Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, April 24, 2014

It's Time For Conservatives to Jump Off the Bundy Bandwagon

There has been a reluctance here to cover the story of Mr. Bundy's Standoff with the Bureau of Land Management. To be honest, I didn't really understand how it became such a huge cause amongst many of my conservative friends.

 On one hand I agree with the rancher when he talks about "state's rights" and the overreach of the federal government, but on the other side he has said publicly that he believes the federal govt. has no power, is defying a court order, and breaking a law that most every other rancher is following.  

But now Mr. Bundy has shown himself to be a racist and its time for all of his conservative supporters to jump off his bandwagon.

This is from this morning's New York Times:
He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
I believe Mr. Bundy's cows should be able to graze on the despite the  tortoises, I also believe the federal government owns too much land in the western part of the country (including 85% of Nevada).

Here's the real issue though. One of the main objections many of us have to amnesty for illegal immigrants is that they broke the law to come into the country.  If we object to the trespassing immigrants breaking the law, shouldn't we be objecting to American citizens breaking the law?

As Ben Shapiro wrote at  TruthRevolt yesterday:
Bundy's position on the federal government itself is unjustifiable. He stated in a recent interview: "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada. I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing." Obviously, the federal government does exist, and if the state of Nevada exists, it only does so because it was formed with the permission of the feds under the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution of Nevada explicitly denies Bundy's interpretation of the law: "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."
Like the Illegal Immigrant, Cliven Bundy has broken the law to get what he wants.  He should fight within the system to change the law.  If he was going for an act of civil disobedience to make a statement, he should be prepared to accept the consequences. One of the consequences is confiscation of property including Elsie and all the other cows. But Mr. Bundy is trying to have it both ways break the law but face no consequences.  Beyond that I am not aware of any attempt of his to try and change the law, just his refusal to follow it.

In the end Cliven Bundy's actions are indefensible from a conservative point of view while the federal government should not be owning the land---they do. In the end the govt. was protecting its property rights however unjustified they are.

Now that Mr. Bundy is shown to have at best racially insensitive beliefs, it time to end his 15 minutes of fame and its time for my conservative friends and colleagues who have shown him support to run away as fast as humanly possible.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out:
This has always been a tricky case, one where sympathies and the law go in opposite directions, as John Hinderaker noted at Power Line last week. Legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg on which to stand, and his weird insistence that the federal government has no jurisdiction on federal land has no basis in law or reality. Having the BLM show up with a small army to collect a debt made it easy to sympathize with Bundy and to call their actions into question, but they’ve been pursuing this case through the courts for more than two decades, too, while Bundy grazes on federal land. The federal government may own too much land, but that’s an issue for the states to fight in court, not ranchers with guns.


Jeff Dunetz said...

Why would you trust the word of the New York Times?

Jeff Dunetz said...

I have been going back and forth on this situation. I understand his point of view but a point of view doesn't really matter if there is a law . We are a nation of laws. If we don't fight the passages of laws while they are in debate then we are to blame. If we do everything we can to shoot down a law then we are to be commended but we can't go back decades and just say a law doesn't exist and chalk it up as something we don't agree with. I understand how Bundy feels but I don't think the place to begin a war is here. The BLM is grabbing the land of American citizens all over the West. The fight should be with them but not necessarily at the Bundy ranch. His racial views are his own, while they might not be right, they are HIS views and he does have the Freedom to have them.

Jeff Dunetz said...

And why might that be Jeff? Because he told the truth about blacks? You neocons need to get over it, and it a big way.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Not happening. Conservative circular firing squads only benefit The Enemy. He said something inartful but largely accurate, and not ALL of us are so eager to throw him under the bus as you seem to be. It's good that ol' Clive is seeing who his (fair-weather) friends are.

Jeff Dunetz said...

A bit legalistic: just because it is government land, does not mean that they can do anything they want with people who have rights, even if only in common law.

Further, just because you don't like his ideas, doesn't mean he is wrong or should be deserted to government bullying. Equal protection for all our just those whom you agree?

Jeff Dunetz said...

I agree that he shouldn't be bullied and the fed controls too much land, but he is breaking the law.

Jeff Dunetz said...

