Bundy, New York Times, and The Truth

Clive Bundy: Racist?
No: Victim of New York Times
Smear and Distortions

The first question which comes to mind:

What is the New York Times?

That's a legitimate question, since the paper which claims to run "All the News that's Fit to Print" has turned into another propaganda machine which puts out "All the News that Fits the Democratic Print".

Case in point, the "racist" Cliven Bundy, who "suggested" that black people would have been better off staying slaves.

At least, the reporter gives that impression from the copy printed on April 23.

Before taking down the aggressive agenda from the foremost liberal mouth-piece in American journalism, here are couple other remarks worth noting:

Mr. Bundy’s standoff with federal rangers — propelled into the national spotlight in part by steady coverage by Fox News — has highlighted sharp divisions over the power of the federal government and the rights of landowners in places like this desert stretch of Nevada, where resentment of Washington and its sprawling ownership of Western land has long run deep.

While the reporter wants to present Fox News as some kind of marginal instigator for this conflict between individual ranchers and the federal government, a better question to ask should be:

Why didn't the New York Times report on the escalating conflicting between the Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management? Too busy playing up Hillary Clinton for 2016? I wonder how much time the New York Times spent praising and unofficially crowning the former Secretary of State for the Presidency, anyway.

The article continues:

“The gather is now over,” said Craig Leff, a deputy assistant director with the Bureau of Land Management. “Our focus is pursuing this matter administratively and judicially.”       

     

But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not. 

 

The biggest news element in that statement should be the fact that a private militia of farmers and ranchers from all over the country rallied next to Bundy and stood up to the federal government, forcing them to back away. Was this a righteous cause? Does Bundy owe taxes? And even if Bundy is in the wrong on a financial matter, did the Bureau of Land Management handle this conflict appropriately? The Times reporter could have recognized the wise discretion of the federal authorities to deescalate a trying, tension situation.

 

Instead, the report tells us that Bundy is a Republican. Seriously? How is the party affiliation relevant? The article never answers those questions, but instead, reports some of the most edited, and thus distorted, remarks yet:

“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.”

 

Wow! Controversial comments, to say the least. No wonder some Republican leaders are backing away from the guy.

 

But should they be so quick to distance themselves from editorialized remarks?

 

Bundy was not talking about all African-Americans.

 

He did point that they did not have much to do.

 

He denounced government subsidy, otherwise known as welfare. An African-American conservative activist, Star Parker, has denounced welfare, too. Is she racist?

 

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.

 

The cotton remark was really foolish. But does that make Bundy a racist?

 

Before liberals jump up and downed with feigned outrage, they need to explain this remark plus the Great Society welfare state which accompanied it:

 

"We'll have those n-ggers voting for us for the next two hundred years." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

 

Now, Bundy said "Negro". Outdated, but racist? Democratic President Johnson said "n-gger", patently offensive.

 

And to this day, the mainstream media refuses to call out the racist undercurrents of the LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty, both of which turned became the Great Failure and a War on (Minority) Prosperity.

 

When will the New York Times call out the dark vein of intolerance which defines the Democratic Party?

 

Back back to Bundy, and the political correctness mantra of the New York Times. . .

 

Speaking of Political Correctness, was it not the African-American neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson who denounced political correctness as very dangerous, because it prevents people from being able to talk to each other? By the way, Dr. Carson was the keynote speaker at the 2013 National Prayer breakfast, where a white US Senator from Alabama introduced him, and where the President of the United States, a man of mixed African-American heritage who went to Harvard and served as a state senator before becoming a US Senator himself, sat by and heard another African-American, one of the most distinguished neuro-surgeons in the country, if not the world, give a speech criticizing the President.

 

How far we have come in this country!

 

Once again, back to Bundy, the New York Times and the truth.

 

“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.”

 

This statement is inartful, to be kind. Slavery is slavery, and welfare is welfare. We should never confuse the two to make a point. More specifically, the focus needs to be about getting people off of welfare, no matter what color a person may be.

 

But does anyone really believe that Bundy advocates re-enslaving people? Anyone reading such outrageous inferences from that state should consider these remarks, contained in this YouTube clip, which contains the entirely of Bundy's remarks, not just what the New York Times thought was "fit to print":

 

... and so what I've testified to you -- I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don't have their freedoms, they didn't have these things, and they didn't have them.

 

For the record, what Bundy saw in 1965, Democratic California Governor Pat Brown only saw parts of (because he had been vacationing in Greece at the time). After Brown tried to quell the riots, he asked some of the black residents: "Don't you have enough welfare?" Really! Talk about the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

Then one of the black men the crowd shouted back: "We don't want welfare. We want jobs!"

 

How about that? Democrats were interested in keeping people dependent (Remember LBJ above), but a man, no matter what is color, does not want to be dependent.

 

Bundy's remarks continued:

 

We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don't want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

The New York Times reporter should have waited around to get the rest of the story, but didn't, since these revelations would have blasted away any hint of racism. "We have progressed" -- one would think that Progressives would esteem these developments, even coming out of the mouth of a white rancher in Nevada.

Here are some more comments from the "racist" Bundy:

Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there's 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.

Now all the comments make sense, with the full context provided.

Who wrote the slanted column for the New York Times, anyway?

ADAM NAGOURNEY

Perhaps more readers should contact him and ask why he left out all the remarks recognizing the accomplishments of different people in the United States.

 And because they were basically on government subsidy -- so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

 You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom -- they got less family life, and their happiness -- you could see it in their faces -- they wasn't happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips -- so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Then he talked about Mexican-Hispanic people, and his remarks are enlightened, not offensive at all:

 Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people -- and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

Not only is Bundy not racist, but he has called out much of the hollow talking points from the Democratic Party which has used  time and again to discredit anyone who stands up to Big Government.

The New York Times tried to smear a rancher in Nevada with the race card. What the paper has done instead is besmirch its already dirtied reputation as one more news organ trying to carry the Democratic-liberal-agenda to an audience jaded by the left-leaning bias.

Not "All the News that's Fit to Print" But
"Only the Propaganda that Fits a Dem-Lib-Fraud Agenda"