Tweet
I've generally avoided wading into the whole Bundy ranch thing, mostly because I considered everyone involved to be in the wrong. Yes, Clive Bundy has a grievance, but probably not a very valid one. He claims now that the lands in question were/are owned by his family and his ancestry. Unfortunately for him, he was singing a different tune twenty years ago when he was paying grazing fees to BLM. So he sort of blows his own claim out of the water with that one.
He has sought remedies through the courts, and repeatedly has lost. I can appreciate that frustration, but someone loses in almost all court cases, and that means that someone has to buck up and deal with it when that happens.
At the same time, sending a bunch of heavily-armed thugs down there to round up (and kill and/or mistreat) a bunch of cattle is definitely NOT the way to remedy the situation from the government's standpoint. They could far more easily have simply attached his bank accounts and the like to get their payment. What the BLM did was completely out of line. Plus, it was some exceptionally bad optics, even for a federal government that doesn't seem to even know the meaning of the word.
Ouch.
And then there's the people who went out there and basically took up arms against the BLM. These people didn't bother checking their facts to find out about Bundy; they just ran out there shouting "freedom!" without knowing the real circumstance. They, frankly, just look like fools.
So, nobody is really in the right here. Bundy is wrong. The BLM is wrong. Bundy's supporters (the ones who are out there pointing their guns over a wall) are wrong. The thugs hired by the BLM to round up cattle are wrong. Harry Reid is wrong. The enviroweenies claiming that the desert tortoise is going to be killed by cattle are wrong. Everybody. All of 'em are wrong.
And then Bundy goes off and says this:
Sadly enough, what he says is not really inaccurate. He just found about the worst way possible to describe it.
He has sought remedies through the courts, and repeatedly has lost. I can appreciate that frustration, but someone loses in almost all court cases, and that means that someone has to buck up and deal with it when that happens.
At the same time, sending a bunch of heavily-armed thugs down there to round up (and kill and/or mistreat) a bunch of cattle is definitely NOT the way to remedy the situation from the government's standpoint. They could far more easily have simply attached his bank accounts and the like to get their payment. What the BLM did was completely out of line. Plus, it was some exceptionally bad optics, even for a federal government that doesn't seem to even know the meaning of the word.
Ouch.
And then there's the people who went out there and basically took up arms against the BLM. These people didn't bother checking their facts to find out about Bundy; they just ran out there shouting "freedom!" without knowing the real circumstance. They, frankly, just look like fools.
So, nobody is really in the right here. Bundy is wrong. The BLM is wrong. Bundy's supporters (the ones who are out there pointing their guns over a wall) are wrong. The thugs hired by the BLM to round up cattle are wrong. Harry Reid is wrong. The enviroweenies claiming that the desert tortoise is going to be killed by cattle are wrong. Everybody. All of 'em are wrong.
And then Bundy goes off and says this:
“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.â€
“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.â€
Sadly enough, what he says is not really inaccurate. He just found about the worst way possible to describe it.
Comment