Posted on 04/28/2014 7:27:56 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Some prominent Republicans and conservative news media outlets are being accused by The Washington Post of rallying around the cause of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who made derogatory comments about Negroes and has been discredited as a racist. But Glenn Beck, the prominent conservative TV and radio host, did not fall into the trap. He concluded early on that the Nevada rancher was unhinged and not worthy of support, after noting that some followers of radio host Alex Jones were deeply embedded with the Bundy family and preparing for a confrontation with federal agents.
These guys are dangerous. They are looking for revolution. They are looking for a fight, Beck said of the Alex Jones disciples. Recognizing a dangerous situation in the making, when armed federal agents tried to seize Bundys cattle, Beck urged a peaceful response to the conflict. Eventually, the federal agents were withdrawn, and bloodshed was avoided.
Jones is being inaccurately described in some reports about the controversy as a conservative when, in fact, he insists he is a libertarian. What is an established fact is that Jones has a habit of exploiting legitimate conservative issues for his own benefit. He is a 9/11 truther who thinks the September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by a secret cabal and that Muslims were unfairly blamed. In a decision he has probably come to regret, Sean Hannity of Fox News had followed Jones lead on the Bundy case.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Everyone is confused on this because they are looking only at Bundy and you have to look at Bundy as posse comitatus.
Historically, posse comitatus has frequently been linked to racial issues.
So Bundy had a high degree of purity, or free of racial issues.
Even tho no one was interested in his views on race, once he got on the stage, he was compelled to bring up the black man.
So he re-enforces the stereotype of posse comitatus and the attaboys become aw shits.
Yep, that's why they try to instantly 'win' arguments by injecting race into it whether there is an actual connection or not. It's a very transparent ploy once you know to look for it.
Here is today's example thread:
MSNBC Panel Links Pro-Life Republicans to 'White Supremacy,'
--------
LOVED the bull ridin' analogy, BTW! :-)
Reminds me of a little story from back in 1969 when I moved to Mississippi with my new husband who got a job there. I went to get my driver’s license, and on the application form was a space for indicating my race. I thought long and hard and put down ‘C’ - the sheriff looked at me and sarcastically said, “I am assuming that by putting a ‘C’ you mean ‘Caucasian’ but down here it means ‘Colored’, so if you want that on your license, go ahead and leave it - otherwise you need to put a ‘W’ - ahh those were the days!
The conservatives need to start challenging the left that they “honest discussion about race” they want, isn’t possible until they stop crucifying everyone who tries. That needs to be vocal, publicized and repeated often.
Yes. And the hypocrisy & contrived argument, is even more spurious than you suggest. Who is being attacked, by recognizing how terribly the modern Welfare State has harmed the American Negroes afflicted by it? Not the victims, led astray by what seems like largesse, yet reduces them to almost total dependence upon those who would exploit them politically?
No, I do not suggest that all those corrupted, are of any particular race. There are White victims, as well. There are also Indian victims.
To understand just how stupidly destructive--from the standpoint of anyone with honorable intentions--is the modern Welfare State, contrast it with the Welfare system (safety-net) in Jefferson's day:
It is time all decent Americans, who are tired of being gamed by Leftwing academics & propagandists, woke up and understood just how badly we have been gamed.
William Flax
Sure, I know what it means, but my point is, if it is a perfectly acceptable word to use nowadays, then you should use it in front of black people, no?
It might be appropriate to mention that it was Republicans who founded the NRA in 1871, in part, to insure the freed slaves had Second Amendment Rights to defend themselves against the KKK. Southern Democrats)
It might be appropriate to mention that it was Republicans who founded the NRA in 1871, in part, to insure the freed slaves had Second Amendment Rights to defend themselves against the KKK. Southern Democrats)
Name one.
Well, there's a brilliant point. When's the last time you called a black person a black to their face?
The notion that the federal land he was grazing on actually belongs to the state of Nevada, for starters.
Another one might be his claim that the only law enforcement official who has jurisdiction in Bunkerville is the county sheriff, for another.
Fair enough. I thought you were referring to his “racial” comments.
At one time in the 1970s the Nevada Legislature actually claimed federal land in their state. Read up on the Sagebrush Rebellion. Not saying Bundy is right or wrong on his claim, but that is where it came from. I lived in Nevada on a ranch then and I can tell you most ranchers there felt the same way- that it was/should be state land. As much support as Bundy had I would say he is not the only rancher there that thinks that way now.
I think he could have chosen a better legal issue to stand on, but I do believe federal land in the West needs to be turned over to states.
I cringed when I heard Glen Beck’s knee-jerk reaction.
That's just generic 'gotcha" reporting, to my mind anyway.
Though don't get most Jonesites started on Israel.
But the meat of the Sagebrush Rebellion, as I understood it, was federal bureaucrats changing the land use from grazing/recreation to wilderness preservation without Congress legislating and without consulting the affected states or communities.
It took me a minute to figure that one out. lol
The meat of the Sagebrush Rebellion was the government began to use every excuse to put ranchers in the West out of business. The issues are not new, the government has been putting ranchers, farmers, fishermen, out of business for decades. What happens is when liberals get in power they ratchet it up another notch to attack those that supply our food, especially the family owned farms and ranches. The large corporations have accountants and lawyers to keep track of every rule and regulation and likely donate enough money to campaigns to be allowed waivers or what ever that the family owned agriculture businesses cannot do. I think most don’t care because they think our food comes from Walmart...
The law was passed by the Nevada Assembly, and signed by the Governor. I can’t find where the feds did anything other than ignore it. This article explains it pretty well:
https://www.zianet.com/web/rebel2a.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.