Cliven Bundy’s “Racism” Is A Diversonary Tactic

by Al Benson Jr.

Just after I had posted yesterday’s article about the War of Northern Aggression being thrust upon the Western States, the Internet almost started glowing with new reports that rancher Cliven Bundy had been identified, by comments he made, as a flaming “racist.” As slow as the prostitute press was to pick up on his stand against federal tyranny the previous week, they literally jumped on the “racist” story before the teletype machines has stopped spitting it out. Their stories lit up the Internet and most “news” programs like a theater marquee.

This is the kind of stuff our “news” media literally drools over. They get a chance to make someone conservative, that they don’t much like, look bad. That makes their day. They get a chance to put their spin on something that was said by throwing around that politically correct “R” word–the one that’s supposed to scare everyone off and silence any legitimate dissent against their agenda and that of their Washington puppet masters.

I read some of Mr. Bundy’s comments and listened to the doctored video the media put out about his alleged “racist” comments. And I came away with a distinct impression, and it was this–this whole “racist’ situation was manufactured as a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the federal government for what they have been trying to do to Mr. Bundy and his family and, as it develops, a lot of other ranchers and landowners in the West, and to make Mr. Bundy look bad. It’s an old Marxist trick–condemn others and elevate yourself.

All of a sudden no one is concerned anymore about federal tyranny in Nevada Texas, or anywhere else. All they are concerned about is the Cliven Bundy is a “racist.” Nothing else matters anymore.  And if he is a “racist” (I use that term in quotes because it’s a term of Trotskyite origin, and therefore, a propaganda word) he probably deserves what the feds are doing to him because, after all, everyone knows that “racism” is the one unforgivable sin in the leftist litany of sins for propaganda use. Abortion is just fine with them. Murder might be okay.  Sodomy will always get a free pass, but “racism” cannot be countenanced under any circumstances–anything is forgivable to the left but “racism.” And even that might be forgivable, depending on who’s practicing it. Black racism is okay. White racism is totally beyond the pale. This is Cultural Marxism to the fullest degree and guaranteed to shut down most debate. And it usually works.

Look at how these “neo-patriot” conservative politicians lined up to protest what the feds were doing to Mr. Bundy–until the “racist” angle was put forth. To a man they all tucked tail and ran, loudly disavowing their support for Bundy as they headed for the woodwork. Even Rand Paul, who I would have thought better of, played the game and withdrew his support.  I was talking with someone about this just today and they said to me “Rand is not his father.” He sure ain’t! I’m beginning to wonder if he’s even a pale imitation.

I don’t pretend to be privy to all Mr. Bundy’s views on the race question, but one thing is for certain sure, the problem with federal tyranny in the West is still there. It still remains, but now, it will probably be pushed aside and forgotten in favor of the race card being played.

Someone sent me this article today, which I thought was worth quoting from because it is so typical of what the “news” media does. It was on http://benswann.com and it stated: “As media are blasting Bundy for the remarks and politicians are running away from Bundy as quickly as they can, the full context of what Cliven Bundy said has not been reported on. Here is the full 3:19 of his statement. It is worth listening to the comments about Hispanics which were conveniently removed from the videos being played by mainstream media.” I can’t reproduce the video on this blog spot, but go to the source and watch it and listen.

And then, Mr. Swann asks “Why were the comments about ‘Spanish’ people not included in media coverage? The answer is simple. What Cliven Bundy says there does not fit the narrative of a racist. In fact, some people could call him a ‘liberal’ when he says that even if illegal immigrants have ‘violated our Constitution, they are here and they are people’ when he says that Hispanics ‘have a stronger family structure than many of us white people’, and when he says ‘don’t tell me they don’t work and they don’t pay taxes.’ Those comments would strike many ‘conservatives’ as being too sympathetic toward Hispanic immigrants.” And of course, such comments, if aired, would blow the phoney race card out of the water, so the media just leaves them out. The public doesn’t need to be aware of all that–doctored videos for a bemused audience. So typical of the Ministry of Propaganda we still refer to as the “news media.”

I remember, back in 1999, my wife and I went to a Confederate Alliance Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, and, being the kind of conference it was, we had Confederate flags of different kinds on the walls of the meeting hall. The “news” media came in during the late afternoon and interviewed the man responsible for the conference.  All the media wanted to talk about was Nazi’s and white supremacists. The man they interviewed took great pains to explain to them that Nazi’s, skinheads, and the white supremacy people were not what we were all about, and they were not welcome at our meeting. It had nothing to do with any of that. The “news” media people didn’t want to hear that. Every single question they asked the man they interviewed eventually worked its way back to the white supremacy angle. That’s the only thing the “news” people were there to deal with–and if that wasn’t what we were all about, they were darn well going to make sure everybody thought that’s what we were about.

The exact same game is being played with Mr. Bundy–to make him look bad and to discourage support for him so the feds would look much better than they really are and Mr. Bundy and the ranchers would look worse than they really are. It’s all a clever diversion, folks. Don’t buy it!

About That Public Land In Nevada

by Al Benson Jr.

The day after I posted my last article on the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, a man in North Carolina sent me a link to a legal case, U.S. v. Gardner, NO. CV-N-95-328-DWH. which was posted on http://www.leagle.com dealing with a case similar to that of the Bundy family.

It contained some interesting information and I’d like to quote a couple things: “On March 21, 1864, the United States Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute which authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union.” Among the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, this act granted “certain tracts of United States public lands to the State when it entered the Union…In addition, the Nevada Statehood statute  required the convention to adopt an ordinance decreeing and declaring that the inhabitants of the Territory of Nevada ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…The Nevada Constitution provides  that this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent   of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada’.” There’s more, but we could get bogged down in all the legal jargon and that’s sure not my long suit.  What it boils down to is that the folks in Nevada supposedly disclaimed any title to “unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…”In other words, the feds, way back in 1864, got to keep most of the land in Nevada and the people of that “state” promised not to contest that sticky little fact. Sounds like a bum deal, doesn’t it? It was (and still is).

We have to bear in mind why the big push for Nevada to become a state in 1864. The rule used to be that, for a territory to become a state, it had to have a population of 60,000. Nevada had something like 40,000, but Nevada was pushed ahead of other candidates for statehood. If you’re like me, with a suspicious  mind, you might be tempted to wonder why. The site http://www.onlinenevada.org in an article on the 29th of October, 2009, observed: “As the 1864 presidential election approached there were certain perceived advantages in having an additional Republican state. For one thing, a Republican congressional delegation could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, which earlier had narrowly failed to garner the necessary two thirds support of both houses of Congress.  More overriding, however, at least in the spring of 1864  was the real fear that there might be three major candidates running for President that year, and that no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Then, as required by the United States Constitution, the election would go into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote and where a Republican Nevada would have voting rights equal to those of populous New York or Pennsylvania.” To put it bluntly, getting statehood for Nevada was a political move to help Lincoln win the election.

And seeing that it was the Lincoln administration in office, with its collectivist, centralizing mindset, you can see why provisions allowing the federal government to hold onto most of the land in Nevada, with no recourse by the people of that state, were part of the deal. So the feds let Nevada in as a state to boost Lincoln’s election chances, while retaining control of 88% of the land in the state. Such a deal! Even Wikipedia noted that: “Statehood was rushed to help ensure three electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln’s re-election and add to the Republican congressional majorities.”

Interestingly enough, http://www.nevadaweb.com states that “Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some.” So they weren’t all Yankee/Marxists in Nevada.

You can see by reading some of this, that the current land problems in Nevada go all the way back to the Lincoln administration. For those that follow history, at least accurate history, are you really surprised? I’ve said, over the years, that many of the problems we still deal with today are a result of the Lincoln administration and its War of Northern Aggression.  The current situation in Nevada is a prime example.

I recently read a very good article by Steve Miller on http://www.zianet.com entitled Nevada: The Permanent Colony which dealt with the Sagebrush Rebellion I mentioned in my last article. Mr. Miller made several observations worth noting. If you can find this article on the Internet I’d recommend reading it.  Mr. Miller noted that Nevada Territory had too few people to meet requirements for statehood. This made no difference whatever.  Union and pro-Lincoln activists set up constitutional conventions anyway to try to get Nevada into the Union in 1863.  That attempt failed, so they came back again in 1864–so typical of the socialist agenda–if you lose, keep coming back and back until you wear down the opposition. At this point, I’d ask–if they didn’t have enough population to qualify, are they really, technically a state? They weren’t admitted under the required conditions.

Mr. Miller stated: :”Also, Lincoln needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate, where the Thirteenth Amendment waited to be passed.  Nevada’s admission would give him the three-fourths majority needed for a measure largely designed to help break the South…So Nevada had become a state, but it was only in a negligible sense.  For all practical purposes, Nevada remained essentially a territory ruled by those who dominated the federal government.”

And now comes the bombshell!

According to Steve Miller: “As part of the enabling legislation, Congress imposed conditions on the state that the Supreme Court, 19 years before, had already declared illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that new states should have ‘equal footing’ with the original thirteen. Under Nevada’s 1864 enabling act conditions, the people of the territory had to ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory,’ and turn them over to the federal government.” A great deal–but for who? Certainly not the people of Nevada.

Miller’s narrative continued: “But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.” The Court said: “We think the proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes…As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, ‘the power of the United States over these lands and property was to cease’.”

I submit, this is something to think about in the case of Nevada and all the many public acres the federal government controls there whereby they are setting out to deny the inhabitants of Nevada the use of public land–which the feds shouldn’t even control.

Does what has gone on in Nevada and other Western states sound a little like a federal land grab? If all the states agreed to abide by this 1845 Supreme Court decision, you would hardly need something like the BLM there to harass citizens. This is an aspect of this situation that ought to be considered by someone with legal training.  Mr. Bundy may well have a point when he refuses to recognize federal control over much of his state.  And remember, this problem goes back to Lincoln and his Marxist hoard. Something to think about.

Update on Federal Cattle Rustlers in Nevada article

by Al Benson Jr.

Just a few hours ago I posted an article on the situation in Clark County, Nevada where the BLM is trying to force rancher Cliven Bundy off his land and to get his cattle off public land. Supposedly all this is to protect a desert tortoise. As more news comes out the desert tortoise story quickly turns into balderdash. And the BLM assumes the role of jack-booted thugs in even greater proportion than before.

According to http://www.freerepublic.com  for April 11th the following is stated: “The Bureau of Land Management, whose Director was Sen. Harry Reid’s former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.”

“Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid working with the Chinese government to take land from hard-working Americans.”

“Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled ‘Cattle Trespass Impacts’ directly states that Bundy’s cattle ‘impacts’ solar development, more specifically the construction of ‘utility-scale solar power generation facilities’ on ‘public lands.'”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence  of “trespass cattle” the document states.”

So there is a lot more than unpaid land use fees and desert tortoises involved in all this. Dirty Harry Reid and the Red Chinese want Mr. Bundy’s land for their solar development agenda, so Mr. Bundy and his cattle have to go–simple as that. Interesting that the present head of the BLM just happens to have been Dirty Harry’s former senior adviser. Pure coincidence of course. I wonder how much Dirty Harry and his BLM buddies will get out of this deal. Dirty Harry gets the goldmine and Mr. Bundy gets the shaft! Ain’t it just wonderful that we have such a “transparent” administration in Washington?

Federal Cattle Rustlers in Nevada?

By Al Benson Jr.
When is private property not really private property? When the federal government says it isn’t. When is public land not really public land? When the federal government says it isn’t and when they try to run you off for using it. Who does Clark County, Nevada really belong to? Well, that depends on who you ask. With the situation in Clark County right now the federal government seems to think it owns most of the county and that it can tell natives of the area what to do or not do on “their” land.

Back in September, 2006, I did an article for the old Sierra Times website (now defunct) called ‘There Is No Private Property in the American Empire.” I think there are one or two sites out there that might still have it up, but the current situation in Nevada strongly reminded me of that article.
A rancher in Clark County, Nevada (the only rancher left in the county) has had a run-in the the Bureau of Land Management. Ask most folks in the rural West about the BLM and you get answers that run the gamut from flat-out cusswords to worse. Ive talked to folks in Colorado when we’ve been out there on more than one occasion and let’s just say the BLM is not held in especially high esteem. They’ve been accused of land grabbing and other offenses, and in the situation in Clark County they have been accused of being cattle rustlers. Doesn’t surprise me in the least. The BLM thinks they are God out in the sagebrush and they pretty much do what they want.

The one remaining Clark County rancher, Cliven Bundy, has roots on the land he grazes his cattle on that go back to before the turn of the 20th century, back to the days when people actually owned their property and federal thugs like the BLM were only a fond dream in the mind of some corrupt bureaucrat. Much of the land Mr. Bundy grazes his cattle on is public land, which he contends should belong to the state of Nevada rather than the federal government. He is correct. The statistics I saw noted that the feds own over 70% of the land in Nevada. Why? Either it’s part of the state of Nevada and should be state land or when the State of Nevada became a state only around 30% of it really became Nevada.

At any rate, after Mr. Bundy’s family has used this public range for well over 100 years, along comes the BLM and assesses him for grazing fees and whatnot—and now they are telling him his cattle can’t graze there anymore because they are disturbing the habitat of the Desert Tortoise. Really? Cattle grazing in that area for the last century don’t seem to have bothered the tortoises all that much. Mr. Bundy refused to stop using the land and ignored the feds financial levies on his use of the land. Mr. Bundy has a “unique concept” in regard to public land. He actually believes it is for the public to use, not to be cordoned off into some sort of turtle paradise. Needless to say, he ideas are at variance with those of the federal bureaucrats who, in their heart of hearts, really believe it all belongs to the government. The bureaucrats have the mindset of a dictator. Mr. Bundy has the mindset of a free man. Never the twain shall meet!

Since Mr. Bundy ignored the BLM entreaties for plunder (grazing fees) they have decided to round up his cattle, (those they can’t kill) and “sell” them off. Wonder who gets to keep the money. Mr. Bundy stated: “Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights. Who is the trespasser here?…Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? The Bureau of Land Management has ‘overstepped its boundaries by not letting me access my rights, not recognizing the state’s sovereignty, and having over 200 armed officers watching our every move and stealing our cattle.”

The situation got worse last Sunday after Bundy’s son, Dave, was arrested for filming federal agents while he was not within the “designated” area for “First Amendment” activity. So now the feds can restrict First Amendment activity to certain areas and only in those areas can you exercise your First Amendment rights. Anywhere else you don’t have them. Is this a first step to removing them altogether? You be the judge.

Even Nevada’s governor has criticized the high-handed way the BLM is doing this, though he hasn’t done much else and the county sheriff, who is the county’s highest elected official, seem to have “gone fishin” rather than to exercise the authority he has to eject the feds from his county. Good luck in your next election, buddy, because most of the folks in Clark County seem to be in support of what Mr. Bundy is doing.

Now we have folks from other states coming in to stand with him in support, including, according to http://patdollard.com some militia groups.
The Pat Dollard article noted that: “On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property,…Mr. Bundy’s view is that he owns his property—that it’s been in his families hands for centuries…” However the BLM view is that the land belongs to them, I guess not only the “public” land, but all of it. After all, when you are the jack-booted thug in charge you can pretty much do what you want. And the BLM knows it will get the backing of the Marxist regime in Washington—compliments of Comrades Obama and Holder.

Let’s hope there can be a peaceful (and just) resolution to all this and that, somehow, Mr. Bundy doesn’t end up being “shot while resisting arrest.”