Bundy’s comments on race provide breaking point for Paul, Heller; Update: Bundy affirms on radio show

posted at 9:34 am on April 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

And probably most other Cliven Bundy supporters as well, assuming that the New York Times report of his Saturday press conference is accurate. National Journal’s Brian Resnick described these comments as something “overheard” by the Times, but the Times report itself puts them in the context of an open meeting that took place after only two media outlets arrived for Bundy’s daily presser:

Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

“Overheard” isn’t quite accurate, in other words. This was a public event, and Bundy put his foot squarely in his mouth during it:

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.”

Yeesh. That’s about as ugly as it gets. It certainly got the attention of Senator Rand Paul, who had been one of Bundy’s supporters during the rancher’s standoff with the BLM. Paul’s office issued a statement distancing the Senator from Bundy, as Resnick reported:

“His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Sen. Rand Paul said in a statement Thursday morning.

Closer to home, Bundy also lost Sen. Dean Heller, who had been arguing his case last week in a debate with Harry Reid:

Sen. Dan Heller, who the Times writes has called Bundy’s supporters “patriots,” offered this response to the paper via a spokesperson. He “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

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.

Bundy doesn’t have a legal case. And it looks like sympathy just ran out for him, too.

Update: Jeff Dunetz advises conservatives who have sympathized with Bundy to walk away:

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: Bundy repeated the sentiment on Peter Schiff’s radio show today, stressing the use of “I’m wondering…”:

So the Times didn’t misquote Bundy. Mediaite also has video of Bundy making this statement originally. Conservatives didn’t buy the “I’m just asking questions” when 9/11 Truthers used that excuse; they shouldn’t accept it from Bundy either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 12

It’s no different than Helen Thomas saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany.

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Ding ding ding!

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Same question to you Good Lt:

If Helen Thomas had her rights violated, does that make her rights any “less violated” because she is an anti-Semite?

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

You need to read what you quote before you post. I’ve highlighted the relevant part which invalidates your argument. What buildings on the land in question satisfy the requirement YOU quoted?

Reading is a life skill.

According to the US Constitution, under Article I Section 8, land can only be possessed by the Federal government for needful BUILDINGS, post roads, ports or military/armory facilities. Which of those things are on the land in question?

Nowhere in the section you cited and I quoted does it say that land can ONLY be possessed by the federal government for certain reasons. That section talks about the federal government exercising “exclusive legislation” over certain lands.

If you don’t believe me, see if you can find a judge in any state or federal court to agree with your interpretation. Cliven Bundy tried it and LOST.

myiq2xu on April 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Wow, we really are nothing but a bunch of cowards willing to give up on a point because the NY Times officially went fishing for exactly this kind of thing, found it, reported it, and now we’re all issuing statements about how offensive Clive Bundy’s opinion on race relations are.

But a private citizen’s opinions on race relations are 1) irrelevant, and 2) without context for their bearing on the issue at hand.

Until conservatives actually stand up and tell the NY Times to F off with their nonsense, then the NY Times and all other liberal activists will continue with their standard operating procedure – go find something controversial and run with it.

Straight out of Alinsky’s manual. And yet we fall for it every single time. Pathetic.

deadrody on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Looks like the media finally found the squirrel in this story that they can sink their teeth into.

HumpBot Salvation on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

So we should be defending this loser – a man who refers to black Americans in 2014 as “the Negr0” – because…conservatism?

Fail.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM

How else would you describe a generic “black” person? Not all “blacks” are “African-American”, and not all Americans from Africa are “black”.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

I’m no proponent of “big government” and federal overreach…but unless I missed it, I haven’t seen actual whips and chains being used. But according to Bundy, slaves had a good “family life” and they “did things”.

It’s reprehensible to make excuses for that arseclown’s racism.

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Actually mr sodomite judging by the state of the black race I’d say their situation today is reprehensible and unfortunately it’s due to themselves and their support of the race hustlers

Doyle Hargrave on April 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Awww…Mr. sodomite, how original and relevant. Aren’t you precious…like a perfect caricature of a conservative made by Leftist liberals.

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Why aren’t our local lib trolls demanding equality before the law?
Why hasn’t the SWAT team made a visit to Al Sharpton, tasered his relatives and put his supporters in a cordoned off “First Amendment Zone”?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Wondering if the new masters many blacks have chosen (government) is better or worse than their old master is not racism.

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM

I think is the point he was going for, he just did a really, really bad job articulating it.

HarryBackside on April 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Who would you personally consider more prejudiced? A devout Christian who loves you as a neighbor but opposes your “equality” agenda, or a salty libertarian who supports all of your pet causes but still doesn’t like you and frequently uses the term sodomite just to be a jerk?

Irrelevant? No – what Bundy did was say something that might hurt or offend a black person. Whereas most of the deomcrat/reform-republican politicians that blacks loves are doing them and their community very real harm for direct benefit(votes, grant funding, etc.). Who, I ask, is the real racist.

abobo on April 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

So you only engage in vag1na1 $ex?

Stupid filters.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So we should be defending this loser – a man who refers to black Americans in 2014 as “the Negr0” – because…conservatism?

Fail.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM

The US Census Bureau used that word on its forms and surveys until 2013.

vlad martel on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Many here have correctly pointed out that what the man said was not in and of itself racist. That he happend to use slavery as the height of the black nuclear family and ingenuity is a bit off I think. I can agree that black families were more cohesive at previous points in history but I’m going to safely say that slavery was not one of those points.

Unfortunatly Bundy’s point will be drowned out because most will simply see the formula of slavery = anything good, or just, or cohesive. Shame of the matter is I think many blacks are actually open to hearing conservative ideas (beleive it or not), but by the time the information trickles down through the media or is delivered inartfully as Bundy has done here it misses its mark.

Narrative on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM

I think that is my point, we are not glorifying Mr. Bundy but we are fighting against government overreach.

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Support for this crazy law breaker is a new low IMO.
At the heart of conservatism and libertarianism is the belief in the rule of law.

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Oh look, it’s good ol’ “weedisgood” decrying law-breaking! You old silly, you!

Saltyron on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Whatever he said, and whatever he meant, in no way changes the issue of an overstepping federal government that is rapidly and ravenously gobbling up our land, resources, and freedoms. His action had focused attention (at least initially) on that threat. But that focus has now been successfully diffused. Mission accomplished.

As usual, it seems that we have to play by the left’s rules.

bofh on April 24, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Using PC Police to shut down opposing views, it’s what progressive do. Liberal fascism on the march.

Just ask Brendan Eich, Phil Roberston, et al.

Let’s be careful, however righteous the criticism of Bundy, that we do not unwittingly feed the PC Beast.

petefrt on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

It’s no different than Helen Thomas saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany.

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM

For the first time ever I believe you are a gigantic idiot.

Ne gro is not a derogatory term. It never was. It is antiquated. Unless the NAACP is using it, of course. And Bundy is ancient.

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton…learned a trade…got an education…became self reliant…and so on…”

Too many blacks have traded the slavery of the plantation for the slavery of the state, and Bundy is right to point it out. But you can’t get past his inartful speech and really analyze what he said.

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I don’t think there is enough info to know who is right, ‘legally’. But if Bundy is a racist for that ‘statement’ (which we don’t even know for sure he said) then LBJ and FDR are too. How soon will the MSM begin providing equal air time denouncing their heroes?

smitty41 on April 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Wow, we really are nothing but a bunch of cowards willing to give up on a point because the NY Times officially went fishing for exactly this kind of thing, found it, reported it, and now we’re all issuing statements about how offensive Clive Bundy’s opinion on race relations are.

But a private citizen’s opinions on race relations are 1) irrelevant, and 2) without context for their bearing on the issue at hand.

Until conservatives actually stand up and tell the NY Times to F off with their nonsense, then the NY Times and all other liberal activists will continue with their standard operating procedure – go find something controversial and run with it.

Straight out of Alinsky’s manual. And yet we fall for it every single time. Pathetic.

deadrody on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Well said. Many of us aren’t backing down. Unfortunately, it seems that the writers of this blog, as they have risen in notoriety, get their marching orders elsewhere.

njrob on April 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM

This entire topic reminds me of Shakespeare:

“It is a tale told by an idiot , full of sound and fury , Signifying nothing .”

The ONLY response to this is: Bundy isn’t the issue. The selective use of overwhelming armed force is the issue. Stop trying to distract from the core issue of a government willing to point snipers at a guy and his cows but unwilling to stop illegal entry at the border.

xNavigator on April 24, 2014 at 10:35 AM

KingGold on April 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM

So anyone that disagrees with you is a racist? Apparently you are prejudiced against anyone with an opposing view. Also, you should delve a little deeper into the land in question. The BLM, under Harry Reid’s insistence, has confiscated every inch of ranch land in Clark County. They have sold much of it to private individuals and business entities, below market value. That is called CRONY CAPITALISM. And that is really what this is about; obtaining wealth through power and connections. Get a clue. I hope they come for whatever property you own.

fight like a girl on April 24, 2014 at 10:35 AM

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Did Ms. Thomas lose her seat in the White House press room over that little nugget?

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Yup, indeed that’s right up there with telling Blacks they’re not civilized enough to be expected to carry ID.

MNHawk on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

So that wasn’t a Lyndon Johnson quote after all.

CW20 on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

How else would you describe a generic “black” person? Not all “blacks” are “African-American”, and not all Americans from Africa are “black”.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

So you still use the term “Negro” as well?

LOL

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Yea… Ed and most people here think that property rights, liberty, and the US Constitution only belong to those with politically correct and Democrat approved public opinions.

Somebody here used to regularly say… The GOP will betray you. Ed and the GOP just betrayed Cliven Bundy because Cliven said something politically incorrect.

A Pox on the house of any and everyone who thinks that expressing any politically incorrect opinion in public is a legitimate excuse to strip any individual of the Constitutional rights.

Once upon a time in the United States of America, the saying was, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to support your right to say it.

Under the threat of being called a racists most Americans, if the sample of idiots spouting off here is representative, have surrendered freedom of speech to avoid being called a racist. That is far more disgusting than anything Cliven Bundy might have said.

oscarwilde on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I think most of you are missing the point. Whether what he said was racist(if he said it at all) is IRRELEVANT. Bundy is NOT the issue. The issue is the overreach and tyranny of the government. The Constitution exists for all Americans and that includes the good, the bad, the conservative, and yes even those dreaded racists.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Glenn Beck and Harry Reid were right.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So the newest folk hero the conservative right has been propping up as a “true American” is a white supremacist? Must be Thursday.

libfreeorgan on April 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM

…I guess he’ll make the ideal Vice-Presidential candidate!

KOOLAID2 on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So, this means that the attack dogs, snipers and tasers were okay..? After all, Bundy’s nothing but a old racist….?

d1carter on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Here it comes: Bundy represents every conservative ever born.

Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM

^ rotf — he nailed the thread comment one. :)

Comment one.

Axe on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

…Bundy just wanted the trolls to get active at Hot Air….yeah…that’s the ticket!

KOOLAID2 on April 24, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Did Ms. Thomas lose her seat in the White House press room over that little nugget?

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I think she resigned amid pressure. And that in itself was idiocy. Everyone knew who and what she was.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Unfortunately, thanks to the NYT & other MSM reporting, 99% of LIVs equate Bundy with the Tea Party, the Kochs, and, for that matter, all conservatives & libertarians. Thanks, Mr. Bundy. Idiot.

