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!

It’s 1860 In Nevada–the War of Northern Aggression Moves To the Far West

by Al Benson Jr.

It has probably been around two decades now since I first made the observation that the War of Northern Aggression solved nothing, (it was never intended to) except to demonstrate who had the most money, men, and guns. All the problems attendant to that War remain with us today–and some of the folks in the Western states are now beginning to realize that.

Just today (4/24) I saw a short article on http://libertycrier.com that plainly stated: “While the debate continues over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s dispute with federal land managers, supporters in nearby Southern Utah say the much publicized quarrel has brought the issue of states’ rights to the forefront. ‘I think the Bundy issue is just a symptom of the many issues that are out there,’ said Washington Country Commissioner Alan Gardner. Gardner said the dispute raised awareness for states’ rights issues and energized those who feel the federal government has too much control over the public lands in Western States.”

States’ rights! Anyone ever heard that before? I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center will condemn all those in the West that harbor states’ rights sentiments as “racists” because they dare to think in those terms.  After all, “Honest” Harry RE(i)D has gone out of his way to label the ranchers as “domestic terrorists” so that now gives the lapdog media two different horrific titles to throw at the Western folks. Westerners may soon begin to realize how we in the South feel, because they are about to become victims of the same brand of Cultural Marxism that has been shoved down the throats of Southerners for decades now.

I still think it would be a great idea if the “Cowboys and the Confederates” could sit down at the same table and begin to discuss what has gone on and what is going on in this country. For the most part we should all be on the same page. Someone with the ability of an organizer should work on this idea, provided we can keep the agent provocateurs out. The Northern Aggressors have shafted and are shafting both groups and they should seek out ways to help one another out.  Real states’ rights would be good for both the South and the West because, let’s face it, none of us has them, nor have we had them in my lifetime–in fact, as the Nevada State Constitution of 1864 plainly shows, Nevada never had them to begin with as a state, with the feds owning over 80% of the states’ land.

I noted only this past weekend that representatives from nine Western state, more than 50 of them, according to http://www.foxnews.com “…made their proclamations  at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management…Whether the federal government will use the court system or other methods to try to resolve such disputes remains unclear.” It’s those “other methods” that concern people, not only in the West, but in other areas where this situation is being observed. And thanks to the alternate media, it is being observed. It was only their observation and commentary that caused the lapdog media to finally deign to comment on the situation.

Honest Harry said earlier this week that he had talked with what passes for an Attorney General these days and “that a task force might be formed.” Law enforcement people said Saturday that there are no plans for this.  (Translation: they may well try it so the militia folks on the ground there had best be prepared.)

The folks in the Western States feel that they are better qualified to manage the land in their respective states rather than leaving it up to some one-size-fits-all bureaucrat in Sodom on the Potomac. Can’t argue with that assessment.

It seems that the BLM (Bureau of Licensed Marauders) have plans for a lot more Western land than Mr. Bundy’s ranch. In an article on http://www.breitbart.com someone sent me yesterday, someone said: “The Eyes of the BLM are on Texas, on the Bureau of Land Management’s intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.” Gen Abbott said: “I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” He has already sent a strong letter to the BLM director, Harry Reid’s old buddy, Neil Kornze, strongly expressing his concernes about this attempt at Texas land usurpation.

General Abbott stated: “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country…And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Let’s hope General Abbott sticks to his guns.

He is right on the money about one thing–the Obama administration couldn’t care less about the rule of law–that’s for us “petty bourgeois” not for our exalted Marxist rulers. They are above all that. They do what they please and if they do manage to do something that’s really over the edge and Congress calls them on it, they just get “Attorney General” Holder to stonewall Congress so nothing ever happens. He’s good at that.

One thing all of us, Southern folks, Western folks, all sincere folks, had best get firmly implanted into our “thinking caps” is that this administration is at war with the American people. They have orders to tear this country down and they are not about to let a ragtag group of Cowboys or Confederates or whoever, deter them from that agenda. They will remove their opposition any way they have to, lawful, illegal, or otherwise. This is what we are dealing with folks. We’d better get used to 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.