DONATE

Showing posts with label Cliven Bundy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cliven Bundy. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 26, 2018

FEDS WANT TO REVIVE CASE LOST BY 'OUTRAGEOUS' PROSECUTION

UN-FREAKING BELIEVABLE!

Many may already know this, but I just ran into this story after largely light blogging during Christmas. I just read a WND story that the U.S. Assistant Attorney in Nevada intends to appeal U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro’s dismissal of all charges against Cliven Bundy, his sons and supporters for the 2014 armed standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents.

Why were the charges dismissed?

BECAUSE the Federal Prosecutors “… conduct in the case as “outrageous” and “flagrant,” asserting prosecutors concealed evidence favorable to the defense.

President Trump needs to drain that Obama swamp in Nevada!

JRH 12/26/18
[Thanks to all who offered Christmas support in this Blogger’s laptop update. Your generosity is always appreciated: Please Support SlantRight 2.0 ]
********************
 

FEDS WANT TO REVIVE CASE LOST BY 'OUTRAGEOUS' PROSECUTION
Lawyer asks government if it will continue 'gross injustice' against Bundys

WND EXCLUSIVE
December 21, 2018

The federal government is preparing to appeal the dismissal of charges against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his sons and supporters for the 2014 armed standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents.

The Bundys faced charges of conspiracy, obstruction, threats and assault for squaring off with federal agents and contract cowboys enforcing court orders to round up the family’s cattle.

The case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro, who scolded the government’s conduct in the case as “outrageous” and “flagrant,” asserting prosecutors concealed evidence favorable to the defense.

The case was dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning the government is not allowed to retry the defendants regarding the standoff.

Now, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, has told WND that Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth White of the district of Nevada informed him the federal government has prepared an appeal brief.

Klayman said he asked for confirmation in a letter to the Justice Department solicitor general, Noel Francisco.

“In light of the history of this case and the gross injustice which has already been meted out against my client Cliven Bundy, his sons, and family by rogue Obama-era prosecutors,” Klayman wrote, the only reason for an appeal would be to cover up for “corrupt prosecutors.”

And he noted that the behavior of prosecutors in the case remains “under review” by the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General.

“It is time to allow my clients to go on with their lives and not continue to be persecuted by a Department of ‘Injustice,’ which rather than meting out justice, ‘circles the wagons’ to try to unethically and unlawfully protect its own,” he wrote.

Klayman included with the letter a lengthy statement by whistleblower Larry Wooten, a special agent with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management, who detailed alleged misconduct in the case.

His description begins: “I routinely observed, [in the case] and the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.”

Wooten said the issues he uncovered put “our agency and specific law enforcement supervisors in potential legal, civil, and administrative jeopardy.”

When he went to superiors, he found they either knew of the issues already or had “instigated the misconduct.”

He charges “gross mismanagement,” “abuse of authority,” violations of the merit system principles and “prohibited personnel practices.”

The standoff between federal agents and Bundy supporters stemmed from the government’s contention Bundy had been grazing his cattle on publicly owned land and was therefore responsible for substantial past fees. Klayman, among others, has insisted the prosecution of the Bundy family was politically motivated.

Bundy and his supporters contend the federal government has no authority over state lands.
______________________
© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.


About WND

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

WND has READ THE REST


Saturday, December 16, 2017

Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?


John R. Houk
© December 16, 2017

For decades the Bureau of Land Management (BLM Not to be confused with African-American racists pumping Black Lives Matter) has been utilizing bureaucratic rules and regulation (NOT CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION) to manipulate Western Ranchers use of their own land and/or Federal usurped land with excessive grazing fees to force Leftist Eco-Marxist agendas or protect Crony Capitalist agendas supported by the Left. Check out this BLM land grab assessment from the American Thinker in 2010:

The current practices of federal agencies provide a few clues. Although the only body authorized under the Constitution to buy or sell land for government purposes is Congress, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal agencies like the Forest Service have for several decades deprived private property owners of their land (and cattle) at below market prices. The land is then leased back to its owners for a yearly fee. Land that predates the BLM is simply confiscated by way of litigation [i]. 

In one such case, a rancher named Wally Klump contested the BLM's rights to his land owing to the fact that his ranch predated the BLM by one hundred years. When Klump refused to move, he was held in contempt and sent to federal prison. The result should come as no shock, since internal BLM documents reveal that humans are viewed as a "biological resource" for the purposes of "ecosystem management activities." ('Sustainable' Poverty: The Real Face of the Leftist Environmental Agenda; By John Griffing; American Thinker; 8/25/10)

Exposing a latent Marxism and Crony Capitalism inherent in the BLM goes a long way to explaining rancher hostility to this Federal Agency’s despotism toward private ownership and traditional grazing rights is so important.

The Bundy family organized a rancher stand-off against the BLM despotism which was aided none other than by the FBI (currently embroiled in Leftist cover-ups of Obama Administration probable crimes). Unsurprisingly, the Dems and Obama Justice Department have used the full resources of the Federal government to eradicate the Bundy family no doubt to make an example to other ranchers resisting BLM despotism.

The Obama DOJ faced a couple of problems.

First in the Bundy led Oregon stand-off trials, all the big dog defendants were acquitted by a jury with only minor convictions of other defendants. Immediately after Bundy exonerations in Oregon, the Feds arrested the Bundys and other rancher allies over their Bunkerville stand-off to protect the family cattle from BLM confiscation and slaughter because the Bundys refused to pay exorbitant grazing fees. The fee disagreement was an already much used BLM despotic tactic to force ranchers to conform to environmental and crony Capitalist rules and regulations.

The second problem for the Obama DOJ led persecution of the Bundys and their allies is that juries were acquitting minor participants, having hung juries or convictions again on minor (yet unfair) obstruction of justice violations.

And third, the Obama DOJ lost their Kemosabe ally in Obama’s Administration ending in January 2017 and the expected Leftist successor (Crooked Hillary) lost the November 2016 election.

For the Bundys, point three might be the most important. Obama originally set-up Daniel Bogden as the Federal Attorney General in Nevada. Bogden experienced some swamp draining by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. BHO appointed Bogden in 2009. Apparently Bogden’s replacement Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre is a part of the Bogden-Swamp. Federal Judge Gloria Navarro (an Obama Appointee) along with the rest  of the prosecution swamp have lost their Leftist political lifeline. This can be seen when Whistleblowers don’t fear Obamunist political reprisals.

Perhaps such is the case of Whistleblower BLM Investigator Larry Wooten. Wooten had put together an 18-page memo that explains how “the government employees engaged in a host of policy, ethical and legal violations” against the Bundy family before and during the Bunkerville stand-off in Nevada. The Bundy Defense Attorneys just recently saw this exculpatory evidence held back by the Prosecution. This sent the Obama appointed Federal Judge Gloria Navarro into enough of a tizzy that she sent the Jury home until she fully examined the memo.

I am willing to bet you have not read or heard a lick of this prosecutorial crisis from the Mainstream Media (MSM). Sadly, neither I have I run into any coverage by the still better disseminating Fox News channel.

I first heard of trial misconduct from a Tim Brown post in The Sons of Liberty Media under the title ‘After Prosecution “Missteps” in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? – Jury Sent Home, Will Be Called Back “If They Are Needed”’. That post is dated 12/13/17. After looking for other sources, I found the same Tim Brown post under the title “BUNDY PERSECUTION OVER? PROSECUTION MAKES BIG MISTAKE AT TRIAL, JURY DISMISSED” posted on 12/14/17 at Keep and Bear.

I enjoy reading Brown articles, yet I am certain Leftist too often dismiss him as a Far-Right Conspiracy Theorist. BUT SURPRISE dear Leftists, I have a couple of journalists from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and OregonLive.com. I am cross posting both even most of the info is repeated in both, there are tidbit differences that worth getting the full story. (azcentral.com has a decent post as well, but I find their website a bit difficult to scroll through: “Federal agent alleges U.S. misconduct, cover-up in Bundy Ranch trial”.)

JRH 12/16/17
***********************
Memo alleges government misconduct in Bunkerville standoff case

By Rachel Crosby
December 15, 2017 7:42 pm




The possibility of a mistrial in the Bunkerville standoff case was amplified this month after defense attorneys received a scathing memo outlining sweeping allegations of misconduct by federal investigators and prosecutors.

According to the 18-page memo, obtained late Thursday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal but first viewed last week by defense lawyers, the government employees engaged in a host of policy, ethical and legal violations.

The document, dated Nov. 27, was penned by Bureau of Land Management investigator Larry Wooten, who had been tasked with assessing how the agency handled the 2014 armed standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville. Wooten previously testified before the federal grand jury that returned indictments against the Bundys.

In his whistleblowing memo, which Wooten sent directly to the U.S. Department of Justice as a “last resort,” the investigator described pervasive misconduct by his fellow investigators, saying it reminded him of middle school. He argued that the behavior was so common and inappropriate that it could be “considered exculpatory and subject to trial discovery.”

Prosecutors handed over the memo last week, prompting defense lawyers to file a motion early Monday to dismiss the case, which already had been delayed a week over concerns that prosecutors were not sharing evidence with the defense in a timely manner. The memo is sealed and not part of the public court record.

Wooten said he repeatedly tried to report the allegations to his supervisors, who largely dismissed his observations. In February, Wooten was removed from the investigation after complaining to the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada, according to the memo.

In reference to the ongoing Bundy case, Wooten said investigators openly referred to the Bundys and their supporters using several different profanities and sexually inappropriate terms. In an office presentation, Wooten’s supervisor also included altered and degrading photos of the defendants, according to the memo.

‘Clear prejudice’

Wooten went on to accuse agency officers of bragging about roughing up Dave Bundy, one of Cliven’s sons, in April 2014, citing comments about the officers grinding Dave Bundy’s face into the ground so much so that Dave Bundy had “little bits of gravel stuck in his face,” Wooten said.

“The misconduct caused considerable disruption in our workplace, was discriminatory, harassing and showed clear prejudice against the defendants, their supporters and Mormons,” Wooten wrote, later adding that, on two occasions, his supervisor asked him, “You’re not a Mormon, are you?”

He added that, for a period of time, one of his supervisors “instigated” the monitoring of jail calls between the defendants and their wives “without prosecutor or FBI consent,” though he noted that Steve Myhre, Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney and the lead prosecutor on the case, quickly put a stop to the practice.

In the memo, Wooten also described misconduct separate from the Bundy case, which extended to “citizens, cooperators from other agencies and even our own employees.”

He added that supervisors openly talked about other employees’ mental health and often shared derogatory opinions of higher level supervisors, and he noted that he filed a separate formal complaint to the BLM in reference to those allegations.

In reference to when the U.S. attorney’s office had Wooten pulled from the case, Wooten said a supervisor subsequently violated his privacy by ransacking his office and by seizing case files, investigative notes and personal documents, including medical records. Those items have not been returned, he said.

“I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct, failure to correct and report, and cover-ups by (BLM) supervisors,” Wooten wrote.