KS Rex on April 24, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Under the threat of being called a racists most Americans, if the sample of idiots spouting off here is representative, have surrendered freedom of speech to avoid being called a racist. That is far more disgusting than anything Cliven Bundy might have said.

oscarwilde on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

+100

smitty41 on April 24, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Bravo idiots, I didn’t know our Constitution exist only for “good” people.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Yep. Sums it up.

I’ve really come to appreciate the First Amendment in my old age (36). I may not like or agree with what he says, but I’d rather he have a right to say it (without losing any unrelated legal right), so I know who I’m dealing with, rather than face a lying weasel or hypocrite.

Saltyron on April 24, 2014 at 10:40 AM

And Bundy’s use of that word should be the least of anyone’s concerns. He is ancient and grew up in a time when that word wasn’t derogatory (if it is now).

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 9:52 AM

LBJ used that word 11 times, in a speech he gave supporting the Voting Rights Act, before the full congress.

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.

HarryBackside on April 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Hopefully the United N*gro College Fund has been informed about their racism.

vlad martel on April 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM

And Bundy’s use of that word should be the least of anyone’s concerns. He is ancient and grew up in a time when that word wasn’t derogatory (if it is now).

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 9:52 AM

LBJ used that word 11 times, in a speech he gave supporting the Voting Rights Act, before the full congress.

There is no Neg*o problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.

HarryBackside on April 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So we should be defending this loser – a man who refers to black Americans in 2014 as “the Negr0” – because…conservatism?

Fail.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM

For Frederick Douglass, Luther Burbank, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will always “black Americans” (you sure it’s not still “African Americans”? seems like only yesterday) will always be “Negro.”

So your beef with Bundy is that he wasn’t hip? hep? with it? in sync? au courant?

de rigueur on April 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Am I missing something here? Where exactly was the racism? He was making a point about government subsidies. His language was rather plain-spoken and devoid of the usual PC-isms, but the substance of what he was saying was no different than what Ed and Allah have said on this site many times.

Absurd. HA so quick to jump on the PC bandwagon. PC-ism really is a mental disease.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 10:43 AM

The ONLY response to this is: Bundy isn’t the issue.

xNavigator on April 24, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Clear thinking. Yes, it’s the ONLY response. Any discussion of Bundy’s personhood lets them deflect from the issues, change the subject and reframe the debate.

petefrt on April 24, 2014 at 10:43 AM

You guys are trying way too hard.
The guy lives in Nevada…less than 8% of the population is black.
Yet when he mouths off about welfare, he pontificates about ‘Nego3s’ ‘pickin’ cotton’.
And your excuse for him is that he’s from another time or something?
For all the defenive ‘raaaacccciiiist’ snark coments that seem to be thrown up at any issue involving race, you can’t really make too much of poster boy from your straight talker here.
But I guess you’re gonna try.

verbaluce on April 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM

What did Bundy say that was racist?

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

I’m not saying he is…but you’re trying too hard to say he isn’t.
At best, he made some antiquated and insensitive remarks.
At worst, his comments reflect something darker.
But for me it’s moot as the larger issue is his blatant law breaking and the misguided hero-making of the guy.
He’s free to think whatever he wants.

verbaluce on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Glenn Beck and Harry Reid were right.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Harry Reid? The guy who became a millionaire with a lifetime of “public serivce”? The guy whose son is representing a solar power company who is magically getting federal and state cooperation to use land with the very same tortoises on it that Bundy can’t use anymore?
The Harry Reid who has lauded Obama for his ability to turn his “Ne gro dialect” on and off?

That Harry Reid?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

If Helen Thomas had her rights violated, does that make her rights any “less violated” because she is an anti-Semite?

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

No, but it does make her an anti-Semite. Bundy’s little ode to slavery has nothing to do with government overreach in this case. Had he said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

But by all means, let’s ignore the depth and breadth of the ‘worst ne gro in history’ and other virulently racist comments from the left directed at Clarence Thomas earlier this week…

Midas on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

THIS is an awesome thread, reminiscent of the epic Palin threads of yesteryear.

Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Wow, we really are nothing but a bunch of cowards willing to give up on a point because the NY Times officially went fishing for exactly this kind of thing, found it, reported it, and now we’re all issuing statements about how offensive Clive Bundy’s opinion on race relations are…..

deadrody on April 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Fishing for it? He said it at a press conference.

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

When all else fails, turn to racism or some other equally PC incorrect issue to report to negate the public perception. The politicians are using that tactic more and more and may have learned it for the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have nothing worth while saying so use the race card to their benefit and now the NYT uses a supposedly “overheard” comment as the race bullet to turn the opinion of people against Bundy. How un unique in this day and time and it is having less affect because, like the little kid crying wolf, it is not believable anymore.

Pardonme on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Oh look, it’s good ol’ “weedisgood” decrying law-breaking! You old silly, you!

Saltyron on April 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I have a prescription for my weed.

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Pathetic response, Ed. But entirely predictable.

Missy on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

If Helen Thomas had her rights violated, does that make her rights any “less violated” because she is an anti-Semite?

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Bundy’s rights were not being violated.

Try again!

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

For all the idiots who think the word Negro is offensive…From the New Oxford Dictionary…

The 2010 US Census questionnaire was criticized when it retained the racial designation Negro as an option (along with Black and African Am.). The Census Bureau defended its decision, citing the 2000 Census forms, on which more than 56,000 individuals handwrote “Negro” (even though it was already on the form). Apparenly, Negro continues to be the identity strongly preferred by some Americans. See also usage at black.

Ever hear of the United Negro College fund?

fight like a girl on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Ok, now that I’m reading some of the comments, people seem to be hung up on the word ‘negro.’ Are you all insane? Black people call each other that all the time.

Insanity.

WhatSlushfund on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Had he said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Yeah.. He would be an idiot, but still an idiot who was a victim of government overreach.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

I’m not saying he is…but you’re trying too hard to say he isn’t.
At best, he made some antiquated and insensitive remarks.
At worst, his comments reflect something darker.
……
verbaluce on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Were you trying to be slyly funny with your reference to “darker”? Or did that just happen?

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Pathetic response, Ed. But entirely predictable.

Missy on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Right, the blithering, racist idiocy from the rancher isn’t pathetic.

No, people who may have once been sympathetic and are now distancing themselves from the idiot are pathetic.

Got it.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

At the heart of conservatism and libertarianism is the belief in the rule of law.

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Exactly. Remember when the Founding Fathers reached the same conclusion, and accepted British rule?

HarryBackside on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Harry Reid? The guy who became a millionaire with a lifetime of “public serivce”? The guy whose son is representing a solar power company who is magically getting federal and state cooperation to use land with the very same tortoises on it that Bundy can’t use anymore?
The Harry Reid who has lauded Obama for his ability to turn his “Ne gro dialect” on and off?

That Harry Reid?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Why are you so mad? You know your kind can get married now.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

I’m not saying he is…but you’re trying too hard to say he isn’t.

verbaluce on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

That’s because he isn’t until he actually says something that is racist. I am not a leftist douchebag that assumes entire groups are racist because, shut up.

At best, he made some antiquated and insensitive remarks.
At worst, his comments reflect something darker.
But for me it’s moot as the larger issue is his blatant law breaking and the misguided hero-making of the guy.
He’s free to think whatever he wants.

At best or worst this is a dodge. I will assume it is starting to sink into your head what Bundy was actually saying even if he didn’t say it in the best way.

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

No, but it does make her an anti-Semite. Bundy’s little ode to slavery has nothing to do with government overreach in this case. Had he said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

So only the people we like get rights? The government isn’t capable of abusing those we don’t like? Or we don’t care if the government can abuse those we don’t like?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

So, this means that the attack dogs, snipers and tasers were okay..? After all, Bundy’s nothing but a old racist….?

d1carter on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So it would seem.

Midas on April 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Bundy’s rights were not being violated.

Try again!

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

You who believes that rights are violated because the state won’t give a license to a couple having sex don’t think ANY rights have been violated in this case? LMAO

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

I’m glad I kept my powder dry in this fight.

MWC_RS on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Right, the blithering, racist idiocy from the rancher isn’t pathetic.

No, people who may have once been sympathetic and are now distancing themselves from the idiot are pathetic.

Got it.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

You just ain’t that bright, are you?

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Do Cliven Bundy’s comments change the fact that the federal government of the United States holds no constitutional authority to own land outside of that which is necessary to execute the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8?

No. No, they do not.

Furthermore, I’m increasingly disturbed by how cowardly the Right has become on issues such as race, homosexuality, etc. We have allowed the Left to establish the frame, and anyone who says anything that would be criticized by the Left as racist, sexist, etc. now must be denounced.

Cliven Bundy is absolutely correct. Government subsidies have destroyed the black family, and they’re quickly destroying the white family, too. Many conservatives were already wrong in condemning Bundy over the grazing issue. Now those people have turned into complete cowards by abandoning this man for making an accurate statement for fear of being labeled racist.

Well, guess what – the Left already calls us racist. It’s the same problem John McCain faced in 2008 when he refused to attack Barack Obama out of fear.

Tyger of Wrath on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Bundy deserves to be given the Medal of Freedom by the next conservative president.

Angel Eyes on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Why are you so mad? You know your kind can get married now.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Ha ha ha. That’s a rather lame attempt to dodge the issue.

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Got it.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Good.

Not surprising Hot Air has to open registration twice in one week with the quality of posts lately. I suspect Allahpundit is quietly looking for another gig.

Missy on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Were you trying to be slyly funny with your reference to “darker”? Or did that just happen?

jim56 on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

She’s a racist, obviously that word is a version of “darkie” which people like Senator Byrd(D-KKK) probably used regularly in his time on Earth.

The correct term is African-Americaner.

Bishop on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

I have a prescription for my weed.

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Sure you do.

If that’s the case, shouldn’t it be “weedisgoodforme”? Why do you need a prescription anyway? Because unregulated use and/or possession is illegal in the majority of the US, and apparently where you are as well?

Saltyron on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Yeah.. He would be an idiot, but still an idiot who was a victim of government overreach.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

That’s not what I asked…would you still support his cause, publicly, if he said any of the other things I mentioned?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

For Frederick Douglass, Luther Burbank, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will always “black Americans” (you sure it’s not still “African Americans”? seems like only yesterday) will always be “Negro.”

So your beef with Bundy is that he wasn’t hip? hep? with it? in sync? au courant?

de rigueur on April 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Better.

de rigueur on April 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Sure you do.

If that’s the case, shouldn’t it be “weedisgoodforme”? Why do you need a prescription anyway? Because unregulated use and/or possession is illegal in the majority of the US, and apparently where you are as well?

Saltyron on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Some states have legalized it.
I believe in state rights when it comes to matters as these.

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

As poorly said as it was, there was something to what Bundy is observing; that being on the government teet is like being a slave.

Tater Salad on April 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Not surprised that Rand Paul was the first to “jump ship.” So Paul only believes in a person’s constitutional rights if they are PC approved? What a CINO he is turning out to be.

fight like a girl on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Let’s see if Hannity will still associate himself with the racist

weedisgood on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Um, blacks really didn’t have a great family life when their masters could sell them off separately at any time. That was Pat Moynihan’s point 50 years ago, BTW – that slavery crippled if not destroyed the black family and caused the dysfunction prevalent in black culture.

I guess Mr. Bundy begs to differ. He evidently thinks slavery was an uplifting experience compared to being on welfare.

No, I wouldn’t call him a racist. In fact he may well be less racist than I, who believe there are statistically marginal but nevertheless culturally significant inherent genetic differences between broadly identifiable groups. But I suppose that’s pretty faint praise, considering .

Seth Halpern on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

So only the people we like get rights? The government isn’t capable of abusing those we don’t like? Or we don’t care if the government can abuse those we don’t like?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

You didn’t answer the question either.

Had Bundy said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

You who believes that rights are violated because the state won’t give a license to a couple having sex don’t think ANY rights have been violated in this case? LMAO

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Keep it up. You’re really nailing it.

Good Lt is apparently fine with the royal bureaucracy driving ranchers off of land and out of their livelihoods. Because it’s “legal”.
Meanwhile rich “green energy” companies with connections to the Reid family get to sidestep the rules applied to Bundy. It’s legal after all.

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Squirrel! Bundy is not the issue.

Ellis on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

You just ain’t that bright, are you?

NotCoach on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Says the commenter defending the white rancher putting people some knowledge about ‘the Negro.’

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Tyger of Wrath on April 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM

+1

smitty41 on April 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Whelp, so much for ending the “TP is raycis” meme- ever. Fodder for 100,000 campaign ads.

tdarrington on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Ha ha ha. That’s a rather lame attempt to dodge the issue.

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

At least you don’t deny your kind can get married across the nation. You should be celebrating, IMHO.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Had Bundy said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

All things being equal, yes. His personal views are totally irrelevant to the case.

Missy on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

That’s not what I asked…would you still support his cause, publicly, if he said any of the other things I mentioned?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Hey, Republicans are the ones who believe in concepts like equal treatment under the law….or they used to, apparently….

vlad martel on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Pathetic response, Ed. But entirely predictable.

Missy on April 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Yup, sadly it is pretty obvious that Ed was always looking for4 an excuse to condemn Bundy. For the imbeciles screaming the Budny broke the law. Slavery used to be legal, we fought a civil war over it, because it was the LAW and some people wanted to keep it that way.

Jim Crow used to be the Law. Just because something is the LAW does not make it right.

Old and New on Equal Footing

Finally, there is the constitutional issue of whether states, in forming the Constitution, gave the federal government power to own land.

In the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Escanaba Co. v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883), an important constitutionally based concept known as the “equal footing doctrine” was described as “Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.”

Basically, this principle requires that any state added to the union do so on equal footing with the 13 original states. As reported by the legal website Justia, “Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State’s act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union ‘on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.’”

An issue very similar to that in Cliven Bundy’s situation was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

This, the Court would not permit.

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

[T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Emphasis added.]

So, regardless of the BLM’s — and by extension, the Obama administration’s — insistence that Nevada’s land was ceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state in 1864, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

The bottom line, then, is that Nevada owns the land where Cliven Bundy’s cattle fed, and Bundy — who has preemptive rights for his cattle to feed there — has faithfully and fully paid that landlord the rent he owed it.

oscarwilde on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

If you are a good little leftist, you can pretty much say anything you want to regarding race. Heck, you can even be a former Klan member and use the phrase “white-nigger”, as Robert Byrd did in an interview and still remain a leader of the Democrat Party.

But, if you are conservative, you must keep abreast of the latest acceptable racial terms and must never ever make any commentary on the current abysmal state of black culture. And God forbid if you metaphorically and hyperbolically suggest that black culture has been so ruined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats, that it has caused as much or more cultural decay than the evil institution of slavery.

And by extension, if you dare to question our omnipotent government and rally around a concept (and not even supporting the specifics of the case or the flawed individual associated with it) of trying to reign in government overreach – well then you are doomed and will feel the boot of the media propaganda machine on your neck as well.

justltl on April 24, 2014 at 10:54 AM

You didn’t answer the question either.

Had Bundy said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

YES

If he was a gay atheist working part time for the HRC my views wouldn’t change.

His rights and the abuse of government power has absolutely nothing to do with his personal views.

This has really been revealing about your character though.
You’re the one who claims “gay marriage” is a civil right but apparently rights and the proper role of government in your mind hinge on how likable or agreeable someone is. This also sheds light on your inability to recognize the fascist elements of the gay “rights” movement.

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:54 AM

How convenient for the left that we all woke up this morning to find that Cliven Bundy is a raging racist, from a NY Times reporter no less. Yes, very convenient.

What was starting to happen from the Bundy situation? More and more Americans were realizing how much land the federal government controls and more and more Americans weren’t liking it. They definitely had to put a stop to that. After all, Harry Reid did say that “something will happen” to stop Bundy. And so it has, if we let it.

Lizzy on April 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Not surprising this came out, the Left was going to do everything they could to discredit him.

Unfortunately for Bundy he was an easy target for them.

Tater Salad on April 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

So I guess since Mr. Bundy is a racist the government should come back and shoot him. And his little cows to.

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Says the commenter defending the white rancher putting people some knowledge about ‘the Negro.’

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM

So you’re just going to ignore the long use of that term in the country before it was declared “offensive”?

vlad martel on April 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Let me get this straight: Because Bundy is a racist, this justifies going all Waco over some grazing cattle?

Sekhmet on April 24, 2014 at 10:56 AM

At least you don’t deny your kind can get married across the nation. You should be celebrating, IMHO.

Basement Dweller on April 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

What is my kind?

Is this your lame attempt to claim that gay marriage is illegal that you failed to do in that other thread the other day?

gwelf on April 24, 2014 at 10:56 AM

You didn’t answer the question either.

Had Bundy said he was pro-abortion, or anti-Christian, or called the 9/11 hijackers “freedom fighters”, would you still unequivocally support his grazing cause?

JetBoy on April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Yes.. If it was Dan Savage or Amanda Marcotte; I would be just as vocal.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:56 AM

How convenient for the left that we all woke up this morning to find that Cliven Bundy is a raging racist, from a NY Times reporter no less. Yes, very convenient.

What was starting to happen from the Bundy situation? More and more Americans were realizing how much land the federal government controls and more and more Americans weren’t liking it. They definitely had to put a stop to that. After all, Harry Reid did say that “something will happen” to stop Bundy. And so it has, if we let it.

Lizzy on April 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Yeah, it’s a big conspiracy. Boo.

Good Lt on April 24, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The NYT article was as biased as it gets. I read the article that was linked, it stated that armed militias confronted public officials yet no wherein the article did it say did that the government came in with armored cars and guns. Next all the “facts” are screwed up depending on your source. It has been reported that Bundy had 900 head of cattle; then 600 head, now 500? The number keeps changing just like the number of how much land in Nevada the Federal Government “owns”. The two articles linked give two different numbers NYT says 80% and National Journal says 70% that 10% is a huge amount of land in a state. Finally we have the quote, which was almost unreadable. It made no sense, it starts out with him giving a “Townhall” style speech to him driving around public housing? The quote is written to almost portray the reporter driving around with Bundy asking him questions.

OliverB on April 24, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The practice is condemned in the Bible, and the history of slavery in America demonstrates the wisdom of God’s Word.

Outlander on April 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I think you should take a little better read of Scripture. I’m not going to get into a debate on the different sorts of slavery, nor on God’s use of it, versus the American experience, nor am I expressing any support for slavery, but your statement is ignorant of Scripture.

GWB on April 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM

I think most of you are missing the point. Whether what he said was racist(if he said it at all) is IRRELEVANT. Bundy is NOT the issue. The issue is the overreach and tyranny of the government. The Constitution exists for all Americans and that includes the good, the bad, the conservative, and yes even those dreaded racists.

melle1228 on April 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

EXACTLY

deadrody on April 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 12