyranny is already here and in place. 

 

That tyrannical government is using the excuse of protecting wild animals to seize state lands from the people.  The EPA could go into any state, and make the excuse of protecting any animal (especially one hard to track) and confiscate the land.  Even the science writers of Scientific American think it’s crazy to place the rights of animals over the rights of humans.

 

Glenn Beck also cites an unusual source of American entrepreneurship – Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin, which ironically (according to Glenn himself) made the plight of the black slaves even worse (because the cotton gin could process more cotton, the plantation owners needed even more slaves to pick the cotton).  Here in his book, Glenn notes that in 1798, “…Whitney became the first American industrialist to secure a government contract for mass production of firearms…using interchangeable parts.”

 

Clive Bundy may not be the smartest man in American.  In speaking, he may shoot from the hip.  But he knows tyranny when he sees it.  We say that tyranny should be fought in the voting booth not at the rifle range.  Tyrants, however, when they gain enough power through corruption and deceit, take no account of the voters.

 

We have enough federally-mandated bureaucratic laws to paper the entire state of Nevada.  Where are the people willing to say “enough is enough” and put responsible people back into power?  You certainly won’t find them in the Democrat Party and the Republican Party is virtually strangling the voices of dissent within its own ranks.  A Republican president passed the Endangered Species Act, not a Democrat.  He may have meant well, but the law has had disastrous consequences for property ownership here in the 21st Century.

 

Might does not make right.  Federal might does not make right.  Federal might does not make federal laws right, in the moral sense of the word.  The Federal laws that everyone from Fox News to Glenn Beck declare to be right, even when their wrong, will make vassals of us all.

 

Our choice is to surrender to tyranny, take some political action against it (for all intents and purposes, that time has passed; the train has left the station, pardners), or stand up and fight, as Clive Bundy did (note, he only did so in self-defense).  Those words are illegal in this country; it’s considered sedition to instigate violent action against a legal government, even one that is tyrannizing over us ruthlessly and without check.

 

The Founding Fathers knew that.  Their actions were considered seditious and illegal.  There was a price on the heads of those who led the revolt against Great Britain.  At the end of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

 

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

 

During the stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, Glenn Beck, author of “Guns:  Exposing the Truth About Guns,” blinked.  Mike Wallace, of Fox News, blinked.  Thankfully, the U.S. government blinked and withdrew its armed personnel, returned Bundy’s cattle, and sought a more peaceful resolution through the courts.

 

Clive Bundy, certainly no diplomat, did not blink.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on May 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/what-cliven-bundy-really-said/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: