Is Cliven Bundy really a racist?

[dogshawred]

I ran across this vid and found it quite profound in it's content and more than likely represents what he was really trying to say.
~
I believe that had he meant his statement that is said to represent him as racist, really been racist the language would have been dramatically different. Calling a spade a spade (so to speak), not making nice with the way he portrayed the facts of his statement. That being said I don't think he is that ignorant or uneducated to think he can say anything he wants racially and still hold the publics favor. I feel the media in their attempt to placate the powers to be have chosen to portray Bundy in what ever way they can to undermine what ever support he can muster.
~

~
Vlogger Kira Davis talks about the Cliven Bundy “racist” issue.

 

[Bttbbob]

I don't care, but he is a crook

 

[vernsimpson]

I don't care, but he is a crook

You are wrong! The crooks are in Washington DC!

 

[Bttbbob]

You are wrong! The crooks are in Washington DC!

No I am not wrong. Yes they are crooks in DC. But that doesn't change the fact
that he has been stealing cattle graze for 20 yrs that he has no right to.

 

[vernsimpson]

No I am not wrong. Yes they are crooks in DC. But that doesn't change the face that he has been stealing cattle graze for 20 yrs that he has no right to.

You are wrong! The Feds stole the land from the state of Nevada. The Bundys have been grazing and paying their fees. It was not until the BLM got involved that he did not pay his fees to BLM because he does not recognize their right to the land. Mr Bundy has wanted to pay the state but they have been to timid until lately to take on the BLM!

 

[Bttbbob]

You are wrong! The Feds stole the land from the state of Nevada. The Bundys have been grazing and paying their fees. It was not until the BLM got involved that he did not pay his fees to BLM because he does not recognize their right to the land. Mr Bundy has wanted to pay the state but they have been to timid until lately to take on the BLM!

Again wrong.......The BLM was managing the land before Bundy's parent bought the land in 1948......We have a copy of the deed transfer. The state of Nevada gave the land to the Feds in their Constitution in 1864 long before the Bundy family lived there.

His family story is a lie, he has no rights to anything but the 160 acres he owns. It is all about money for him. Has nothing to do with the Government. I find it funny that people try to take up for him without doing homework. He has made millions and is laughing right now all the way to the bank.

His family lived in Arizona not Nevada and he didnt even move to the current property when the house was built in 1952. So his family paid BLM leases from 1952 till 1993 when he stopped paying. It was all ok and he acknowledged the USA then but in 1993 he doesn't acknowledge them. Now makes a stand against the US Government while waving an American flag outside his house. Bwahahahahahahahahaaa

Here is for your reading pleasure>http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history


Here is the state Constitution deeding the land to the feds. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

Notice section 4 of this...........Voted on and Ratified by the elected officials of Nevada

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

 

[BluesStringer]

Vern, dogshawred, whomever else might still be reading the tripe from Bttbbob who should really call a doctor because he's had a hard-on for Bundy that's lasted much longer than four hours already, please research "prescriptive rights" as it relates to the Bundy case. Research the "equal footing doctrine" mentioned in the very first sentence of Nevada's State Constitution which Bob linked to above, where it says:

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,”

Ask yourself how a state can be a sovereign state on equal footing with the 13 Original States when Nevada has 87% land held by the fed, and the 13 Original States' federally-owned lands equal the following.

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 450, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]State:[/TD]
[TD]Fed Land Percentage:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]
[TD]5.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]South Carolina[/TD]
[TD]4.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]North Carolina[/TD]
[TD]7.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Virginia[/TD]
[TD]9.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maryland[/TD]
[TD]3.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Delaware[/TD]
[TD]2.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Jersey[/TD]
[TD]3.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Connecticut[/TD]
[TD]0.3% (!!!)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rhode Island[/TD]
[TD]0.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Massachusetts[/TD]
[TD]1.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Hampshire[/TD]
[TD]13.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New York[/TD]
[TD]0.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pennsylvania[/TD]
[TD]2.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Now let's consider what the "equal footing doctrine" is. Here is a thorough analysis from the Tenth Amendment Foundation of what The Constitution has to say about equal footing and the constitutional method for the fed to acquire ownership and/or jurisdiction over lands contained within the borders of any given state. There is no clear answer, it's a mixed bag of research done pre-ratification of The Constitution, common law considerations, post-ratification and subsequent court rulings. There's something for every side of the Bundy issue in that link, but there are a couple of foundational principles that anyone seriously attempting to get at the truth should keep in mind, mostly having to do with the Enclave Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), that part of The Constitution that says the most about federal government land acquisition. From the piece:

(9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.

(10) This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, such as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.

(11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.

(Emphasis added.)

So do some research. For some reason Bob won't even consider anything past what that CBS network affiliate in Las Vegas has to say about the family lineage of water and grazing rights on the Bunkerville Allotment area. He keeps saying that Bundy "lied" about it, when all he said was that his "forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877." That is not a lie in any way, shape, manner or form. Do some research, or look up some of my posts in the Politics sub-forum and you'll find that his family on his mother's side were indeed "up and down the Virgin Valley" for well over 100 years now.

You guys can read. Most of you know your Constitution fairly well. Crack it open and see if you can lay your finger on that clause which authorizes the creation of huge, autonomous, unelected bureaucracies able to regulate land-use on their own whim within sovereign states' borders. Where did government find the authority to create the BLM, EPA, DOE, welfare, food stamps and on and on seemingly endlessly? If you find it, please let me know, because I've been looking for years now trying to understand how our country got to this place that many of us don't even recognize as being "America" anymore. So far, no luck. Maybe you'll have better luck, but whatever, don't take Bob's word for anything, as he has refused to even address a single non-personality-based issue that I've raised about the Bundy situation. I don't know the guy. I didn't try to make it to Bunkerville because of Bundy, I tried to go there and stand between an overreaching militaristic government and a family of citizens being threatened with deadly force over nothing more than an unpaid bill. My Jeep broke down and I had to come back home, but one acquaintance of mine did make it there, and has blogged on the man personally and on the issues involved, and nothing that Bob says about Bundy or the situation comports with what my friend who was there, and is going back soon, says.

Bob says in this thread that he "doesn't care" about the remarks Bundy made about race and the welfare state, but in another thread he outright called him a "bigot." The guy just hates Bundy. Research and learn the truth, and don't believe a hate-monger willing to spread the same lies that Media Matters and the NY Times have spread about Bundy. This is the "Information Super-Highway" and there's no excuse for being duped by lies anymore. The truth is out there. Go getcha some.

Blues

 

[gunnerbob]

No I am not wrong. Yes they are crooks in DC. But that doesn't change the fact
that he has been stealing cattle graze for 20 yrs that he has no right to.

Why doesn't he have the right to do so? B/c the Fed says so...? That's not their land, it's not yours or mine... we don't work it, sweat on it or bleed on it. These things define, to me, what is or isn't someone's land... not what the government says is or isn't. Why do you have such a hard-on for this guy, anyway?

 

[Stengun]

Howdy Blues,

Vern, dogshawred, whomever else might still be reading the tripe from Bttbbob who should really call a doctor because he's had a hard-on for Bundy that's lasted much longer than four hours already, please research "prescriptive rights" as it relates to the Bundy case. Research the "equal footing doctrine" mentioned in the very first sentence of Nevada's State Constitution which Bob linked to above, where it says:



Ask yourself how a state can be a sovereign state on equal footing with the 13 Original States when Nevada has 87% land held by the fed, and the 13 Original States' federally-owned lands equal the following.

[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 450, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]State:[/TD]
[TD]Fed Land Percentage:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]
[TD]5.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]South Carolina[/TD]
[TD]4.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]North Carolina[/TD]
[TD]7.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Virginia[/TD]
[TD]9.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maryland[/TD]
[TD]3.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Delaware[/TD]
[TD]2.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Jersey[/TD]
[TD]3.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Connecticut[/TD]
[TD]0.3% (!!!)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rhode Island[/TD]
[TD]0.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Massachusetts[/TD]
[TD]1.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Hampshire[/TD]
[TD]13.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New York[/TD]
[TD]0.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pennsylvania[/TD]
[TD]2.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Now let's consider what the "equal footing doctrine" is. Here is a thorough analysis from the Tenth Amendment Foundation of what The Constitution has to say about equal footing and the constitutional method for the fed to acquire ownership and/or jurisdiction over lands contained within the borders of any given state. There is no clear answer, it's a mixed bag of research done pre-ratification of The Constitution, common law considerations, post-ratification and subsequent court rulings. There's something for every side of the Bundy issue in that link, but there are a couple of foundational principles that anyone seriously attempting to get at the truth should keep in mind, mostly having to do with the Enclave Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), that part of The Constitution that says the most about federal government land acquisition. From the piece:



So do some research. For some reason Bob won't even consider anything past what that CBS network affiliate in Las Vegas has to say about the family lineage of water and grazing rights on the Bunkerville Allotment area. He keeps saying that Bundy "lied" about it, when all he said was that his "forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877." That is not a lie in any way, shape, manner or form. Do some research, or look up some of my posts in the Politics sub-forum and you'll find that his family on his mother's side were indeed "up and down the Virgin Valley" for well over 100 years now.