Wooten went on to accuse Myhre, the case’s lead prosecutor, of relying on inaccurate talking points throughout his prosecution strategy and adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude in reference to BLM misconduct.

Wooten added that, prior to the investigation, he held Myhre “in the highest of regards,” but after Wooten’s attempts to report sweeping misconduct went unheard and got him kicked off the case, he now believes Myrhe is clouded by “extreme” personal bias and “a desire to win at all costs.”

“Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues and even likely covered up the misconduct,” Wooten wrote.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada declined to comment Friday.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro is expected to reconvene court at 8 a.m. Wednesday.

‘Totally unusual’ case

It remains unclear if the explosive memo provides the defense a clear path to a mistrial.

UNLV law professor Ruben Garcia, who teaches professional responsibility, said the allegations, if true, are possible ethical violations that the State Bar of Nevada may investigate.

But for the purpose of the pending trial, Garcia said the decision is up to the judge.

“She’ll have to decide what is worthy of a dismissal, based on her standards and federal criminal standards,” he said.

Veteran Las Vegas defense attorney Tom Pitaro said the more common approach in situations of late discovery is to grant the defense extra time to analyze the new evidence and adjust their strategy. But, he added, given the extensive allegations and applicable case law, “Who knows?”

“This case of course has become so unique — just totally unusual,” he told the Review-Journal on Friday.

The 2014 standoff came after a years long legal dispute over grazing fees. Cliven Bundy had long contested the fees, which had been imposed for his continued, illegal use of federal land for cattle grazing.

In response, federal agents began rounding up and impounding the rancher’s cattle, but stood down after Bundy and a group of armed supporters protested the roundup and forced a shutdown of Interstate 15, garnering national media attention. The charges Cliven Bundy and his sons currently face stem from the standoff.

“The purpose of this narrative is not to take up for or defend the actions of the subjects of this investigation,” Wooten noted in the memo. “This investigation further indicated that instead of Cliven Bundy properly using the court system or other avenues to properly address his grievances, he chose an illegal, uncivilized, and dangerous strategy in which a tragedy was narrowly and thankfully avoided.”

Contact Rachel Crosby at rcrosby@reviewjournal.com
Follow @rachelacrosby on Twitter.
+++++++++

Updated Dec 15, 11:11 PM; Posted Dec 15, 1:36 AM




A scathing memo from the lead investigator who assessed how federal officers handled the 2014 armed standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy accuses agents of far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family.

The 18-page document, obtained Thursday by The Oregonian/OregonLive, is dated Nov. 27.

Prosecutors shared it last week with defense lawyers for Bundy, his two sons and co-defendant Ryan Payne as they were in the midst of their conspiracy trial, but it's not part of the public court record.

The memo prompted Cliven Bundy's lawyer to file a motion early Monday to dismiss the case, already in disarray over concerns raised previously about the government's failure to promptly share evidence with the defense.

The judge sent the jury home for more than a week as she tries to sort out the claims and prosecutors scramble to save their case.

The memo comes from Larry Wooten, who had been the lead case agent and investigator for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management after the tense confrontation outside the patriarch's ranch near Bunkerville. Wooten also testified before a federal grand jury that returned indictments against the Bundys. He said he was removed from the investigation last February after he complained to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nevada.

Then last month he sent a whistleblower email to the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging a "widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff'' at the Bureau of Land Management's Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

Wooten wrote that supervisory agents with the bureau repeatedly mocked the defendants in an "amateurish carnival atmosphere'' that resembled something out of middle school, displayed "clear prejudice'' against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons, and prominently displayed degrading altered booking photos of Cliven Bundy and other defendants in a federal office and in an office presentation.

The memo described "heavy handedness'' by government officers as they prepared to impound Cliven Bundy's cattle. He said some officers "bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face.'' Dave Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy's sons, was arrested April 6, 2014, while videotaping men he suspected were federal agents near his father's ranch.

Wooten contends that supervisory agents failed to turn over required discovery evidence to the prosecution team that could help the defense or be used to question the credibility of a witness, as required by law.

The top agents also "instigated'' the monitoring of jail phone calls between defendants and their wives without consent from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the FBI, Wooten wrote, though the memo noted that Steven Myhre, Nevada's acting U.S. attorney who is leading the prosecution of the Bundys, stopped the practice.

Myhre couldn't be reached for comment late Thursday. On Friday morning, Trisha Young, a spokeswoman for the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office declined to comment.

Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Payne are accused of conspiring to block federal agents from enforcing court orders to confiscate family cattle on public land after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for years.

They're also accused of using or carrying a firearm in a crime of violence, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice and extortion. Their trial began Nov. 14 in Las Vegas.

Wooten accused Dan Love, the former special agent-in-charge of the cattle roundup for the Bureau of Land Management, of intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. Attorney's Office and his superiors "in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.'' He described Love as immune from discipline, though Love eventually was fired from the bureau for misconduct in an unrelated case.

Wooten said he learned from other agency supervisors that Love had a "Kill Book'' as a "trophy,'' in which he essentially bragged about "getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide,'' following a joint FBI-BLM investigation into the alleged trafficking of stolen artifacts.

Wooten said his supervisor took photos in a secure command post at FBI headquarters in Las Vegas of an "Arrest Tracking Wall,'' where photos of Cliven Bundy and co-defendant Eric Parker were marked with an "X'' over them, and emailed out the photos, although no photos were allowed to be taken in that area.

Wooten called prosecutors in the Bundy case and told Myhre and Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed, as well as FBI special agent Joel Willis, of his fears that his supervisors weren't sharing key witness statements with them.

On Feb. 16, Wooten said he asked Myhre if statements that Love made, such as "Go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle'' or "I need you to get the troops fired up to go get those cows and not take any crap from anyone'' would be considered evidence that must be shared with the defense. He said that Myhre replied, saying something like "we do now'' or "it is now.''

Two days later, Wooten said his supervisor took him off the investigation and another Bureau of Land Management agent confiscated files from his office and from a safe in his office.

The material included computer hard drives, collected emails, text messages, case notes and "lessons learned,'' Wooten wrote.

"These items were taken because they contained significant evidence of misconduct and items that would potentially embarrass BLM Law Enforcement Supervision,'' the memo said. "I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct.''

Wooten said his supervisor told him that Myhre "furiously demanded'' that he be removed and that Myhre had mentioned something about the bureau's failure to turn over all crucial evidence to his office.

Wooten noted that he was ordered not to contact the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office.

He said he believed Myhre "adopted an attitude of 'don't ask, don't tell''' or "preferred ignorance'' when it came to potential information from the federal land management agency that would have been helpful to the Bundy defense.

He also said prosecutors relied on inaccurate talking points, particularly not disclosing at previous trials the fact there were government snipers on surveillance outside the Bundy Ranch before the April 12, 2014, showdown.

"Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues,'' Wooten wrote.

Wooten said he had held Myhre in the highest regard, but believes his judgment is "clouded'' by personal bias and a "desire to win the case at all costs.''

Wooten, now working as a bureau agent in Idaho, sent the memo to an associate deputy U.S. attorney general who serves as the U.S. Department of Justice's national criminal discovery coordinator. He obtained the lawyer's contact information during a training by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boise, Idaho.

"I have tried to resolve these issues through my chain of command but I have failed,'' he wrote in the memo.

But he felt it was "his obligation'' to report his findings, describing his memo as a "last resort.''

He didn't return phone calls or messages Thursday night.

Cliven Bundy's lawyer Bret O. Whipple declined any comment on the memo, and would only describe the new information received as "quite a development,'' one he hadn't seen in his 20-plus years of legal work.

"In my mind, I think the case should be dismissed by next Tuesday,'' Whipple said. "I think I can get my client home for Christmas.''

"Not only did Mr. Myhre in my opinion not want to know or seek out evidence favorable to the accused, he and my supervisor discouraged the reporting of such issues,'' Wooten wrote.

Wooten said he had held Myhre in the highest regard, but believes his judgment is "clouded'' by personal bias and a "desire to win the case at all costs.''

Wooten, now working as a bureau agent in Idaho, sent the memo to an associate deputy U.S. attorney general who serves as the U.S. Department of Justice's national criminal discovery coordinator. He obtained the lawyer's contact information during a training by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boise, Idaho.

"I have tried to resolve these issues through my chain of command but I have failed,'' he wrote in the memo.

But he felt it was "his obligation'' to report his findings, describing his memo as a "last resort.''

He didn't return phone calls or messages Thursday night.

Cliven Bundy's lawyer Bret O. Whipple declined any comment on the memo, and would only describe the new information received as "quite a development,'' one he hadn't seen in his 20-plus years of legal work.

"In my mind, I think the case should be dismissed by next Tuesday,'' Whipple said. "I think I can get my client home for Christmas.''

-- Maxine Bernstein
_______________________
Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?
John R. Houk
© December 16, 2017
____________________
Memo alleges government misconduct in Bunkerville standoff case

Copyright © 2017 Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc.
____________________
BLM investigator alleges misconduct by feds in Bundy ranch standoff

© 2017 Oregon Live LLC. All rights reserved (About Us).


The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Oregon Live LLC. [Blog Editor: Yup, I didn’t get permission ergo if requested the Oregon Live cross post will be removed. Borough at your own risk.]

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations


John R. Houk
© August 24, 2017

After the Bundys and most of their fellow ranchers were acquitted over their protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge inspired by re-jailing unjustly of a couple Hammond family ranchers because an Obama Administration Federal Prosecutor felt the original time served was not severe enough, the Federal government was in Oregon to arrest them for the Bundy Ranch standoff that occurred prior to Malheur.

When you hear or read that Cliven Bundy’s fight to withstand the Bureau of Land Management (henceforth BLM, but not to be with another evil organization with the same acronym Black Lives Matter) was illegal and unconstitutional, then you have to realize you are not getting the entire story. There is some truth to the illegal claim, but Cliven chose to resist the law because bureaucratic rules enforced as Congressional was threatening his ranching business. Here’s a word picture that pro-prosecution people don’t want you to see:

A few facts about the Cliven Bundy and the BLM incident

For some time, the Bundy’s have owned cattle that have grazed in the Bunkerville, NV area.  Since his cattle grazed on federal land, he paid grazing fees to the federal government. In 1993, the local grazing rules changed when a number of things came together; the Desert tortoise became protected under the species act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that this was one of the areas critical to their long-term survival. Grazing rules were also changed in order to accommodate restoration needed from years of overgrazing and recent fires. These new rules would include Bundy having to reduce his number of cattle. Refusing to comply, he decided to “fire” the BLM, and stop paying grazing fees, while continuing to use federal lands for his cattle to graze. Not only did he not reduce his cattle count, but actually increased them over time.

As a result, Cliven Bundy’s cattle have been illegally grazing on federal land for 20 years. Over these 20 years, Cliven Bundy has racked up over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, and has actually expanded his cattle’s grazing further into federal lands.  He has been taken to court (and defeated) both in 1998 and 2013.


In response, several protesters (including armed militia members) gathered in defense of Bundy. The standoff came to an end when the BLM, citing safety concerns, decided to stand down.  Supporters of Bundy have of [sic] labeled this successful (and armed, as well as potentially violent) defense of Bundy’s illegal activity as a “win for freedom.” – Long article – READ ENTIRETY (Fact Check – The Bundy Ranch Cattle & The BLM; By Fact and Myth; 4/20/17)  

Juries are having a difficult time convicting the Bundys and their standoff supporters is because they understand bureaucracy wronged the Bundy Ranch private business and family livelihood in the name of Eco-Marxist rules NOT laws passed by Congress.

While I was Gab surfing I ran into a Onehope2016 post notifying readers that four on trial for participating in the Bundy Standoff had four acquittals from a jury. Two of those four received a combination Not Guilty and a hung jury on other charges. I was going to cross post Onehope2016’s link to a Hagmann Report which also linked to further info from The Republic/azcentral.com.

These guys had already endured two other hung juries. Today I find out the Federal Prosecutors – undoubtedly holdovers from the Obama swamp – are going to make the two that had a hung jury over some remaining charges, back to court at taxpayers’ expense.

Below is that report from azcentral.com.

Here is a link to the Review Journal that is a history Bundy Ranch trials and tribulations that begins with latest info but you can trace back to 2014. The Review Journal link makes an attempt at neutrality in reporting but I could tell there was a bit of support for the Federal Prosecutors.

JRH 8/24/17
****************
Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch standoff defendants for 3rd time

Aug. 23, 2017 Updated 4:28 p.m. MT

O. Scott Drexler and Eric Parker will be retried on lesser charges

Federal prosecutors who didn't succeed in the Bundy Ranch standoff trial will retry and retry again. 

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Las Vegas confirmed Wednesday it will go back to court for the third time in an attempt to convict two men accused of taking up arms against federal agents.

Less than 24 hours earlier, a jury had acquitted two standoff defendants and dismissed the most serious charges against two others. Now federal prosecutors say they will retry the men next month on outstanding weapons and assault charges.

The move pushes back the trials for 11 other defendants in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, including Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who have spent 18 months in prison while awaiting their court date.

O. Scott Drexler and Eric Parker, both of Idaho, were released from prison Tuesday night after a jury acquitted them of conspiracy and extortion, which were the key elements of the government's case.

But they found out Wednesday they have been ordered back to court Sept. 25 to face the charges on which the jury deadlocked.

"Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes," said Parker's lawyer, Jess Marchese. "It's clear at this point the prosecution is taking this personally now."

Marchese said Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre twice called Parker a coward during a court hearing Wednesday.

Marchese said it was unprofessional and unnecessary. "This is a business," he said. "And there's no need for emotion in a business."

Parker and Drexler face one count each of assaulting a federal officer and carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime. Parker faces two additional counts of using a firearm to threaten a federal officer.

Jurors twice reject government claims

Jurors dealt government prosecutors their second stinging defeat in the case when, after four days of deliberations, they returned no guilty verdicts against four defendants.

Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma and Steven Stewart of Idaho were acquitted on all counts and walked out of court Tuesday night free after spending 18 months in prison.

This marks the second time a jury failed to convict the defendants on charges related to the standoff, which pitted armed ranchers and militia members against Bureau of Land Management agents in a dusty wash below Interstate 15 about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.

A jury in April deadlocked on charges against the four men. It convicted two other defendants on multiple counts. But it could not agree on conspiracy charges against any of the six.

The men were being retried on conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction charges for helping rancher Cliven Bundy fend off a government roundup of his cattle in what became known as the Battle of Bunkerville.

The government launched its second prosecution last month. The case climaxed Aug. 11 when U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro abruptly ended court by ordering Parker off the stand and striking his testimony from the record as jurors watched.

The defendant was attempting to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from prosecutors. Navarro ruled Parker violated court orders by discussing prohibited topics. Parker returned to the defense table and started crying while Navarro dismissed the jurors.

Marchese said jurors told him Tuesday the incident was a factor in their verdicts. He said jurors were sympathetic to the defendants and their inability to mount a cogent defense in light of restrictions in talking about why they participated in the standoff and what they were thinking while they were there.

The case went to the jury Aug. 15 after lawyers for all four defendants waived closing arguments as part of a protest about court proceedings and restrictive legal rulings.

Judge's rulings limit defense

Navarro's rulings, aimed at trying to avoid jury nullification, severely limited defense arguments. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict based on its shared belief rather than on the evidence in a case.

Navarro barred defendants from discussing why they traveled thousands of miles to join protesters at the Bundy Ranch. She did not allow them to testify about perceived abuses by federal authorities during the cattle roundup that might have motivated them to participate.

Navarro also restricted defendants from raising constitutional arguments, or mounting any defense based on their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. In her rulings, Navarro said those were not applicable arguments in the case.

Federal officials did not face the same restrictions. To show defendants were part of a conspiracy, they referenced events that happened months, or years, after the standoff.

Federal prosecutors, led by Myhre, argued in court the case wasn't about the First or Second Amendments; that the Constitution doesn't give people the right to threaten federal officers.

They said the Bundys' dispute with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to round up the cattle. When ranchers and the militia conspired to force the release of the cattle, they broke the law, prosecutors argued.

Dozens of federal state and local law-enforcement officers testified in the retrial, saying they were outnumbered and outgunned in the wash and feared for their lives.

Jurors, however, heard from no defense witnesses. Drexler took the stand and delivered the only defense testimony jurors were allowed to consider.

He testified that even though he brought weapons to the standoff, he did not intend to threaten or assault law-enforcement officers.

