Sadly, By Extolling A Treasonous Rebel Rat, John Kelly Shows He Lacks Any Honor

"Today the racist tribe is once again as paranoid and angry as it was before the Civil War. As they did then, they are cheating and lying constantly, from blatantly suppressing the vote to violating democratic norms and rules to using every lever of institutional machinery to preserve their power, such as their stunning refusal to consider a Supreme Court justice named by a president of the opposing party.

As we've seen, this isn't new. But it's as dangerous as it's ever been. The country isn't going to physically break in two this time, and the issues around racism and modernism are more diffuse. It's a different nation and a different world. But the stakes are actually much higher."   - Heather Digby Parton in salon.com 'John Kelly's Ignorance and the Dark Legacy of the Civil War'.

I already, in a previous post,  exposed John Kelly as the Trump bitch he really is, i.e.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/10/kelly-proves-hes-trumps-bitch-like.html

This was  after his performance a  couple of weeks ago,  falsely making claims about black congresswoman Frederica Wilson.This SOB has now revealed his true disgusting colors, not only as Dotard's little bitch in refusing to apologize for his calumny,  but now going on the air for the rightwing freak Laura Ingraham to babble bunkum on the cause of the Civil War.

For those who missed it Kelly was the guest for the premiere of Laura Ingraham’s new show on the Fox (as in "FAUX") News Channel on Monday night.  It was the perfect opportunity for this racist asshole to once more demagogue his  gibberish on national TV (albeit TV for the Gooprs and fake news addicts).

Kelly was asked about the decision of a church in Alexandria, Va., to remove plaques honoring George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Recall that earlier, I noted the mayor of New Orleans had properly removed the statue of Robert E. Lee from Lee Circle there, e.g.


I  already expressed my objection to the Johnny Reb nonsense spouted by a woman (Diana Belles) writing in our local Colorado Springs Independent.  Belles defended Southern monuments, stating the attacks on the Rebel flag and monuments were  “dragging Confederates through a cesspool of misinformation”,    I wrote a reply which was published a week later;  That reply can be read at this link:

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/reader-what-civil-war-history-did-you-study/Content?oid=5869315

 I have not changed from that viewpoint one iota, and view the display of both Confederate flag and Nazi swastika as wrong headed attributions to defeated tyrannies and evil systems. And believe me, I don't use the word "evil" loosely.  In this case I mean  the subjugation  of large populations - viewed as "inferior"  by an entrenched and illegitimate government -  and their systematic degradation and elimination.  This was done via chattel slavery in the Confederacy and via concentration camps and gas chambers in Nazi Germany.

.

The Confederate battle flag, like the Nazi swastika, is the emblem of hateful aggressive losers. After the Civil War, given the South lost, all its paraphernalia including flags and monuments ought to have been  interred at landfills or retired  to museums (like swastikas in Germany). Instead they had found their way to rise above state capitols, such as in South Carolina and Mississippi, or in church yards like in Alexandria, VA.   

As of August 2016, there were  1,503 public commemorations of the Confederacy, even excluding the battlefields and cemeteries: 718 monuments and statutes still stood, and 109 public schools, 80 counties and cities, and 10 U.S. military bases bore the names of Lee, Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate icons, according to a tally by the Southern Poverty Law Center

Anyway,  the clueless dolt Kelly responded to Ingraham's query thusly:

"I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man.  He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it’s different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.”

First, this bullshit shows how little Kelly knows about Lee, the  "honorable man",  who once demanded a slave be properly flogged for impudence to the slave owner. This included having brine poured into the open wounds  afterward.   What few may know is that Lee actually - by his leading the rebellion - had more Americans killed than Hitler did in WWII. While earlier I'd only suspected Kelly was a racist, Johnny Reb sympathizer and slime ball (by his dismissive, hateful swill about Ms. Wilson),  this latest spiel  on FOX proves it - at least to me. 

Second, rather than seeing him as Trump's "minder", I now see him as perfectly matched to the Swine-in -chief. "Two peas in a pod", if you will, or better, two hogs in a pig pen.  Maybe the filth of the bigger swine rubbed off on the lesser one.  For all intents, Kelly has now effectively become Dotard's doppelganger.

Third, one is prompted to recommend this pompous  idiot go back to school to take some real Civil War history classes, such as I recommended to Ms. Belles.

According to History professor Stephanie McCurry, based at Columbia University and author of “Confederate Reckoning: Politics and Power in the Civil War South.”

“It’s the Jim Crow version of the causes of the Civil War. I mean, it tracks all of the major talking points of this pro-Confederate view of the Civil War.”

In other words, Kelly is just another unreconstructed Johnny Reb. No better than the other defenders of this loathsome historical pustule - including  Nevada rancher and scofflaw Cliven Bundy. Recall Bundy's infamous words back in April,  2014:

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  and doin' things or are they better off under government subsidies ? They didn't get no more freedom they got less freedom"

Incredibly, Kelly went even farther with his comments, actually appearing to defend treason which is what Southern secession really was. Kelly made several specious points. 1) That Lee was honorable. 2) That fighting for state  (i.e. the secessionist traitors) was more important than fighting for country. 3) That a lack of compromise led to the war and 4)  That good people on both sides were fighting for conscientious reasons.

Bunkum item (4) ought to ring a loud bell, echoing Trump's claim back in August - after the Charlottsville mayhem  - that there were "fine people on both sides":  the Nazi side carrying their torches and swastikas, and the anti-Nazi protesters' side.

Both McCurry and David Blight, a history professor at Yale University and author of “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory,” broadly rejected all of Kelly's codswallop.

According to Prof. Blight:

"This is profound ignorance, that’s what one has to say first, at least of pretty basic things about the American historical narrative,” Blight said. “I mean, it’s one thing to hear it from Trump, who, let’s be honest, just really doesn’t know any history and has demonstrated it over and over and over. But General Kelly has a long history in the American military.”

SO what's Kelly's excuse? Is there any way one can be generous in one's interpretation of Kelly's latest gig?  I see only two ways: 1) Kelly has Alzheimer's disease  or some other variant  of dementia. Then his fractious performances - both after his ugly remarks on Ms. Wilson and now his defense of the indefensible -   are manifest symptoms. 

Or (2) : Trump insisted he go on and adhere to a specific script under some serious threat. We don't know what that threat might be. 

Failing those options, one is left only to conclude that: a) Kelly  a know nothing like Trump, especially on American history, or b) his proximity to Trump has contaminated him right down to his essence.   There's very little else one can conclude because there aren't enough real excuses for a former military guy to know so damned little!

For example, the idea that compromise might have been possible was rejected out of hand by both McCurry and Blight.  As Blight facetiously asked :

“It was not about slavery, it was about honorable men fighting for honorable causes?”

Then answering his question in a WaPo interview:

“Well, what was the cause? . . . In 1861, they were very clear on what the causes of the war were. The reason there was no compromise possible was that people in the country could not agree over the wisdom of the continued and expanding enslavement of millions of African Americans.”

Also, Kelly appears to forget his American History that there were actually  a number of compromises on slavery that led up to the Civil War, from the drafting of the Constitution to the addition of new states to the Union.   It is particularly disturbing he couldn't reference the Crittenden Compromise,  e.g.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

Prof. Blight explained:

“Any serious person who knows anything about this can look at the late 1850s and then the secession crisis and know that they tried all kinds of compromise measures during the secession winter, and nothing worked. Nothing was viable.”

One thing we can all conclude from this latest deplorable episode is that Kelly isn't fit to stand watch over a dog kennel, far less mind President Dotard.  He also lacks any sense of honor as well as intelligence.

If Kelly is all we have standing between us and Trump grabbing the nuclear football, then God (or the Force) help us all.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/08/yes-all-confederate-monuments-need-to.html

 

A Right Rough Week For The Righties So Far

Two of the right wing clowns who've been involved in an armed standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Well, it's been a rough week for the Right wing nuts so far. It started with a Texas grand jury - if you can believe it - issuing  a decision Monday to clear Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and instead indict two wacko activists associated with the loopy bunch known as the "Center for Medical Progress" - which ought to actually be known as the "Center for Medical Regression".

To remind readers, these assholes entered a California PP clinic under false pretenses and with fake IDs (California fake drivers' licenses - a felony), as well as using the fake licenses to steal a woman's identity (ID theft -another felony) to get access into closed medical conferences. They then made assorted videos which they submitted to fictitious editing and released them to try to prove fetal tissue from abortions was being sold by Planned Parenthood.   The TX grand jury wasn't buying their appeal to righteousness and instead indicted the pair.

The worst thing is that this foul play not only angered the usual hysterics in the Repuke Party but also likely incited a right wing terrorist to kill three here in Colorado Springs, in an attack on Planned Parenthood, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/five-hours-of-terror-in-colorado-springs.html

The grand jury basically agreed with Planned Parenthood that it broke no laws and that the illegally obtained videos were edited to be deliberately misleading. Worse, for the activists of the Right, they face even more challenges and lawsuits according to a WSJ piece ('Group Behind Videos Faces Challenges', Jan. 27, p. A3). These include a lawsuit filed in San Francisco by Planned Parenthood which mirrors the charges made in the Texas grand jury case - including violating non-disclosure agreements by secretly videotaping conversations at PP sites.

Then, in Oregon,  the fake wackadoodle patriots led by the spawn of Cliven Bundy - Ammon and Ryan- had their little occupation of Malheur Wildlife Refuge disrupted after they were busted by local cops - ending in a shootout. The Oregon cops had orders to grab these miscreants, on their way to a community event,  but the 'reckless militiamen' (including one woman) decided to try to fight their way out and paid with 2 getting shot,  one killed (Lavoy Finicum). To hear the Repuke candidates (like Marco Rubio) screeching you'd think it was a bunch of actual patriots getting whacked as opposed to poseurs and pretenders.

As Bill Maher noted in his last 'Real Time' episode:

"How tough can you rugged individualists be when the first thing you did after storming the rest stop was to post an appeal online for supplies? A shopping list, really, that included such items as throw rugs, shampoo, foot warmers, and French vanilla coffee creamer. What, no scrunchies so you can braid each other’s hair?”

As the audience howled, Maher went on with another jab at these mock patriots:

"The reality is,  if these idiots were all that “ready to die, we’ve had a few wars they could choose from. You can go fight ISIS, ’cause what you’re doing isn’t saving the republic, It’s more like when you’re a kid and you run away from home by hiding in the backyard.”

Meanwhile, after the altercation, 40 or so high tailed it back to their digs, despite Ammon telling them to give it up. But these knuckleheads are too dumb for that and probably now will await the FBI, ATF and even National Guard dragging their sorry asses out.  In any case, they're squatting on  native American land. It's not theirs.  As The Economist also put it in a recent piece ('They the People', January 9, p. 24):

"Any private claim to personify the 'We' in the constitution's 'We the People' is ominous. In the case of the Bundys and their sort, it is also spurious an not only because locals in Oregon want to be rid of them. Other citizens - including hikers and tourists - also have claims to the public domain. So, for all the ranchers' rage, do other species ...

Gung -ho individualism is only compatible with egalitarianism when resources are infinite and the individuals are few."

A good point also - that last line - for the economist morons who keep chirping how we need "more people" for economic growth and life quality.

In the end, Martin Wolf - in his article in The Financial Times ('The Economic Losers Are In Revolt Against The Elites') may be correct when he attributes all this nativist fanaticism of the Right to phony (e.g. elitist) populists like Trump. Those who seek political advantage by stirring the embers of grievance and victimization, because 'them furriners got more than us'.

As Wolf reminds us, most of this white male (mainly) grievance commenced with the 'Southern strategy' of Richard Nixon, who deliberately fed the fires of hatred by exploiting lower middle class and working class white "rage over racial, gender and cultural rage"  - now bearing a bitter fruit.

Speaking of Trump, the final element of the Right's misery trifecta  this week was his refusing to appear on the Republican FOX debate stage tonight. Evidently, it's true that the ferocity of FOX moderator Megyn Kelly  really does terrify the Donna. I mean, after she hosed him good in the original debate, one could understand why the Donna would not wish to go toe to toe with Megyn again.

Meanwhile, the WSJ's Holman W. Jenkins in his column yesterday pointedly asked:

"Why vote for Trump? He's adopted positions on abortion and gun control that nobody believes."

But one wonders, if the Donna can't face Megyn Kelly how would be able to stand up to Hillary if she's the Dem candidate, or Vladimir Putin if (god forbid) he somehow gets enough morons to vote for him? And why would anyone waste a vote on 'Donna' if no one believes his positions? Inquiring minds want to know!

Time will tell.

Gavin McInnes : Another FOX- Turd To Flush After Attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson

Let me say that one of the signs of a nation in distress and meltdown mode insanity is the inability to appreciate irony.  This is especially so in the media, and need I emphasize before launching into my jeremiad that FOX - the Murdoch channel- has been the beneficiary of airing COSMOS with Neil deGrasse Tyson mainly thanks to the effort of Seth MacFarlane. Murdoch and the FOXites ought to be celebrating the proud accomplishment of having someone like Tyson featured on a premier show that has gained much acclaim - while adding megabytes of badly needed insight and knowledge to the overly parochial American cranium.

So why on Earth would the same network feature a congenital asshole for a guest, who dumps all over Cosmos and its host?  I am referring to Gavin McInnes  who on Tuesday night, spewed a hateful rant about  Neil deGrasse Tyson. McInnes, btw has a sordid history of racist, homophobic and misogynistic comments. So his knuckle-dragging preceded him right into a FOX News segment in which he tried to pick apart an interview of Tyson done by  MSNBC 'ALL IN' host Chris Hayes.

 In the interview, which I have seen and remains on my DVR list,  Tyson joked about his “greatest fear” being that intelligent life would steer clear of making contact with Earth because of the signals we unwittingly put out into space — including past TV and radio programs. Interestingly, this could pass for the corollary of  a point I made more than 36 years ago in an article ('We Are Not Alone' ) published in the Barbados NATION, e.g.


 Therein I suggested that if humans had any residual smarts at all they would take care to conceal their radio presence rather than announce it, because "too many of our species are still too stupid, too regressed."

Anyway, after playing a clip of the interview, FOX host Greg Gutfeld started the Tyson bashing. Again, let's bear in mind that 'COSMOS' airs on the FOX network.
.
“I don’t know what’s worse: him ragging on some classic American television, or Christopher Hayes laughing, giggling, chortling over really bad jokes,”


Which, if anyone actually watches the Hayes' interview, will see that Gutfield's take is largely based on an over active imagination - because I didn't see any "giggling, laughing or chortling". I did see a brief chuckle, but any sentient person watching with more than two neurons would have reacted the same way.

 And then, as we've seen before, there is the qualifications and credentials mocking. Note here that the Fox homer Gutfeld likely couldn't even pass a basic college physics course (not even the calculus variety) and yet he has the chutzpah to question Tyson as an astrophysicist, chirping:

"Astrophysicist — yeah right!”


This dismissal directed at a man who has degrees from Harvard (B.A. Physics), the University of Texas (M.A. Astrophysics) and Columbia (Ph.D. Astrophysics) and currently runs the Hayden Planetarium.

Gutfeld then turned to McInnes, a member of the panel, for his opinion. What burped out of his mouth was less opinion and more flatus:

“I hate this guy!I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”

Huh?!  As your supremo example of a "white, liberal nerd" let me correct this imbecile by noting that I have had my major differences with Tyson and have expressed them from time to time on this blog, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-too-much-time.html

And I also criticized him for giving way too much slack to creationists in one interview, noting (March 23):

"This (creationist equal time) kerfuffle seemingly has even driven Neil deGrasse Tyson into making capitulatory statements which Carl Sagan never would have volunteered in a million years. On WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show, Tyson said that there are "plenty of scientists who pray to a god, and are fully functioning” because they "don’t use religious text as scientific evidence."

 This marks a valiant effort to placate the fundies, but alas is disingenuous. There are not "plenty of scientists who pray to any god". Pew Religious Forum surveys conducted since 2000 have in fact shown that the majority (60-70 percent) of physical scientists are atheistic or at least agnostic. They acknowledge no personal deity. And hence, Tyson didn't have to offer this palliative at all.   Yes, I have known a few who are religious, and it is true they don't invoke their religion to advance their science. But on the other hand, I am aware of those who have, because it's allowed them to get gigs they otherwise  couldn't  - because of too much competition in the mainstream.  Hence, they instead carved out a creationist 'niche' and were accepted by one creationist (or ID) outfit or another, whether Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, The Creation Science Institute or whatever.

Tyson also went on to state:

"The issue there is not religion versus non-religion, or religion versus science. The issue is ideas that are different versus dogma."

This is a noble effort to be diplomatic but it simply doesn't work, doesn't compute. Science - based on naturalism and Materialism - is counterpoised to ANY system based on supernaturalism. It's like trying to mix oil and water. It is a fool's errand."

In other words, I certainly don't agree with everything Tyson says or argues for. I warrant most real nerds are the same, and value critical thinking more than hero worship.

But let's understand that McInnes'  scatological dismissal of white nerds  is really only a deflection, a diversion. The real target is Tyson himself who McInnes (and Gutfield) obviously regard as "uppity" for daring to ascend to prime time network TV and lecture knuckle draggers about the constitution of reality and how science methodically investigates it.

At root, then,  McInnes is a racist slime ball no different from Cliven Bundy and his misbegotten beliefs that blacks would be better off if they were still enslaved and whipped five times a day while their wives are abused by the "Massah".

The irony is that these two turkeys - Gutfield and McInnes - are mounting their semi-cloaked,  racist diatribe and putdowns of Neil deGrasse Tyson from the network that has received applause for featuring COSMOS on its Sunday night, prime time lineup.

Abysmally unaware of the ironic nature of their stunt, neither of these half-educated meat heads is fit to lick the soles of Neil de Grasse Tyson's shoes.

IDIOTS R US: The Lamo Right Compares Cliven Bundy to Occupy Wall Street

An Occupy Wall Street protestor  from November, 2011 (top) and Cliven Bundy. Is she the same as Bundy? Only a moron would believe so!

 

After the recent Right Wing media debacle of supporting nutso racist Cliven Bundy and his merry band of militia losers, one can't imagine how the mental deterioration could get worse. But evidently it can, because they're now trying to compare Cliven Bundy's Nevada stand - the egregious claim he "owns" the land his cattle are grazing on - to the Occupy Wall Street protestors of 2011. 

 

According to one idiot Denver Post letter writer (who clearly got this nonsense from FOX or some other lamo news site):

 

"A previous letter writer said the Republican Party is 'saddled with' Cliven Bundy forever. Is the Democratic Party saddled with the anti-government Occupy Wall Street people? Probably not! The Democratic Party jumped into bed with that ridiculous group the same way the Republicans did with the ill-spoken Bundy"

 

Not so fast there, Sparky! False equivalence is widespread but you gain nothing by attempting to invoke it against the Dems.

 

Let's try to clear the air for this numbskull:

 

1) Occupy Wall Street was not a unilateral "anti-government" group as this fool claims. They were protesting against ONE facet of government:  the privileged banking -financial sector (mainly based in Federal Reserve- though technically it isn't even a part of the federal gov't) which had been responsible for expediting the nation's plunge into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (in 2008).  Conversely, Bundy declared opposition to ALL branches of the federal government, to the extent he wouldn't even recognize it!

 

 

2) Bundy and his band of nuts were REAL anti-government tools, who actually took arms against Bureau of Land Management staff in NV - with militia snipers hiding in the covers aiming their rifles. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protestors had been placed in the sniper sights of security forces, for example in Houston TX, see e.g.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494

 

3) Occupy Wall Street protestors made no remarks or statements that could be construed as racist, or endorsing the horrific slave system, unlike Bundy who blustered:

 

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  ..."

 

 

4)  OWS actually protested on allocated areas permitted for those purposes, in assorted cities, e.g. NYC. Even the odd protestors (as in LA) who took over an area,  didn't lay permanent claim to it or graze cattle on it like Bundy did. They did not appropriate land for which federal FEES are assessed - remain there for YEARS (with the fees and penalties piling up) then refuse to pay them.

 

5) OWS protestors didn't have "militias" arrive, armed to the teeth,  from all over the country and point their rifles at the police who faced off against them.

 

6) Occupy protestors were fighting against the rampant inequality of income distribution (enshrined in the Neoliberal capitalist system)  that has allowed the wealthy and their scions get wealthier  while the ordinary middle class has descended further into the morass of debt and economic despair. Even seeing their offspring saddled with monstrous college debt that now totals $1.2 trillion.

 

Bundy - already a millionaire rancher- has demanded special privileges for himself in grazing his cattle free off federal land, that no other NV ranchers have. In this he has put himself firmly in the class of the privileged elites (1 percent)  that OWS inveighed against.

 

Mixing Occupy Wall Street with Cliven Bundy is the typical false equivalence tactic I'd expect from a Reepo moron, thereby attempting to tar both parties- but it won't work.   We already know which party is racist and also know which party wants to keep most workers in the country poor ....and on food stamps.

 

For that look no further than the Repukes' blocking any hike in the national minimum wage yesterday. They'd rather have and support those like Cliven Bundy than the typical OWS protestor who still owes $30,000 in college debt. The Repukes want millionaire  "socialists" who want to feed off government's teats (e.g. land)  for free - not indebted and impecunious young people!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55682/cliven-bundys-friends-have-become-the-koch-brothers-useful-idiots

Cliven Bundy a 'Patriot'? How About A Racist Idiot Scofflaw?

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  and doin' things or are they better off under government subsidies ? They didn't get no more freedom they got less freedom"  -  Cliven Bundy on Saturday

"They're not slaves no more but they seem to be slaves to the welfare system..." - Cliven Bundy in a press conference yesterday - trying to defend the earlier balderdash

In doing my earlier blog on Cliven Bundy and his clueless followers I was prepared to be generous and just grant that the man and his toadies were ignorant. They were ignorant of the Nevada state constitution which clearly sets out the purview of federal power, i.e. to act in concert with state law. This is in Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

.....the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.

Did any of Bundy's Bozos read this? I doubt it.  But now, rather than merely reinforce he's ignorant Cliven Bundy has opened his yap on Saturday (see quote above - from a  live Youtube recording - so it's his absolute words) proving he's a racist idiot and scofflaw to boot.

African Americans had it better as slaves?  Having "a family life and doin' things"  together? Are you fucking kidding me? What school did this asshole go to in order to learn that? There was NO family life,  you fucking moron! Families were often broken up - as when they first arrived for auction at the old slave market in New Orleans - with kids sent to different plantations while mom and dad - IF they were lucky- got sent to the same cotton plantation. Usually they weren't. Even if they did somehow get to the same plantation together, ol' Massah could have his way with the woman any time he wanted and her husband couldn't lift a hand!  (Let us bear in mind also that marriage was frowned upon by the slave masters, who considered it antithetical to the slave system - as Prof. Eric Dyson observed last night on Chris Hayes' 'All In'.)

Doing things? Yeah, when ol' Massah Whitey wanted some entertainment he'd use some subterfuge or excuse to take out his whip and flog one or more of the slaves while banjo music played. Or.....he'd  drag the slaves out from their crowded digs early in the morning to dance for him - again to banjo music. The slaves had no choice -  NONE as to what THEY would do, or how they'd entertain themselves.

Now look at Bundy's words above (I still wonder if he's related to Ted Bundy the mass murderer), and ask yourselves this:

Suppose you're an African-American living in this country, paid at the lowest wage scale or not hired at all, with  the Neoliberal capitalist system considering you only for prison labor  (25 cents an hour to make rugs) - would you rather accept welfare to at least survive and feed your kids? Or, would you rather be sent back to a Louisiana plantation in a time slip where you can be whipped at will, your wife can be raped by White Massah at his pleasure, and your kids dispatched to any other plantation the Massah wants?

C'mon - give an answer here! You have uh.....five nanoseconds!

In the wake of Bundy's asinine remarks, it's no surprise that many of his high profile media and political supporters have exited stage right from this fool, including FOX's Sean Hannity ("that was despicable"), Nevada senator Dean Heller, and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul.  Hannity, let us recall, was among the main bloviators to jump on Bundy's Bandwagon posing idiotic questions that pandered to the massive FOX audience's ignorance, including (with the rational, informed responses):

“Since when does the government send armed officers to collect a debt?”

Actually, many repossession and foreclosure actions often involve a sheriff or other armed officials, and confiscation of property is an ordinary means by which a government resolves a debt.  For example, if you accumulate 20 years of unpaid parking tickets, a court will order that your car be booted and towed until you pay. And if you point a rifle at the cop or otherwise assault him, you might get shot (or tased). The same applies if the IRS dispatches armed agents to your domicile after you've ignored paying taxes for years or have committed massive tax fraud. In addition, here in Colorado if you owe property taxes that have been unpaid for years, a lien can be placed on the property - it can then be purchased by a collection agency, and the home foreclosed. Armed agents will kick your ass out if you don't cooperate.

“Nobody has seen any bill for $1.1 million. It doesn’t exist.

Michelle Fiore, R-Nevada Assembly, bloviated this (while a guest on MSNBC).  Bundy says he has “never been sent a bill” but also says he never opens mail from the U.S. government because he does not recognize the U.S. government’s existence.   This is as fucking dumb as a homeowner who receives mortgage or credit card bills but refuses to open the mail. Can you say STUPID?

In the Bundy case, a court had ordered him to pay a debt of $1.1 million in accumulated fines and fees for having put greater than his allowed quota of cattle on federally protected tortoise habitat. Meanwhile, lawful citizens who are Bundy's neighbors are fed up with this millionaire asshole acting like a dead beat while they pay their legitimate fees for cattle grazing. As one observer -neighbor put it: "If that isn't leeching off welfare, I don't know what is!"

"The BLM provoked, escalated this controversy.”  

Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, made this accusation, as have numerous others. If an armed resistance is put up against an asset seizure by law enforcement officials who are acting under a court order, the provocation is exclusively the work of those who have chosen to threaten the lawmen with violence.  If the IRS sends armed agents to confiscate your property for unpaid taxes you better damned well not pull out your Glock unless you want to see an early grave!

 The land is not being used — it’s not like they want to build a school, road or hospital on it.”  

This was put out by Hannity who doesn't seem to understand that how federal land is used is determined by federal law. No citizen gets to decide for himself whether the land should remain vacant or grazed, or whether something should be built on it. Not if it is federal land, which it is.

“How could a cow possibly eat $1.1 million of grass?”

This one was trotted out by Bundy’s  equally clueless daughter, Stetsy Bundy. She doesn't get that whether  cows can eat a million bucks worth of grass is neither here nor there. Grazing fees are not assessed by weighing the amount of tonnage that a cow eats. It is a per-animal-unit, per-month fee, and it adds up over 20 years. Furthermore, Bundy’s liability is as much  for fines for illegal trespass as it is for fees.

  “Bundy has rights to the land because his ancestors worked the land prior to formation of BLM.”  

Bundy - predictably -  has made this argument himself and others have parroted it.  Even if Bundy’s ancestors did work the land (and we only have his word that they did, and he is notoriously dishonest), with the passage of the Taylor Act in 1934 they would have had to pay grazing fees. And it was never private land.  The parcel that Bundy is trespassing has been owned by the U.S. government ever since it was purchased and/or won from Mexico or Spain.

Again, Bundy merely shows he's a scofflaw as well as a deadbeat and racist idiot. Those who still defend him are no better. The "militias"  that trot around  his place with automatic weapons at the ready are really cowards at heart. They are bold and ready to pull out their weapons and fire at some little BLM guys with tasers in Nevada, but you won't see any of them squaring off against the U.S. Army in Pinon Canyon here in Colorado. Say to defend the rights of the ranchers here whose land stands to be seized for specious reasons (e.g. the Army testing of Predator drones).

Why? Because they know they'd face real, serious opposition with the likelihood they'd get shot at and wounded, not just tased. Hence, it's much easier for them to sashay around,  posturing with Bundy in Nevada than to stand up for ranchers' rights against the Army in Colorado. Bullies, posturing paper patriots and gun toting pseudo-toughs always seem to find out their bravado limits in a hurry when confronted by a formidable opposition- even one based in the federal gov't they "hate".

Why did so many line up with this misfit and racist? Because the indiscriminate anti-government meme is so powerful among right wing circles that it only takes one asshole to blow an anti-fed/  "Patriot"  dog whistle to get all the loonies to come running. But what this episode discloses is that those eager to be seen as "anti-government patriots", need to take more care with whom they align themselves.  Newsflash: it isn't with the likes of  racists like Bundy.

As for Bundy, any dunderhead who still defends him after the racist revelations is no better than he is. If they have a grain of sense they will abandon this idiot bigot like his former political allies have. Again, if they want a REAL cause they will stand with the ranchers of Pinon Canyon, Colorado against the U.S. Army instead!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/55615/dimwitted-patriots-and-phony-cowboys

Why Cliven Bundy And His Far Right Defenders Are Totally Wrong

"As long as millionaire Cliven Bundy gets to graze his cattle on public land for free, in contempt of three court orders and in violation of the law, this is not over.

Bundy and the suckers he brought in from the militia movement think they’ve won a huge victory against federal “tyranny,” and will only be more aggressive about breaking the law in the future." -   Thom Hartmann on smirkingchimp.com


The problem with the secessionist - Confederate South and the Far Right in general, is they fail to identify with  the right causes when they manifest and too often back the wrong ones. (Flash to the Confederate States of America demanding secession and the "right" to exist as an independent nation.)  Or flash a bit backward to the aftermath of the 2012 re-election of Obama when millions actually signed petitions online to secede from the United States.

Now, the far Right's minions, including "militias" who've traveled from as far as Florida,  are working themselves into a froth over one Nevada rancher named Cliven Bundy (any relative of Ted Bundy?) who they claim has been shafted by the federal government. As usual,  facts and truth are the first casualties of hysteria, and it's no different in this case.

First let's get a few of the facts out there:

- Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada.

- . The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)  disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998.

- After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.

- After footage of a BLM agent using a stun gun on Bundy's adult son went viral in far-right circles, hundreds of armed militia supporters from neighboring states flocked to Bundy's ranch to defend him from the BLM agents enforcing the court order.

- The states'-rights groups, in echoes of Ruby Ridge and Waco, came armed and prepared for violence. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," one of the anti-government activists told Reuters.

- Not eager to spill blood over cattle, the BLM backed down Sunday and started returning the livestock it had confiscated. The agency says it won't drop the matter and will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."

Now, let's start clearing up the muddied landscape.

First, there is no such thing as "states' rights".   (Which anyone who's taken a proper U.S. Government course in H.S. would know).   States have prerogatives, not rights, because states exist as governmental entities not as persons-individuals. Prof. Garry Wills (‘A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’, Simon & Schuster, 1999) further reinforces this point in his chapter ‘Constitutional Myths’(p. 108). He notes that citizens alone possess rights, which neither the states nor the federal government share. Both the latter retain powers and prerogatives, but not rights. Hence, the subtext is that rights can only accrue to human individuals.  As he puts it (ibid.)

“The states have no natural rights. Their powers are artificial, not natural – they are things made by contract.”

One of the things made by contract in this case inheres in Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.

 

The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South.

The preceding citation and excerpt is critical because it bears directly on rancher Bundy's claims. This is something all right wing, anti-fed supporters of his would do well to process.

According to Bundy, "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada." However, Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." 

The problem is that this position directly contradicts the contractual document I already cited from Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution - which most certainly DOES recognize the United States government as existing and even having hegemony to the extent that:

The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority


So right wingers need to re-read that very carefully before getting their panties in a twist.

This means Bundy is also off the wall as when he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added): 

"Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. " 

In fact, the feds did no such thing! The embrace and recognition of the federal government's powers and state prerogatives in reference to it was already enshrined in the state constitution. READ IT AGAIN!  

Secondly, it is clear that what Cliven Bundy is really all about is secession. He doesn't even want to be regulated by the state (as per its federal gov't references) so basically wants it to secede from the Union. I guess he also wants it to shelve its Article 1, Section 2  and re-do its constitution. Not bloody likely!

Getting back to the actual legal issue, Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy told his supporters, according to The Guardian.


But again, this contradicts Article 1, Section 2  of the Nevada constitution that he professes to hold so dear.  The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that secession had been unconstitutional and that "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states."

Now, if the people speciously standing with Cliven Bundy really want to get on the right side of a cause, as opposed to merely being wrong and strong, they'd do better to stand with the besieged ranchers of Pinon Canyon, in Colorado. They now face another land grab by the U.S. Army for not only training exercises, but drone testing! At stake is nearly 235,000 acres of land they currently call their own. See e.g.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/01/ranchers-remain-wary-of-armys-pinon-canyon-plans.html

and
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/08/army-to-ranchers-we-need-yer-land-or.html

In other words, if you're going to pick a fight with the feds, do it for the right reasons  (and in the right places!) not the wrong ones. Standing with Cliven Bundy in Nevada is the wrong cause and the wrong place. Lining up with the Pinon Canyon ranchers in Colorado is the right cause and in the right place. Think before you become all hysterical at who's right and who's wrong - oh, and it also helps to read the relevant state constitution!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55416/nevada-ranch-stand-off-was-one-big-promo-for-rustic-right-wing-millionaires