Cliven Bundy Is On His Way To Oregon And He’s Not Going Alone

a reply to: diggindirt

Blah blah Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah...

What useless twaddle all this blabbering about the Constitution and quoting of Jefferson is. If Thomas Jefferson could be raised from the dead, he would not approve. Don't take my word for it:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.

-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

The Constitution is not gospel and its framers, while certainly great, wise and laudable men, were neither divinely inspired nor a collection of the finest legal philosophers the world will ever know. Furthermore, we do not live in the late 18th or early 19th century and our circumstances are not the same. We have every right to interpret and revise our laws and in fact, to change any aspect of our government that we deem necessary to change — as did past generations and as will those of the future.

Let me put this differently. If the majority of the people in this country believe that the federal government should be stewards of public lands, then that is all the mandate required. We don't have to check with Jefferson or anyone else.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If there is any truth to this...

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does -- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials.

...it is somewhat concerning .....

Yes, it's very concerning. It matches with what the Fire Chief complained about, it matches with the reports from Todd McFarlane about unidentified "agents" in Burns and Harney County, and so many other accounts. And it explains why so many people are intimidated and reluctant to speak out against the harassment, intimidation and bullying tactics going on... which, of course, makes it oh so easy for some to deny reality and pretend everything is just peachy keen -- except for those rascally Occupiers of course -- and make excuses for killing a man in cold blood.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know Krazy. By the way, just for T&C, you have my absolute and perennial authority to use any of my posts in any other post here as you see fit.

The amazing thing to me is, tooth and nail are considered "deadly weapons" but a speeding truck and firearms are not.

Not amazing, exactly ... utterly disgusting comes closer.

I hope the situation is resolved quickly and with no further pointless bloodshed. However, since Cliven and Ammon Bundy seem to think they are divinely inspired by Heavenly Father to do these things, and as they are willing to sacrifice their friends and supporters like Lavoy Finicum, I don't have a lot of hope for that.

And there's a side of me that's okay with that too. We the People have established the rule-of-law in this country via our Constitution and legal system.

I don't like seeing that trampled by the likes of Bundy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
First they took over the reserve to protest the Hammond's prison sentence.Then when the Hammonds rebuked them it became about federal land grabbing and some other stuff.

Isn't it funny how this little fact is so conveniently forgotten?

They're just opportunists looking for an opening to push their goofy ideology. They'll continue to pop up here and there when a situation fits their needs, lambasting the government and moaning about how oppressed they are. The good news, at least to this moment, is that their support remains minimal.

As a nation we've got real issues to deal with and they don't include the complaints of a tax dodging, racist, rancher and his ilk with their frivolous complaints and archaic interpretations of law. They're not too far off of the sovereign citizen movement and that's enough for me to laugh them off.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know Krazy. By the way, just for T&C, you have my absolute and perennial authority to use any of my posts in any other post here as you see fit.

Thanks. In that case, you have the same right with my posts.

The amazing thing to me is, tooth and nail are considered "deadly weapons" but a speeding truck and firearms are not.

Not amazing, exactly ... utterly disgusting comes closer.

Yeah. Stupid double standards...

I hope the situation is resolved quickly and with no further pointless bloodshed. However, since Cliven and Ammon Bundy seem to think they are divinely inspired by Heavenly Father to do these things, and as they are willing to sacrifice their friends and supporters like Lavoy Finicum, I don't have a lot of hope for that.

And there's a side of me that's okay with that too. We the People have established the rule-of-law in this country via our Constitution and legal system.

I don't like seeing that trampled by the likes of Bundy.

Yea I was hugely disappointed that Finnicum was killed here. Not because he died. I could care less about that sop, but because I knew he would be martyred like this and CTers would spend WAY too much time trying to convince everyone else that he was gunned down in cold blood. I was really hoping that they'd all be arrested with no casualties so as not to give the crazies any ammo to continue decrying the government with.

originally posted by: GD21D
As a nation we've got real issues to deal with and they don't include the complaints of a tax dodging, racist, rancher and his ilk with their frivolous complaints and archaic interpretations of law. They're not too far off of the sovereign citizen movement and that's enough for me to laugh them off.

Yea, this whole incident has just been a big distraction for people who have tired of the election coverage. It's either talk about election news or idiot "protesters" *cough*terrorists*cough*.

With that being said, once the news cycle rolls over, we'll forget all about these asses. I mean, when was the last time we talked about Kim Davis or the Planned Parenthood videos? Exactly.

a reply to: Swills

Funny, when an unarmed black person is killed the same people will say they deserved it because they should have listened to the officers. But now, we got white people breaking the law left and right yet somehow it's the officers fault.

Funny how that works.

Funny, when an unarmed White person is killed the same people will say they deserved it because they should have listened to the officers. But when we got Black people breaking the law left and right yet somehow it's the officer's fault.

Funny how that works.

Actually it's not funny.... it's really sad and disheartening. At least to those of us who aren't so easily impressed and distracted by skin color that we lose sight of the heart in every man, woman and child.... those of us who understand that ALL lives matter and ALL lives should be protected and defended with everything we've got -- and ESPECIALLY by taxpayer funded law enforcement agents and agencies.

Nope. Not funny at all.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Neither he nor anyone else spewing this hatred and bile can back it up with evidence that doesn't exist.
They have no evidence for their claims and their only purpose is create division and diversions by spouting lies and misinformation.
It's the low-information people, the ones who tune in dutifully each evening to find out what they should think about the happenings being covered by msm in collusion with the federal government. You can pity them but I'm sorely afraid you can't change anything about them because they haven't the capacity to do the research and think critically about issues. They were taught in school to obey, to never challenge authority. They were taught in school with police officers dressed in paramilitary garb patrolling the halls and other officers telling them that it was their job as a "good citizen" to rat out "law-breakers" who were threatening society by smoking pot.
They were never taught to think critically and logically, they were taught to obey authority without question. And so they will. And they will revile those of us who have the advantage of being able to logically think and investigate and ask questions. The post to which you replied is a perfect example.

I think you're mostly correct here. It's the hundreds, if not thousands or more people reading here who will never comment that need to be reading this though. Don't ever think that it's just us and the naysayers in here arguing and sell yourself short, because there is a silent majority who will make up their minds one way or the other without a word of commentary, though they may have read most or all of what was written here.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
The first job is to get the government back on the Constitutional tracks. Or as one broadcaster used to say, "Before the creek can clear up, we've got to get the hogs out of it." www.pbs.org...

I agree. I just thought it was important to point out that that alone will not necessarily resolve the land use issue, and that we who are supporting constitutional land use are not ignorant of the larger issues.

Maybe if his dipsh*t son and the rest of the losers who broke law after law and continue to do so (except for the dead one) while illegally taking a federally owned building by force, had opted for the peaceful protest process, the dead moron would still be alive, the rest of them would not be facing Federal felony charges, and the old man wouldn't have to deal with any of this.

Run-on sentences rule!

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I think you're mostly correct here. It's the hundreds, if not thousands or more people reading here who will never comment that need to be reading this though. Don't ever think that it's just us and the naysayers in here arguing and sell yourself short, because there is a silent majority who will make up their minds one way or the other without a word of commentary, though they may have read most or all of what was written here.

As much as the "silent majority" are claimed in political rhetoric, these mutes must surely hold an abundance of conflicting, often entirely contradictory opinions.

Or perhaps the "silent majority" is simply a device by which people, eager for validation, delude themselves into believing that their thoughts aren't those of a radical fringe with far less popular support than actually exists?

Which seems more plausible?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?

a reply to: Informer1958

does cliven have any warrants for all the money he owes for feeding his cattle with stolen foliage? they should scoop him up too. as for the lawmakers, any who are unamerican enough to side with this anti-american insurgency and who would dare to suggest that amon or the one with the face should ever be released is unfit to hold office. the feds protect that land from these greedy fools who'd strip our parks and refuges for personal gain. well i for one would rather see these lands saved for our children to enjoy, and am thankfull these lands are protected from these moochers. where i come from farmers pay for feed and or grow it on their own land. why should any of these uppity hicks get a free meal ticket?

also, it gives me great joy to point out that very nearly all of the insurgents that used the fear (terror) of their weapons to make their point at the refuge for playtime spinelessly melted away the instant amon was captured. no balls. theyre all guilty of the same crime and ought to be charged with felonies and have their guns confiscated. theyre very lucky that law enforcment decided to be so soft on them because the cops should have rolled them up on day one. being that these domestic enemies entire gimmick was that they were armed to the teeth, it would have been justified to bring in the national guard, i guess the cops who infiltrate these groups understood they werent worth the effort, they were right.

and another thing, people need to stop making finicum out to be a victim, it's silly. had he stopped at roadblock A he would still be alive, had he stopped at roadblock B he would still be alive, had he stayed in the car and calmly followed orders like the others he'd still be alive, had he kept his hands in the air after making all these terrible mistakes he'd also still be alive. you know what i see when i watch the video? a frightened man who doesnt want to spend his life in a cage running away, he considers surrender for a moment, then clearly reaches for his pocket and at that moment the cop behind the tree steps out and saves the day. after a run of bad decisions like that, if finicum didnt intend to die he deserves a Darwin Award. lets be clear, the instant finicum ran roadblock A he forfited his life and the lives of this passengers. the other insurgents in his vehicle are lucky finicum didnt get them all killed right there on the spot, law enforcment showed some real restraint. finicum was not a victim, he clearly made a choice in the snow that day, and as stupid as that choice was, he's the only one of all the clowns at that circus who meant buisness.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I think you're mostly correct here. It's the hundreds, if not thousands or more people reading here who will never comment that need to be reading this though. Don't ever think that it's just us and the naysayers in here arguing and sell yourself short, because there is a silent majority who will make up their minds one way or the other without a word of commentary, though they may have read most or all of what was written here.

As much as the "silent majority" are claimed in political rhetoric, these mutes must surely hold an abundance of conflicting, often entirely contradictory opinions.

Or perhaps the "silent majority" is simply a device by which people, eager for validation, delude themselves into believing that their thoughts aren't those of a radical fringe with far less popular support than actually exists?

Which seems more plausible?

I'm simply saying that there are a lot of people that read these posts who will not comment often, if ever. I'm not saying that they support you, or me, or anyone in particular. Though I will say that they should support me instead of you because my comments are much more intelligent and sensible.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?

Ammon Bundy seems to be more media-savvy than his father. What Ammon's views are I'm not sure. He certainly seems to have realised that after his father made those nonsensical and racist statements then even Faux News dropped him like a hot potato, as did the GOP.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?

Ammon Bundy seems to be more media-savvy than his father. What Ammon's views are I'm not sure. He certainly seems to have realised that after his father made those nonsensical and racist statements then even Faux News dropped him like a hot potato, as did the GOP.

Sure, but what I see Cliven saying here, though ignorant, is not necessarily racist. It's ignorant, for sure, and there are plenty of people who would see it and say "That man's a racist!", but it's not really a racist statement. It's an ignorant, idiotic even, way to go about lamenting the disempowering nature of government subsidies. I can't call it a racist comment though, not if I'm being honest. I could if I were trying to be politically correct, but that wouldn't be an honest assessment, in my opinion. Are there any more? There's gotta be more racist Cliven, right? Or is that it?

originally posted by: LordSnow21
the feds protect that land from these greedy fools who'd strip our parks and refuges for personal gain. well i for one would rather see these lands saved for our children to enjoy, and am thankfull these lands are protected from these moochers. where i come from farmers pay for feed and or grow it on their own land.

What about the large mining companies that will dig a three mile wide hole to get some uranium or gold out of the ground? Shouldn't the feds protect the land from that sort of raping, as well?

and another thing, people need to stop making finicum out to be a victim, it's silly. had he stopped at roadblock A he would still be alive, had he stopped at roadblock B he would still be alive, had he stayed in the car and calmly followed orders like the others he'd still be alive, had he kept his hands in the air after making all these terrible mistakes he'd also still be alive. you know what i see when i watch the video? a frightened man who doesnt want to spend his life in a cage running away, he conciders surrender for a moment, then clearly reaches for his pocket and at that moment the cop behind the tree steps out and saves the day. lets be clear, the instant finicum ran roadblock A he forfited his life and the lives of this passengers. the other insurgents in his vehicle are lucky finicum didnt get them all killed right there on the spot, law enforcment showed some real restraint. finicum was not a victim, he clearly made a choice in the snow that day, and stupid as that choice was, he's the only one of all the clowns at that circus who meant buisness.

What if they shot at him at the first stop, as the eyewitnesses claim? How could you have any reasonable expectation of the rule of law prevailing, after that?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So many emotions yet so little substance!

Can't attack the argument so immediately attack the individual!

Oh come off it. Cliven Bundy is a racist - his own damn words condemn him as a racist. Remember that interview he gave before the cameras, in which he said that African-Americans were better off when they were slaves? After that even the GOP ran a mile rather than offer their support.
As for this wildlife fiasco - the locals want them gone. My wife's from Oregon, she knows people in the area and they are all adamant on one thing - that the last whackdoodles need to get the hell out. They have no place there, they are not wanted and the Hammonds (about whom this was all originally about) want nothing to do with them. They're only still there because they want the nasty old FBI to stop being mean by threatening to prosecute them on eleventy billion charges of being idiots on Federal property.

I think you should come off of it. If you get anyone talking about the issue of race, you can take their words and twist them around to make them look like a racist. You know what I'm talking about. It actually happened to me about a month ago, and I'm about as far from racist as you can get. Unless you have some actual evidence of Cliven Bundy actually being a racist, then, you should pick your insults more carefully. If you want them to actually carry any weight, that is. Or not, as you prefer. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, when you just yell "racist whackdoodles!" and your wife is from Oregon (hehe, she's probably from Portland), and act as if that settles the issue. Substance. Bring some substantive arguments, or don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

Hood River actually, and her father was a farmer way South of Portland. And by the way - here's Cliven Bundy being a racist.

I can see him speaking ignorantly in a sort of rant that undoubtedly has been used to cast him as a racist; but, has he actually expressed hate for african americans or other minorities, or has he just made ignorant statements such as these? And what about his sons? Does it necessarily follow that his sons must be racist, because their father has been labeled as one? Are you saying, then, that the occupation was a "whites only" party, or something like that?

Yes they are a right wing organization and yes a lot of their members are white supremists. Even in rally's you can see that confederate flag fly. They even came to the defense of the confetate flag saying it was a symbol of freedom yeah right.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com...