You guys can read. Most of you know your Constitution fairly well. Crack it open and see if you can lay your finger on that clause which authorizes the creation of huge, autonomous, unelected bureaucracies able to regulate land-use on their own whim within sovereign states' borders. Where did government find the authority to create the BLM, EPA, DOE, welfare, food stamps and on and on seemingly endlessly? If you find it, please let me know, because I've been looking for years now trying to understand how our country got to this place that many of us don't even recognize as being "America" anymore. So far, no luck. Maybe you'll have better luck, but whatever, don't take Bob's word for anything, as he has refused to even address a single non-personality-based issue that I've raised about the Bundy situation. I don't know the guy. I didn't try to make it to Bunkerville because of Bundy, I tried to go there and stand between an overreaching militaristic government and a family of citizens being threatened with deadly force over nothing more than an unpaid bill. My Jeep broke down and I had to come back home, but one acquaintance of mine did make it there, and has blogged on the man personally and on the issues involved, and nothing that Bob says about Bundy or the situation comports with what my friend who was there, and is going back soon, says.

Bob says in this thread that he "doesn't care" about the remarks Bundy made about race and the welfare state, but in another thread he outright called him a "bigot." The guy just hates Bundy. Research and learn the truth, and don't believe a hate-monger willing to spread the same lies that Media Matters and the NY Times have spread about Bundy. This is the "Information Super-Highway" and there's no excuse for being duped by lies anymore. The truth is out there. Go getcha some.

Blues

There's a couple of "tactical" errors in your post.

1.) the Fed Gov't didn't steal anything from NV they gave the land to the Fed Gov't. Actually since the area now know as the State of Neveda was bought by the Fed Gov't from France it always belong to the Fed Gov't aka the American People.

2.) Most of the western states that have a very low population do have a fair percentage of the state still under Fed Govt control.

For example: 38.2% of the land in Idaho is owned by the US Forest Service. Idaho has trees, NV doesn't so it's Fed Govt land is owned by the BLM because it has little to no value. The Fed Govt owned land in NV with trees is owned by the FS.

3.) The states you mentioned were not comprised of land that was bought by the Fed Govt, it was land that Our Founding Fathers won during the Revolutionary War.

Big difference.

Bundy made the remarks while he was being video taped and he knew he was being video taped at the time he made the remarks. Afterward he profoundly stated that he had NEVER made those remarks. After the video was posted on YouTube and the entire World could see it he changed his story and admitted he did in fact make the remarks.

So, Bundy himself has admitted that he is a liar.

Paul

 

[BluesStringer]

Howdy Blues,

Hey Pretty Simple Paul, what's up? Oh, same ol' chit I see.

There's a couple of "tactical" errors in your post.

Sure thing.

1.) the Fed Gov't didn't steal anything from NV

Show me where I've used any variation of the word "steal" in relation to the lands held by the fed in NV. Good luck with that.

they gave the land to the Fed Gov't.

Which I have described as a "blunder of Biblical proportions by the authors of Nevada's State Constitution." Did you accidentally click on my post when attempting to reply to someone else, because so far, you're ostensibly "replying" to nothing that I've said.

Actually since the area now know as the State of Neveda was bought by the Fed Gov't from France it always belong to the Fed Gov't aka the American People.

Actually, you know less about how Nevada became a US Territory than you do about what I've said about the issues being discussed. Nevada wasn't "bought," unless you want to say it was bought with US blood in the Mexican/American War when Mexico surrendered and included parts of CA, NM, AZ, NV, CO and Utah in the The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in their terms of surrender. No dollars or pesos were exchanged for it though, and no Frogs that I'm aware of were involved in the negotiations.

You're really rather clueless about all this, aren't you?

2.) Most of the western states that have a very low population do have a fair percentage of the state still under Fed Govt control.

So population is the deciding factor? How does that explain 47.7% of the land in CA being held (unconstitutionally) by the fed?

How does that explain 53% of the land in Oregon being (unconstitutionally) held by the fed?

For example: 38.2% of the land in Idaho is owned by the US Forest Service. Idaho has trees, NV doesn't so it's Fed Govt land is owned by the BLM because it has little to no value. The Fed Govt owned land in NV with trees is owned by the FS.

Oh really! So a fictional bureaucracy can "own" millions upon millions of acres of land, huh? Kindly cite that passage of The Constitution that describes how land is apportioned between state and federal holdings, and then how, once transferred to the fed, it can be "owned" by a constitutionally fictional agency. Again, good luck with that.

3.) The states you mentioned were not comprised of land that was bought by the Fed Govt, it was land that Our Founding Fathers won during the Revolutionary War.

Big difference.

So, since you're wrong about how Nevada was acquired, and it too was won in war, as were parts of CA, AZ, CO, NM and UT, then upon statehood, they too should be on equal footing with the Original States, right? I mean, there's something called the "Equal Footing Doctrine" for a reason; because it is a legal axiom after all. Had you perhaps never even heard of that doctrine before I posted about it, hmm? Answer where in The Constitution the federal government is authorized to accept ownership of 87% of NV's land mass, and you'll be replying to something I said. Every single part of this post up this point was nothing but brainless drivel completely unrelated to anything I've said though, and completely wrong on the facts you assert to boot.

Bundy made the remarks while he was being video taped and he knew he was being video taped at the time he made the remarks. Afterward he profoundly stated that he had NEVER made those remarks. After the video was posted on YouTube and the entire World could see it he changed his story and admitted he did in fact make the remarks.

So, Bundy himself has admitted that he is a liar.

This simply is not accurate, which makes you a liar. A man attempting to clarify the meaning of something that has been grossly misconstrued and dishonestly reported about, is not "profoundly stating that he NEVER made those remarks," he's desperately trying to force the agenda-driven hack-liars at the NY Times and Media Matters to report the truth of the intended meaning of the remarks he did make.

If you've got a video or sourced quotation of Cliven Bundy, "profoundly stating that he had NEVER made those remarks," then post it up or STFU and quit lying about the old guy.

Leftists and RINOs wouldn't know the truth if it shot them right between the eyes.

Blues

 

[Dunewolf]

Ok do I think Clive is racist - NO
Do i think he didnt come across well in interview? - YES
Do I suspect some rather funny things behind videos/etc? - Possible (hell look at George Zimmerman case and how they edited tape to point the racist label at him)

Do I think Nevada has claim to the land? oh hell yes.
And ultimately Federal Government has 0 rights to sell STATE lands even if they are "controlling/managing" it for the state.
Because the FED government does not do things that are meant for the state public's well being - which means the fed could say well the country as a whole requires a gigantic toxic waste refinery here, so we are gonna put it in Nevada since we own so much land.. Good for country? sure? good for state? not so much no..

I think the Fed should drop its claims, and let the state deal with things how they decide. because honestly all the land was stolen from the Indians (who never really claimed to own it, they just lived on it/hunted on it/died over it/etc.

I do believe if the Feds backed off and the State took control, asked the Bundy's for the grazing fee - the state would get paid and everyone could go back to doing nothing about the other major issues facing our country..

However - I fear its already gone too far - and sooner or later human blood will be spilled - either by convenient accident or actual attack.

 

[tcox4freedom]

 

[vernsimpson]

We have to many people who search and mine for ANYTHING to be offended. Then if they do not find something that really is offensive they edit, twist or just lie to get the result they want. They use to get away with it before but now to many people have cell phones that can take pictures and record that can be posted on the internet. (Perhaps that is why obummer wants to cede control to the International community!) Now the lie does not stand long but the damage is done because there are to many who only watch or listen to the lib MSM and swallow it hook, line sinker!

I do not believe that Mr Bundy is a racist or bigot! What I got from what he said was how are the minorities and Black community better off today by taking welfare and food stamps. Are they achieving the American dream? Do they come home with a sense of pride? Do they look at their future with a goal? Are they doing all they can so their children and grandchildren will be better off and have a better life? Or do they come home angry at their lot in life? Angry that tomorrow will be the same as today? Angry that their children and grandchildren will have the same life that they are living? Angry that their children and grandchildren will most likely be addicted to drugs, in gangs and die young?

The so called war on poverty has been a total failure! It has cause families to sit and wait for hand outs and slaves to the system. They no longer need to work or even know HOW to work and have a sense of pride in their work!

I suppose I will be labeled a racist and bigot too!!!!!

 

[AndeyHall]

Good video but I was very distracted the entire time by the PIP of the dash. Seemed kinda random. Anybody get the point of that?

I know the issue mainly being discussed in this thread is whether or not he had rights to the land or not and whether or not the Feds can constitutionally control the amount of lands that they do. Those are all things I will gladly admit I am not very well educated on. Blues is difficult to argue with when I do know what I'm talking about, so I'll stay out of this one for 2 reasons: 1) I'm clueless when it comes to this stuff and 2) from what I have read, it appears I'm on Blues' side of the argument. But I would like to put in my $0.02 with respect to the title of this thread.

I am currently in the midst of a Sociology of Race & Ethnicity course, and after completing the semester it's shocking to see the "cookie cutter" form of racism that is being taught to my generation. What I mean is, we are taught (from as early as elementary school) that any comment that contains racial slurs or mentions slavery without the point being that slavery is a bad thing, is a racist comment regardless of its meaning or context. I have tried to make many arguments like the one in this video but people are not willing to accept it. It is the theory of "Insiders and Outsiders". If you are an insider to the group being discussed, you can say anything you want. If you are an outsider to the group being discussed, you can make the same comments the insider did bit still be considered a racist.

This is one of my favorite videos that shows how ignorant we are with respect to how we treat derogatory racial terms and who can say them and who can't, but even can be applied to who is allowed to talk about certain social issues within certain races, such as slavery, and who is not. It is the very definition of the Insider/Outsider Doctrine, and it is the sole reason Cliven Bundy is being labelled a racist. If he were black, the issue would not have even been brought up. To me, that is true racism, and it is nothing more than a tactic to draw a line and get people either on one side or the other.
http://youtu.be/5Ns-kXeQCMk

 

[BluesStringer]

From TownHall.com

Bundy Made Boomhaeur Sound Like Demosthenes and Yet, Big Government Still Sucks

​

Doug Giles | Apr 27, 2014

Thank God Cliven Bundy gave the Left something to smack him over the head with, because that “Negro” comment took the spotlight off the brute force of big government and placed it on the ramblings of an inarticulate old man.

Man, I bet Harry Reid was so relieved that he thoroughly soaked his size-small adult diaper.

Yep, the stealing of old Cliven’s cattle; the paramilitary machinery levied against cowboys on horses; the sniper’s bouncing multiple .223 rounds off Bundy’s bull’s noggins via helicopters; the dumping of his slaughtered cattle into mass graves and the separation of his mama cows from their nursing calves by government goons was about the worse P.R. the BLM could ever dread to receive. Heck, even PETA was bitching about the Bureau of Land “Management.”

But in Obamaland, all that is second fiddle to an old, white cowboy saying “Negro, slave and pickin’ cotton” in the same sentence.

Heck, I’m so terrified of being labeled a racist that I don’t drink Negra Modello any longer and I refuse to order frijoles negros when I go out to eat in Little Havana. In addition, I refuse to read aloud MLK’s I Have A Dream speech because it uses the word “Negro” about a dozen times.

More at link, but the liars should get the drift.
​

Blues

 

[uncle fester]

I take it as a good sign that one old man's ramblings are getting so much attention in the press. It means that there is nothing worse going on in the world for the media to harp on.
I mean what's a little combat, crime, corruption, terrorism, nations being invaded etc. etc. ad nauseum when we've got a an old guy who's musings sound borderline racist that the press can harp on.

Jeez, my grandpa wondered aloud along similar lines when he was still alive and he was as close to being a saint as anyone I've ever met. No, really.

People need to grow up and concentrate their disapproval on real racists like Donald Sterling.



My opinion on the land use stuff is being kept to myself since I haven't completed the necessary research to be able to comment without sounding like an idiot.

 

[Kennydale]

Does it matter if he is a racists or not if you feel the BLM is in the wrong?

 

[BC1]

You are wrong! The crooks are in Washington DC!

Harry Reid.

 

[whodat2710]

Alfonzo Rachel is a Conservative, Christian, Drummer in an metal band, and oh by the way, he's black. He busts several stereotypes, and I usually agree with him on most things he posts an opinion on.