Remaining defendants aimed weapons

All four defendants in the retrial admitted bringing guns to the standoff. But pictures of Parker and Drexler aiming their weapons went viral.
  
An image of Parker has come to epitomize the 2014 protest. He is pictured lying prone on an overpass and sighting a long rifle at BLM agents in the wash below. The image galvanized the public and brought international awareness to the feud over public lands and the potential consequences of such a dispute.

The Bundy Ranch standoff is one of the most high-profile land-use cases in modern Western history, pitting cattle ranchers, anti-government protesters and militia members against the Bureau of Land Management.

For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Hundreds of supporters from every state in the union, including members of several militia groups, converged on his ranch about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.

The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy cited their success at Bundy Ranch in their run-up to the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, also in protest of BLM policies. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon, Ryan and five others in October.

No arrests were made in the Bundy Ranch case until after the Oregon siege ended.

Last year, the government charged 19 people for their roles in the Nevada standoff. Two men took plea deals. Trials for the remaining defendants were broken into three tiers based on their alleged levels of culpability in the standoff.

Although defendants in the first trial and the retrial were considered the least culpable, all 17 defendants face the same charges. Those convicted could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

The second trial, which will include Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who are considered ringleaders, was supposed to start 30 days after the conclusion of the first trial. But the start date has been delayed because of the retrials.

Marchese said Wednesday the remaining 11 defendants remain incarcerated and the delays are wearing on them.

 "Those guys want their day in court," he said.

Parker plans on returning to Idaho and seeing his family.
"He wants to be a dad," Marchese said. "He wants to see his kids ... and to be a father."
________________
Supporting Bundys in Trials & Tribulations
John R. Houk
© August 24, 2017
_________________
Prosecutors to retry Bundy Ranch standoff defendants for 3rd time

© 2017 www.azcentral.com. All rights reserved.

About azcentral.com

azcentral.com is the Valley’s #1 site. The top local source for news and information, azcentral.com's experts deliver topics and insights residents care about like nobody else can. From breaking news, investigative journalism and community stories, to things to dosportspolitics and more, azcentral.com is where Arizona heads to stay connected.

azcentral.com tells the full story with in-depth videos and photo galleries, and is updated throughout the day with up-to-the-minute news. Top columns are also featured here, from local favorites that include Clay Thompson, E.J. Montini, Dan Bickley and Karina Bland.

In addition to 24/7 desktop and mobile access, enjoy more by downloading news and sports apps, the azcentral Fact Check app and more. Also featured is the e-Newspaper, an online edition of The Arizona Republic, and the ability to subscribe to more than 30 email newsletters, ranging from the top 5 daily headlines to things to do on the weekends. For those looking to make a purchase, azcentral.com includes thousands of listings from careerbuilder.com, cars.com and homefinder.com. Plus, subscribers can take advantage of exciting events, deals and extras found only with the azcentral Insider program.


As the Valley’s #1 website, azcentral.com is more than a destination for consumers – it’s the #1 advertising solution for Valley businesses. azcentral.com attracts more than three times the traffic of its nearest local competitor. Delivering unrivaled reach, audiences and engagement, plus multilayered digital capabilities to help advertisers, azcentral.com is the powerful digital solution every business needs.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism

Cliven Bundy 2
John R. Houk
© April 27, 2014

Last Thursday I was listening to a Kelly Files report on Fox News. Megyn Kelly was talking about a New York Times exposé on Cliven Bundy. The author of the NYT exposé was Adam Nagourney. The essence of what Nagourney wrote is that in an interview with Cliven Bundy is a racist old bigot proven by statements in Bundy’s own words.

Evidently Megyn had not had all the information to form a rebuttal to Nagourney. From memory it seemed Megyn – using an even-handed voice – was regretful that the hero of property rights and the public opinion against Federal government intrusion in appropriating private land or sovereign state land, made racist statements about Black-Americans. I would say public control, but we all know today that Obama and his cadre of Leftists in government does not view “public” as We the People, rather the Obama cadre system considers “public” the bailiwick of top to bottom control of the Federal government’s whim – even ignoring the Constitutional checks and balances of the U.S. Congress.

So at this point I kind of shut down on listening to any other reports on television news knowing that even if Nagourney’s information was refutable I probably would not hear. Even when everyone knows the NYT is an in-the-tank Leftist rag these days, its past reputation as an honest source of the news is rarely contested when a story is presented as fact rather than an editorial opinion.

In my mind I knew Cliven Bundy was an old legitimate western cowboy. I mean literally, he grew up punching cattle on a family ranch. You have to realize these guys have an individuality that brings to mind the old wild west of cowpokes on horseback riding the range. My grandfather passed away in his seventies in the 1990s. That means he would have about 20 years the seniors of Cliven Bundy who I believe is currently in his late 60s. God rest my grandpa’s soul, he was one of these old cowboys that worked both with horses and with sheep. A combination that would have been a bit contradictory professionally in the late 1880s and 1890s. Regardless of the time span I know from experience my gramps was an honest hard working man that worked seasonal jobs in his older age as a ranch hand or a sheep herder in which he worked in what was left of the open spaces. The thing about these old boys, rather they were hard living party cowboys or Church going cowpokes, they had a bit of a rough matter-of-fact demeanor.

Let me share a brief story about my grandpa in his last days when he lived in a Nursing Home. Every Sunday while he could get about we picked him up from the Nursing Home for a day at Church and either a home cooked meal or day of lunch at a restaurant.