"We are a nation of laws" said by Harry Reid and Obama. Did Eric Holder say that too? That would be perfect. Not trying to justify Bundy's lawlessness, but when Al Sharptons owes $2M and Obama & Holder make a farce out of our laws w immigration the "Nation of Laws" is sadly becoming a Leftist Sound Bite. That's really sad, even destruction of us in a way.

Jeff Dunetz said...

I regularly attack their lawlessness. The Problem is how can I attack theirs without attacking ours?

Jeff Dunetz said...

You make an idol of the Law: it can be changed and some laws are unjust on their face and should be disobeyed on their face.

I think the Nuremberg Laws might have some resonance in this case, or the fugitive slave laws.

Human law is neither sacred or sacrosanct and sometimes it is unjust and contemptible.

Jeff Dunetz said...

I'd have to follow up on those comments to know if he is a racist. Negro is on the Census forms. Saying it in my opinion, doesn't make you a racist. He is a hillbilly. Work is his life and he likely doesn't socialize much so he maybe isn't up to date on acceptable terms. Shit, I learned today from the CBC that saying inner city is racist.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Remember that next time you argue against a liberal who doesn't want to see a family torn apart because the father is illegal, or because one of their children was brought over illegally.

Jeff Dunetz said...

The are many "Bundys" around. The Federal Government chooses to ignore certain laws ie on immigration, thus encouraging the "Bundys" of this world.

Bundy may be scum, but shouldn't our Federal Government act in a mature responsible fashion instead of like a bully?

It appears that the triggering event was the court order for Bundy to cease grazing his cattle because of the "endangerment" of the desert tortoise! Your government sending in armed officers to protect the tortoise. Pathetic!

Jeff Dunetz said...

I now know why we are doomed.

Bundy's people were there when Utah was part of Mexico and had Common Law rigwhich were recognized. The US recognized Spanish Land Grants.

The illegals came with a guilty mind seeking advantage in breaking our laws. If you can't tell the diff...

No we are doomed too because we will do anything to anyone if we think we are right: no one matters to us, there is no cost that we will not make others bears to support those feelings of righteous.

You, ihaz, embody the cause of our final demise, being a creature who can justify anything in the name of self-pity.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Bundy's family has owned that ranch since 1948 - the local news had the audacity to check the local records.

Jeff Dunetz said...

"He should fight within the system to change the law."

You sound as though this is a realistic battle.

Jeff Dunetz said...

The BLM is not "grabbing land everywhere". Most of it they have owned for decades, some of through a deal Abraham Lincoln made. The BLM land is PUBLIC land--people can camp, hike, and use the land for recreation in addition to the cattle grazing. IF Bundy had owned the land, the ESA(signed into law by Richard Nixon) ruling on the tortoise would have meant the same thing--the area where the tortoises are would be off limits. Bundy could have kept part of the grazing allotment but instead chose to stop paying and steal the use of the land.
It is very disturbing that those who demand law and order from the Obama adminstration jumped on the "break the law with impunity" bandwangon and backed a lawbreaking rancher. This kind of problem exists everywhere in the West. Every rancher out here KNEW the rules when they signed up. Now that Bundy can't get his very, very cheap grazing (did someone say "subsidy"?), he's trying to get free grazing by enlisting the law and order type to help him break the law.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Wow..his opinion about some people he saw in Las Vegas have nothing to do with the fact that Harry Reid wants his land. Way to shzam the truth so folks are now chasing the race card instead of the real problem..which is of course Harry Reid, and our govt overreach. Did you read the letter from Bundy's son about how it came to this point??

Jeff Dunetz said...

Jeff Dunetz said...

slavery used to be law of the land. Some laws are unjust and should be opposed. It is NOT time for Conservative to abandon Bundy

Jeff Dunetz said...

If Bundy was protecting this business against big oil interest trying to get gov to tax him out of land/business, the Liberals would be on his side, as should we

Jeff Dunetz said...

So, Bundy has no Freedom of Speech? If you agree, you're as bad as the Demoncrats. Nothing he says should cause him to lose his right to use that land. He has a right to his opinion, as distasteful as it might be.

Jeff Dunetz said...

He's breaking no legally made law, BLM, or any agency of the Executive Department can't make laws, that's ONLY for Congress. His use of the land far predates the BLM itself, by about 100 years. The BLM can't come along and unilaterally change the rules as it sees fit, especially since it is now run by one of Harry Reid's former lackeys.