I agree with that. Hannity is the most consistently conservative radio/tv personality with a large audience.
He came out yesterday against the "racist remarks", but even his 10pm show is recorded much earlier in the day, so he'd probably not yet heard the real recording.
His radio show today will be telling. If Hannity doesn't walk back some of his comments today, then I don't think it will happen at all.
Now, being honest with you, even though Bundy DID intend to be saying that blacks have been injured by welfare maybe as much as by actual slavery, the problem is the choice of IMAGES he chose. The cotton picking theme, to matter the intent, is just not an image that can be overcome.
The most anyone will be able to say in Bundy's behalf, and I'm talking about major media outlets like Hannity and Rush, is that Bundy did a poor job of expressing his real concern for welfare slavery, and that he doesn't appear to have in his heart any animus toward any racial group, but that he chose really inappropriate words and images to convey his meaning.
Already that's too complicated an explanation to be able to overcome the LSM and their race hustlers.
Another problem, and I'm being honest here. Bundy came out in favor of full, open, unequivocal amnesty.
How do conservatives handle that?
Finally, none of this has anything to do with his losing his ranch and open range, grazing, and water rights. We should support his keeping his ranch, his freedoms, and the government getting its hands off all that western land.
Nothing about Bundy changes the fact that the fedgov’s response to the situation was nothing other than thuggish intimidation and a violation of the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Fixed it.
> Bundy came out in favor of full, open, unequivocal amnesty.
So has all of the GOPe, all libertarians, and even some of the Tea Party.
The same characters have endorsed gay "marriage" and abortion, and are calling for dropping "social issues" from the GOP platform.
Those so-called "social issues" are MORAL issues, and I cannot and will not support candidates with no moral compass.
> Finally, none of this has anything to do with his losing
> his ranch and open range, grazing, and water rights.
This is the crux of the matter, and everything else are distractions.
The man has DEEDED rights given him by the Territory/State of Nevada.
The Feral Gummint decided in 1946 to take possession of the land and in 1976 to start charging money for water and grazing rights.
Bundy refuses to play along.
The Feral Gummint response was to send a paramilitary tactical squad of about 200 heavily armed men with automatic weapons, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles to steal Bundy's cattle, kill some of his cattle, destroy his water storage and fences, threaten to shoot and kill Bundy and his family and neighbors, and basically wreak havoc and terror on the locality.
THAT is the crux of the matter, and let us NOT forget it!
The MSM has this information. So getting it to them won’t change a thing.
What we as American Patriots need to do is push back against the current trend to call everything anyone says about any minority as “racist”.
Hannity jumped on the Alinsky bandwagon so fast he probably knocked a few people off. Hannity is as big a coward as anyone else when it comes to cowering in fear of being called a racist; so much so that he had a knee jerk reaction to Bundy’s inarticulate expression of concern for the future of Black children by himself labeling Bundy a racist.
To me Hannity’s knee jerk statements were “ despicable”.
The left has succeeded in marginalizing Bundy and personalizing the issue.
Bundy is in mortal danger now. And the left has succeeded in making the whole issue about race.
Beck needs to walk back his remarks, too.
I haven't heard that one.
That was in one of the two interviews?
The same way I handle everything about Bundy and the BLM. I have three separate buckets for my thoughts and beliefs.
The first, and most important, bucket contains the U.S. Constitution, federal overreach, God-given rights, governmental militarization, and the shift from citizens to subjects.
The second bucket contains the current state of the law, and arguments for why it should be changed.
The third, and least important, bucket contains Cliven Bundy, his actions, his statements, and his arguments made in legal documents - but not the arguments made on his behalf by FReepers or supporters. The amnesty statement goes here, along with Bundy's statement that he is not a U.S. citizen, that the 'territory of the United States' has no jurisdiction over him, and so on.
How do conservatives handle that?
Actually he didn't. He's talking about those who work and pay taxes, taxes that help pay for our native welfare class. These hispanics are net additions to our society whereas our native welfare class are a net drag.