Oddly, the prejudiced Bundy quoted by the New York Times could have just as easily been portrayed as a defender of Amnesty or a man extolling the progress that African Americans have made since the Watt riots. (Note: I’m not claiming Bundy favors amnesty. Only that, using the New York Times extraction methods, such a portrayal is just as possible). Thanks to Infowars, here is the footage:
Infowars also provided the text with the stuff ignored by the New York Times and the original video in boldface.
…” 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.
I don’t know what the last trailing qualifier “not come to our party,” meant. Perhaps only that we don’t want them at one symbolic party but to really join with us in a more substantial way? I don’t know. But I don’t think he meant anything to detract from his positive statements about Mexicans.
I still wish Bundy had not diverted attention to this issue, after getting virtually the entire conservative movement to his side including a Presidential hopeful. But he is obviously a lot better than the New York Times wants us to believe. Saying that Mexicans have superior families to White people is never something you will hear from a White Supremacist, by definition.
Also, his statements about being better off under slavery are still highly problematic, especially when he adds details about picking cotton. But earlier statement, “I don’t want to go back,” is just as clear or more so. And if the New York Times wasn’t afraid that the words wouldn’t ruin their spin they would have included them. The bottom line is that they should have asked for clarification, putting a transcript of the whole video in front of him for his explanations or clarifications.
Of course, since Leftists want to pretend government welfare has nothing to do with the destruction of black families, they will always have to try to use race-baiting to silence people who point out the obvious. A sixty-seven-year-old Nebraska rancher who still uses the word “negro” provided them with a lot of ways to spin his comments. No matter what anyone think of his remarks, the full context certainly gives us a different picture than the one we had.
And remember, Harry Reid wants you to believe that Cliven Bundy is very “dangerous.”
Postscript: Thanks to all the readers who sent me the link!