Cliven gathers everyone around and gives his observations regarding Mexicans and black people *smh*:
This is Bundy Ranch owner Cliven Bundy in case anyone was confused. How great for the cause, when not only do you have armed “militia members” but now also what the media is calling a “racist” at the helm.
Oh man… seriously have you ever heard of the internet old man? What was the point of this rant? I imagine there was more than a few people in attendance shaking their heads the whole time he was spouting off this garbage. ARE THEY (black people) BETTER OFF AS SLAVES?! Are you for real?! I lost it at that point… wow.
Since this video leaked, I imagine this has made him more enemies than friends. It will be interesting to see if less people show up if the BLM comes back to intimidate him at a later date.
The BLM may or may not be in the wrong, I still don’t really have a solid opinion… that said, I don’t like this Cliven character one bit.
A couple people emailed me this article Meet The Militia Rushing To Cliven Bundy’s Defense, which might be worth checking out. I see it has a lot of Buck Yeager talk in it.
Thoughts?
Hat tip: YRPD, James
Comments
40 responses to “Cliven Bundy Soapbox Rant On Race”
He really shot himself in the foot with those comments. I bet a lot of people went from “I support him” to just “I don’t really care what happens to him now.”
This is the kind of person that makes us all look BAD !!!
He was just giving his view point. I didn’t hear anything that makes him a racist but in these times anyone can be a racist if the ignorant want you to be. I haven’t heard that he owns slaves. Not only that but even this video has some remarks he made cut from the end that clearly show he’s not hating. Or you could watch the CNN version where they cut it to make him look bad, surprise surprise.
The dude was free riding off BLM land for years while other ranchers paid grazing fees. Fuck this stupid asshole, he has jackshit to do with 2A.
Totally agree. Both sides look like a-holes.
I don’t know shit about this, but your comment sums up why I shouldn’t give a shit. Thank you.
Big money ranchers trying to use Public Land for free. Bottom line.
Ever notice how quick the media is to label anything around 2A as “Racist”. First everyone starts saying the NRA is racist, gun owners are racist, next it will be people that don’t agree with the federal government are racist.
We all know this to be untrue.
Expect more slander and slamming to come as he rallied a stand against the federal government. And you just fed into their agenda, good job, spread the word, keep it up and you won’t have a leg left to stand on with your sling shot in the backyard wondering why all your 2A rights were taken away.
There have been numerous follow ups to this were this old less than eloquent cowboy apologized and tried to explain himself. And knowing those from this neck of the woods, they may use words and not realize they are offensive, but they are not racist. A video taken out of context from a much longer speech to slander him is being done everywhere.
They’re STILL in slavery, is the point he was trying to make. Instead of picking cotton to be fed, now their job is voting to be fed. Still slavery, just a more deceptive and insidious form of it. No more whip, but more destructive to the family unit in the long run. And it’s not just “black folk” that are in this slavery. If you can’t see that, and view this as racism, I can’t help you. And you’re truly lost.
Yes, he should have stayed on message about the BLM’s abuse, but the tape most everybody is seeing is the edited version. Thanks for at least putting up the full one.
The ironic hypocrisy of this guy is just too much. For 20 years he has defied the government of the United States Of America without paying the fees, literally stealing over a million dollars from the tax payers of the USA, all of us, to become a true moocher or even thief, and then calls low income people who get govt benefits as moochers.
He claims to be a proud American but he doesn’t even recognize the US federal govt. claiming that Nevada trumps all federal laws. In fact, he needs to read his own Nevada State Constitution which states: “…the Paramount Allegiance of every (Nevada) citizen is due to the (U.S.) Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”
And to all of the supports of his imagine this scenario:
“Imagine that the Bundy ranching family in Nevada, instead of being white and Mormon, are all black and Muslim. And imagine that they, too, believe not only that the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the public land adjoining their ranch, but also that a second revolutionary war should topple the U.S. government.
Imagine that, just like Mr. Bundy, they lost two court decisions and are expected to either pay one million in overdue fees or have their cattle seized to pay the debt. Imagine that they send out a call, via Facebook and Twitter, for all like-minded thinkers to take up arms and prepare to fight the agents sent to collect the cattle.
How would the media describe some 2000 black, Muslim men, armed with automatic rifles and shotguns, who drive from all across the country to show up in Nevada ready to kill government officials?
How would the media portray those black, Muslim men when they used their guns to shut down I-15, a major interstate freeway, forcing hundreds of travelers to bake in the hot desert sun until the road could be re-opened?
What would right-wing pundits say about those black, Muslim men who were crouched on overpasses training their sniper sights on the cowboys and drivers hired by the federal government to move the cattle?
Would they agree with those black, Muslim militants who planned to put their wives and girlfriends on the front lines so there would be news footage of federal agents shooting women?
Would Nevada politicians, senator Dean Heller and Governor Brian Sandoval, still throw their support behind a Bundy who said, “. . . I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,” if he were Muslim and black?
Try as hard as I can, I can’t see people on the right using any word other than “terrorist” to describe homegrown, black, Muslim militants who are willing to use violence to support their belief that the U.S. government is meaningless.
And that shows us exactly how far Americans have to go before we define each other by character, not race or religion.”
From: http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/americans-domestic-terrorists.html
And then the federal government spent 1million taxpayer dollars to collect on 1 milllion dollars of lost taxpayer money. it’s a thin line between terrorist and freedom fighter.
You’re logic doesnt make any sense. It’s also about the principal of the rule of law. You think it’s ok for people to just not obey the law as long as they are kindly old racist cowboys?
I think some things are worth fighting for. People break the law when they don’t agree with it all the time, I’m sure you’ve probably even done it yourself.
Also, the government and those in it and banks break the law all the time but they are too big to fail or feel the repercussions from it.
He felt the law was unjust and he was willing to risk everything to fight it.
Isn’t there anything you believe in so much you would be willing to break the law and fight for it?
Sure, there are those times. But this isnt one of them. He isnt fighting for freedom and democracy, he is fighting for money. If I were to go to a big American bank and steal money that I thought was owed to me because of all the financial laws that have been broken over the years by the banks, and my argument was “hey, this is what I believe in man, I have to break the law to get justice, I’m an American!” I dont think people would have much sympathy for me.
Again, imagine if Clive Bundy was black American, or a Muslim American, or god forbid, a black Muslim American and said *exactly* the same things that Clive Bundy has said like how he doesnt even recognize the federal govt. Do you think all of the people who have supported him would still support him? No, of course not. Fox news would be on air 24/7 saying how he was a terrorist and would be begging for the federal authorities to go in there and show those traitorous black Muslims who’s boss.
He’s not just fighting to get rich, he’s fighting for his livelihood. He watched all the other ranchers in the area disappear one by one. He’s the only one left and felt himself being pushed out by the BLM, using the money he was paying against him.
He took a stand for his livelihood man, not because he wanted to be rich. The guy isn’t rich, I’ve heard his home is very humble.
And those people that are down there with him, aren’t down there because of cows.
Watch the Oak Keepers speak, watch more then just the videos on this blog, keep an open mind because there is a war on winning it and those with money have more power to force feed you what they want you to believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVLJnqwIezs
I didnt say he was trying to get rich. It doesnt matter what kind of “lively hood” he is hoping to preserve, that has nothing to do with the law. We live in a capitalist society, if he cant seem to make ends meet in the 21st century living some idyllic country ranchin’ life well then he needs to move on to some other line of business. Just because he wants to live that life doesnt mean he can steal from others to make it work.
And as for the Oath Keepers, if they want people to defend the constitution of the US why would they be helping him? They are fighting against what that the constitution stands for. It’s about laws, and how no one, not even nice ol’ country boys, are above the law. Why would they support open rebellion against their own country? That doesn’t seem very patriotic to me.
My final comment is that the US that I grew up with, isn’t the US of today. And maybe what they are rebelling against is the changes to this country that have happened in the last 10 years. I think when they say they don’t recognize the federal government, it’s because what we’ve become as a country isn’t recognizable as the US we all knew. The federal government shouldn’t own the land, the state should. No where in the constitution or the bill of rights did it go over the BLM and the governing of land.
The new institutions brought into place by a far reaching federal government that has gotten large, clumsy, corrupt, and wasteful are not as needed as everyone thinks they are.
Laws are created by the people, for the people, when they start being used to abuse the people is when the people need to fight to have those laws changed.
When the government overnight is turning law abiding gun owners into criminals, they are abusing the peoples trust and stealing their personal property.
No rational person would ever willfully join a society with a government that can’t perform the basic task of protecting a persons personal property.
So, along down the road when they offer you 50$ for your 2000$ rifle or pistol basically committing highway robbery, profess your love again for those laws and how great it is to be mugged by uncle sam. Or worse yet, ask you to turn them in to have them destroyed.
Darn, if they ever did that with my car even I’d be pretty ticked off. I paid good money for all that.
The federal government an the multitude of laws that exist to punish the people that live here need to be changed.
They are patriotic to the founders and architects wishes.
Anyway, gotta take my dog to the vet. :) Been nice debating with you.
I also appreciate the civil debate and I am sympathetic to some of your points. We dont want to have an overbearing federal government at all.
But really. Just because one doesnt like the America that we live in today doesnt give one the right to throw it all away and declare oneself above the law. Democracy is a way of dealing with a never ending tension between opposing rights and needs and competing interests of groups. This mean there needs to be compromises. If you dont like the way things are now, then right your congressman and try to make changes. But we have to agree to some certain laws and that is what Cliven Bundy has refused to do. What if we all acted like Bundy, just decided what laws we wanted to obey and which ones we didnt?
The US has a very reputable legal system and he has had his day in court many times over and he has lost and lost and lost. He is wrong, plain and simple.
He has stated many times he was perfectly willing to pay the fees to the state or county but refused to pay the Fed. This is the stand he took and it is important to all of us. The over reach of the Federal Government in all areas of our lives is past the critical level. Bundy was just way ahead of the rest of us and made his stand.
Well, isnt that just convenient. He’ll pay, but not the federal govt. Well guess what, he’s not above the law. It’s not his decision to make who he pays.
What if I use electricity on a daily basis but I declare that instead of paying the utility company, I will pay my local fire brigade instead. Why? because that utility company is owned by some “foreigners” in New Jersey, why should I pay my electric bill to them? I will pay it to my local friends here!
So that’s a ridiculous argument. If he is legally required to pay the federal grazing fees, to the federal entity then that’s what he should do. We don’t get to pick and choose what laws we follow. There is no “over reach”. It’s a childish argument to make.
And another thing, the State of Nevada in Sec. 2 of their constitution specifically says that the federal law trumps ANY state law that is in conflict. Why Bundy thinks that he can not recognize the legal federal authority is beyond me. By doing so he show great disrespect for the U.S. constitution AND the Nevada State constitution. His behavior is just absolutely shameful.
Some serious stupid going on in these comments. No, he was NOT stealing anything. He rightfully paid his grazing taxes to the state as he should. In ’93 the BLM decided to charge him federal taxes on his land to protect that damned turtle. He has no constitutional requirement to pay that tax at all and I support him in that all day long, racist or not. And no, that was not racist talk unless you’re a butthurt PC liberal then who cares. He’s old and uses the ‘wrong’ words. Did you see any hate for mexicans or blacks in his comments? Misguided and maybe even ignorant, but I highly doubt he’d hate on blacks or mexicans. Even more importantly, all you tools who let this liberal derived video, dug up just to distract from what matters most (state rights, fighting tyranny), sway your support away from Bundy, are truly tools with no sense freedom from tyranny.
He has lost again and again and again in court after court over this. He does not have the right to graze his cattle there after 1993, he is simply wrong and therefore should be prosecuted for theft of services. My god, why is ok to steal just because you dont like the rules? It has nothing to do with freedom from tyranny. I mean do we live in a land of laws or don’t we?
Bundy won’t admit that the federal government owns the land at all, saying, “I abide by almost zero federal laws.” He’s said he believes the land belongs to the state, and that the federal government has no business being there. He’s wrong. Or do we live in a country where Cliven Bundy gets to decide who owns land. Is he the King Of America and gets to say “No, no, this land here, doesnt belong to the USA anymore, I now hereby declare it owned by the State Of Nevada!” I mean who does he think he is?
Many conservatives sympathetic to Bundy concede that his legal claim is weak – for instance, John Hinderaker writes, “It must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” The federal government owns 640 million acres of land, and has for decades – this land doesn’t revert to individual states just because people want it to. He needs to repay that money owed to the hard working, tax paying American public and find another line of business to get into. He can talk about the good ol’ days when “negros” were slaves but he can not be allowed to steal services from people.
You know ZERO about state’s rights and about the corruption that is the BLM charter and how it takes land freely from people. Study it out smart guy.
I am familiar with state’s rights. There is a balance between the states and the Federal govt. but in general the states are subservient to the Federal govt unless otherwise noted by the Constitution. In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with Federal law. According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution,
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
d fraternity.”
Sometimes it’s the other way around unless outlined in the Constitution. But I invite you to read Sec. 2 of the Nevada State Constitution here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html#Art1Sec2. This is the state constitution that Bundy seems to think is paramount over the USA constitution. Did you read what it says in Sec. 2?
I dont know what you mean by the corruption of the BLM charter. Perhaps you can point something out to me.
The BLM was formed in 1946. The formation was voted on by congress and told what land they govern. They were formed to manage the PEOPLES land, our land. How the govern that land and what laws they make are not voted on by anyone but the BLM. So basically when the BLM makes a law it becomes a law even if the people disagree. When you go to court to fight the law the judge says sorry it the law you loose. The BLM is out of control grabbing land all over the US. I feel my point is already lost on you when you say it’s federal land and he is not paying the fee. It’s not federal land it’s our land and I never voted for them to charge farmers to allow cattle (food I eat) to graze. This wasn’t about a farmer and his cows it about Government overreach and their heavy handed tactics. Did the really need to send 200 armed agents to fuck with this farmer. Or could have just liened his property and when they won in court send the local sheriff out to evict him. If they did the later we would never had heard of Cliven Bundy. As for him I don’t think he is a racist. He doesn’t have a good command of the English language and used old school words that people find highly offensive. He seemed to be speaking to what he personally saw 50 years ago. He just put out in a really bad way, stupid on his part.
Federal land is OUR land. It is owned by the public in our name, the Federal government represents We The People. It’s not Clive Bundy’s land. We the people have a representative govt that has many departments, one of which is the BLM. Do you think that the American people need to be actively voting on everything that every government bureau the US federal has? What about the Dept of Defense? When’s the last time you voted on what they are doing?
There is no government “overreach” in this case. In fact, the BLM has been basically bending over backwards to accommodate him, methodically going through the courts for over 20 freaking years. In our system, if you have a problem with a federal agency, then you have redress by way of the courts. You can literally sue the Federal govt and many people do and win. It’s a sign of a healthy system. In many countries this would be impossible.
Mr. Bundy has had ample opportunities to prove his case in court and he has failed time and time again.
And again, I ask, if Mr. Bundy were black and threatening to shoot federal officers would everyone be standing up for him here? I think the answer is no. That should tell you something.
Anyway, you can read about the BLM and grazing here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
Is he saying anything that brother Al Sharpton doesn’t say every day? Both seem to be race baiting. Nothing new.
You’re not addressing the points. How am I “race baiting” by just talking about it? Bundy is the one that said “negros” would be better under slavery, not me.
None other than Jesse Jackson said that welfare is worse than slavery.
http://m.timesdispatch.com/news/stat….html?mode=jqm
Quote:
Jackson suggests welfare has been worse than slavery
At a Juneteenth event in Newport News, E.W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said slavery did not destroy black families, but government welfare programs launched in the 1960s caused them to deteriorate.
Speaking before a small crowd Wednesday at King-Lincoln Park, not too far from where the first African slaves entered the Colonies, Jackson referred to his great-grandparents, who were slaves and sharecroppers in Orange County. “I am a direct descendent of slaves. My grandfather was born there to a father and a mother who had been slaves. And by the way, their family was more intact than the black family is today,” Jackson said.
“I’m telling you that slavery did not destroy the black family, even though it certainly was an attack on the black family. It made it difficult,” he said.
Juneteenth marks the day in June 1865 when enslaved blacks in Texas learned that the Civil War was over and that the Emancipation Proclamation was in effect. Democrats began circulating a video of Jackson’s speech late Wednesday.
“The Cuccinelli-Jackson-Obenshain ticket cannot go a week without dividing and offending Virginians with their extreme rhetoric,” said Charniele Herring, chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party.
“This Republican ticket’s preoccupation with comparing things to slavery is insulting, as is E.W. Jackson’s dangerous suggestion that legislation in the 1960s was somehow worse for African-American families than slavery,” Herring said.
Jackson claims that new welfare programs created in the 1960s caused the deterioration of black families. “The program that began to tell women, ‘You don’t need a man in the home, the government will take care of you,’ (and) that began to tell men, ‘You don’t need to be in the home, the government will take care of this woman and will take care of these children,’ ” he said.
Jackson was referring to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, which attempted to address the nation’s problem of hunger by providing another means-tested program for the poor, the disabled and single-parent households, in the form of food stamps. “In 1960, most black children were raised in two-parent, monogamous families,” Jackson said. “By now, by this time, we only have 20 percent of black children being raised in two-parent, monogamous families with a married man and woman raising those children. It wasn’t slavery that did that, it was government that did that, trying to solve problems that only God can solve, and that only we as human beings can solve,” he said.
Shawn Utsey, chairman of the Department of African-American Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, said Jackson may not have been far off the mark with his assessment of the relative impact of slavery on families, but that he was oversimplifying things for political purposes.“There is some merit in what he was saying about the resilience of blacks during and after slavery,” Utsey said. “However, it is difficult to transpose a contemporary definition of a family unit back in time and apply it to a group of people for whom that definition didn’t exist.”
A mother and father and husband and wife were not a reality under slavery, Utsey said.
“So it’s suspect to take the definition of a family of today, a mother and father who are in a long-term relationship and raise children, and apply that retroactively to make an argument,” he said
I dont see anything by Jesse Jackson and that link is broken. But anyway, I dont care what Jesse, or E.W. Jackson, or any other Jackson says. If they or anyone thinks that blacks were better under slavery than freedom, then they are not in their right minds.
We can talk about the pros and cons of social welfare programs but the argument that slavery is better than freedom is prima facie ridiculous and demonstrably untrue.
Honestly, I agree with him. His comments are not exactly well said, but they are not racist.
Black folks in government housing ARE NOT BETTER OFF THAN SLAVES….
… that’s the hard fact.
You’re on the wrong website. You should be on Stormfront with the other neo-nazis
Does Al Jazeera allow you to comment here on company time?
What does Al Jazeera have to do with anything? Anyway, while we are on the subject, it’s a very respected news organization, almost boringly so.
Paint my house, slave.
To everyone saying “You can’t just break the law” I can only say this:
If it wasn’t for a long line of people going back in history, willing to stand up to unjust treatment, we would ALL be slaves today.
The family has been on the land for over a hundred years and bought the right to use it. Worked theirs asses off to cultivate it. No the feds want it and rules in federal courts (surprise surprise) that they don’t have the right.
I don’t think he is a racist, but that is really besides the point.
Listen to this young lady lay down some truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zoee4k7yE
If you think that the issue is just that his family has been on the land for over a hundred years and bought the right to use it and now “the feds want it and rules in federal courts (surprise surprise) that they don’t have the right.” Then you dont have a good understanding of the legal issues that are underpinning this case.
That’s why the other ranchers have paid what they are obliged to and why he has lost again and again and in multiple court cases over the last 20 years. He is simply, and clearly, in the wrong, both morally and legally and he is stealing your tax dollars for his own benefit.
Hey DSLAM and thanks for your reply,
If other ranchers are in the same situation I think they should stand up to. I understand there aren’t that many family ranchers left compared to say 20 years ago.
I’m not comfortable with the trend of more and more land controlled by the fed, less and less family ranchers being able to make a living.
And seriously even if I believed the Bundy family to be in the wrong. Missing a million, or even millions of dollars in tax revenue would be the least of my concerns. We are all slowly but surely getting screwed in ways that make whatever amount Mr Bundy refuse to pay totally insignificant.
Well I hear you but things change, nothing stays the same forever. The US is becoming less agricultural and less rural. Nevada is a more unusual case in terms of federal management of the land where the US is in care of a very large percentage. This has to do with Nevada being a relatively new western frontier state. It’s not like that in most of the other parts of the US.
So there hasn’t been some insidious encroachment or govt take over, it has to do with the history of the settlement of the west and how these states were incorporated into the Union.
I dont have the same fear about government take over of the the land. Remember the government is us, we are all citizens and we elect representatives and we get jobs running our own govt. The govt isn’t some alien force, it is us.