One of those days we went to Church as usual. We stood during worship singing good old fashioned combo Charismatic-Pentecostal songs with a few contemporary worship tunes thrown in. We sat down and listened to the sermon. I have to be I do have a memory that the Pastor’s sermon was inspiring but I do not recall at this time what it was about. But this one thing I do remember. After we were dismissed from the Service by the Pastor my grandpa did his half-step walking thing with his cane to grab the Pastor as he was walking by to do the traditional pastoral well-wishing at the door. My grandpa got our Pastor’s attention because he wanted to say a few brief words. And trust me – they were brief.  My grandpa had his big whiskered smile on his and reached to shake the Pastor’s hand and said this to him:

“That was the best g*d d**n service I’ve ever heard!”

Check it out! Even today I can’t bring myself to spell out the words.

As the words left my grandpa’s lips to my ears, I was standing directly behind him with my draw dropped and my hands covering my eyes and head while it was shaking. I was incredulous even though I suspected something down to cowboy earth would escape his vocal cords. I dreaded the response of our Pastor.

Pastor raised his eyes with a twinkle in them and looked directly into my grandpa’s and with mirth in his voice replied to my grandpa, “Why thank you” - followed by a heartfelt chuckle and a firm handshake.

My Pastor with much welcome on my part defused a frightful situation for me. But you know, that was the kind of well-meaning sincerity without thought of circumstantial consequences for political correctness that was my old cowboy grandpa.

When old cowboys like Cliven Bundy or my grandfather say something like “negroes” instead of more politically correct Black-Americans or Afro-Americans. My grandpa was not as so-much a Church-going man like Cliven Bundy. If the NYT would have talked to my grandpa they would have heard a term pertaining to Black Americans that is considered heinous hate-speech today, but in the days of my grandpa’s youth would not have been among his peers to be a racist word. Just like I can’t spell out the complimentary profanity my grandpa used toward my Pastor, also I am not going to write the Black American word that is considered – and well should be – hate-speech today. I guarantee my grandpa would not have intended the offensive word to be racist any more than I believe that Cliven Bundy’s expression that perhaps negroes were better off in slavery than the slave-dependence of government welfare today. Indeed, I have heard respected Conservative pundits say the same thing but with much more eloquent terms.

Anyway, I have since learned that the NYT and Adam Nagourney actually edited the Bundy interview to show Bundy in the most racist light possible. I have discovered that Leftists like the NYT purposefully smeared the ineloquent words of Cliven Bundy and his old cowboy thoughts that not up to date to 21st century pc language that is more cognizant of what is hurtful and what is proper in a social setting.

I have three different stories below that expose the NYT and Media Matters exposé as Left Wing propaganda meant to show Cliven Bundy in the worst possible light and disarm sympathetic American voters from expressing derision against Federal government Big Brother overreach.

There are two WND articles below. The first WND article has a Bundy Peter Schiff interview. In the second WND article has two videos of Cliven Bundy making his controversial remarks about Blacks and Mexicans at the end: the first video is an unedited that the NYT and Media Matters did not want you to see and the second is the edited version that is being used to smear Bundy. (The Schiff-Bundy interview and the edited and unedited WND videos are not Youtube videos so I am not posting those.) Then last I have an Infowars.com article that has the Youtube version of the unedited version of the Bundy remarks and then Infowars.com places the edited parts in bold print to see the actual context Cliven Bundy was saying.

JRH 4/27/14
*****************************
BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST
Contends rancher talking about harm to African-Americans by 'leftist socialism'
April 24, 2014

A prominent black leader is coming to the defense of embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was pilloried on Thursday after the New York Times published a quote by him referencing slavery.
“He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks,” said former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who also is a columnist for WND.

The New York Times, in a report by Adam Nagourney, said Bundy, in a daily meeting Saturday with reporters and photographers covering his case, made the comments that critics are calling racist.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Nagourney quoted Bundy saying.

Bundy was recalling public housing projects 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,” he said.

“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 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.”

Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, told WND that the quotes were taken out of context and that his father was commiserating over the poor situation in which blacks find themselves because of oppressive government programs, regulations and practices.

Keyes said that was evident.

“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”


Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.

“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.

“Now it’s racist to point it out.”

Ammon Bundy told WND: “They took what they wanted. They knew when they were there his comments were not racist. He wasn’t able to completely articulate. That’s just my dad. He is a very principled person.

He said he was “there standing right beside my father when he made those comments.”

“He was reaching out to the black community,” Ammon Bundy said.

“Growing up around him, and being beside him, I never once heard him say anything negative about any race,” he said. “I wish I could say that about everyone else I’ve been around. The black community, the white community, they joke back and forth. My father’s never lowered himself.”

Ammon Bundy said his father’s message “was taken out of context.”

The point was that the government “has kept them oppressed,” he said. “They’ve never been given a situation to be able to thrive, get themselves out of slavery.”


“That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”

Video-Audio: Peter Schiff interviewing Cliven Bundy


Bundy, 67, has been in the headlines over the past few weeks for his defiance of the federal government’s demand that he pay grazing fees. The federal Bureau of Land Management responded with an operation to confiscate and sell off his cattle.

Bundy claims that since his ranch operation, run by his family for more than 100 years, was grazing cattle before the BLM existed, his fees should be paid to the state, not Washington. More than 1,000 supporters, including armed militia members, joined Bundy at his ranch in a standoff with federal agents.

The federal agents backed down April 12, released the cattle and left the area.

WND reported just days ago Cliven Bundy’s interview with radio talk show host Dianne Linderman on the nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show.

On Easter Sunday, he said he respects the federal government, pledging allegiance to the flag.

“But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that,” he said.

“I don’t stand alone,” he continued, “I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”
_________________________________
BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT

4/25/14

First of all, let me begin by making an apology to Cliven Bundy.

In a slapdash column yesterday, I gave the New York Times more credit and credibility than it deserved.

I assumed, inappropriately and incorrectly, that the former newspaper of record had actually recounted the words of the Nevada rancher accurately and in context, given that there was an actual recording of the comments.

I was wrong.

After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.

To say the New York Times bent over backwards to make Bundy look like an unregenerate bigot would be an understatement. I suggest you view the video for yourself at the end of this column. Does he seem like a hater to you? Or does he actually sound like a man with compassion for blacks who have been systematically abused by a new plantation mentality imposed by government dependence?

I did get one thing right, however. I explained it wasn’t really Bundy the New York Times was out to get. It was his supporters – especially elected officials who denounced the heavy-handed and militaristic way the Bureau of Land Management went after Bundy and his family.

It’s called guilt by association – something “progressives” formerly denounced. But, in this case, there was nothing to feel guilty about, because Bundy didn’t say anything racist.

Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.


For those of you untrained in the tactical and strategic arts of the totalitarian left, let me explain that terminology. “United front” has special meaning to only one group – communists. If you doubt what I, a former commie, have to say about it, just Google the term. See for yourself. What Harry Reid’s use of this term suggests is the left considers Cliven Bundy and all those rallying around his cause to be the most important target of the day. The “progressives” are apoplectic about this showdown in the desert. After all, they are supposed to be the champions of hardworking people. The government is supposed to be the friend and savior of working people. Yet, what Cliven Bundy has done, using “progressive” terminology, is to “heighten the contradictions” of socialist reality.

Therefore, as the left often concludes in such cases, he must be destroyed.

That’s why Harry Reid calls him a “domestic terrorist.” That’s why Harry Reid calls for a “united front” against this simple, seemingly powerless rancher. That’s why Harry Reid strangely said after the standoff in the desert was defused, “It’s not over.”

The left has big plans for Cliven Bundy.

The left sees Bundy as a real threat.

And I suspect that’s why the official mouthpiece of the establishment left – the New York Times – jeopardized what’s left of its own reputation by misconstruing and misrepresenting Bundy’s remarks.

He’s that dangerous!

That’s why it was so important to demonize him as a “racist.” They want to use him as a dividing point: Line up behind the “racist” or against him. That’s the strategy – even though race is not even an issue in the controversy Bundy started by merely doing what his family has been doing in the Nevada desert for over 100 years.

Do you get it?

He’s a symbol. For some of us he’s a symbol of a fight against encroaching tyranny. For others he’s a symbol of resistance to achieving their socialist panacea.

It’s the old divide-and-conquer strategy.

They can’t win with the facts, with reality, with truth. So they need to create a fog to obscure what’s really taking place on the ground.

Unedited video of Cliven Bundy:

Edited video of Cliven Bundy:

__________________________________
Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments

By Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 25, 2014

The controversy over Cliven Bundy’s “racist” remarks has taken a new turn after longer unedited footage emerged showing the Nevada cattle rancher making pro-black and pro-Mexican comments that were excised out of media reports.


[Blog Editor: I included the below information from Youtube that was not a part of the Infowars.com news story.]

Posted by Allen Gwinn
Published: Apr 24, 2014 8:29 am
**** UPDATED "PRE" REMARKS: http://youtu.be/v6xjGPmAckg
**** CNN soundbite version: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
Several comments here point out earlier remarks made by Bundy and claim these are taken out of context. In the interest of fairness, the above is a followup video of those remarks.

Full version of race remarks made by Bundy that have generated some controversy. If you're looking for a more hacked-up soundbite version that makes him look more like a racist, you might want to check out what CNN did to him at the link (above)

The full clip illustrates how the original New York Times report edited out statements made by Bundy both before and after his supposedly “racist” remarks, which when taken in their full context actually constitute a pro-minority position. Media Matters also cut out these crucial comments from their YouTube upload of Bundy’s remarks.

Bundy’s full comments are reprinted below, with the parts not printed by the New York Times and other media outlets highlighted in bold.

…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and 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 the 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.

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 was 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 the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

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, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

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 structure 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.

While Bundy’s use of terms such as “negro,” “colored people” and references to picking cotton are undoubtedly politically incorrect (though not unsurprising for a 67-year-old farmer), when taken in its full context, his argument is actually anti-racist in that it laments the plight of black families who have been caught in the trap of dependency on government.

The comments that were also vehemently pro-Mexican were not included in any of the mainstream reports which smeared Bundy as a racist.

“What’s more sad than the refusal to openly discuss the issues – is how quickly the conservative right is willing to throw Bundy to the wolves based solely on the New York Times and Media Matters opinion,” writes the Conservative Treehouse blog, noting that Bundy’s comments are no more controversial than those made by Shirley Sherrod, who was staunchly defended by leftists.

While Bundy’s remarks have been spun as a racist call for a return to slavery, he is clearly using references to slavery only to make a point that blacks are no better off living under the economic slavery of the welfare state.

Furthermore, Bundy’s argument that, “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail,” is clearly directed at the government’s treatment of black people and is therefore a defense of and not an attack on black Americans.

“It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse,” writes Jack Flash. “And he’s not blaming blacks for the issues of abortions, and crime and broken families, he’s blaming the Feds. This is the exact opposite of a racist, this is an advocate for the welfare and best interests of blacks. Racist? Why is he praising Mexicans as better than whites, if he’s some sort of white supremacist racist?”
__________________________________
Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism
John R. Houk
© April 27, 2014
________________________________
BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST

BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com._________________________________
Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

© 2013 Infowars.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved