BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT
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:
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment