HERE WE GO Cliven Bundy: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro."

The New York Times, the paper that prints any distortions that the politically correct will lap up (SEE: Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy), is at it again.

WaPo, as NYT's bitch, has the story:

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher whom some Republicans and tea party activists have rallied around as he fights federal government efforts to restrict the land his cattle can graze on, suggests in a New York Times story that African Americans might be better off as slaves, given their current situation.

In the course of his remarks, Bundy also uses the word "Negro" to refer to African Americans.

From Adam Nagourney:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project 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.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “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.”

It should be noted that Bundy is not here calling for blacks to be coerced into slavery. He is simply making the observation that, given distortions caused by government programs, the lives of many modern day blacks may not be as good as it was for blacks when they were slaves. I repeat, he is not suggesting that blacks be put back into slavery. Indeed, his comments could be read to mean that blacks need to be freed from current government regulations that result in them not getting first jobs because of higher minimum wage laws, freed from compulsory schooling at the hands of government "educators" and that government programs, that support (and thus encourage) unwed mothers,should be stopped.

But let's suppose Bundy is in favor of returning blacks to slavery. What does this have to do with the government confiscating his cattle? While the libwaps would likely get their panties in a bunch over this, if they actually wore any, as long as Bundy is not actually coercing blacks, from a PL perspective, he should be free to say anything he damn well pleases. To conflate Bundy's  views on blacks and the recent attempt by the BLM to confiscate Bundy's cattle and prevent him from using "public" land for grazing is simply a propaganda tactic being used by NYT to help support the government when it is desperate for any kind of PR spin that takes the public's eyes off of the only real coercion in this case and that is the coercion by the BLM. The NYT piece is designed to turn the general public against Bundy. But, know this, what is a propaganda tactic for NYT should be turned into a teaching moment by PLs to explain pure libertarianism.