It all went down four years ago. Cliven Bundy and his sons refused to pay federal grazing fees, and then stared down government agents as they attempted to confiscate their cattle. It kicked off an armed standoff with many people fearing outcomes like Ruby Ridge. After the situation cooled, Cliven, two of his sons and a militia member were arrested, and – in the words of Cliven Bundy – they’ve been “political prisoners” ever since.
Yesterday, a federal judge threw out the government’s case against the Bundy’s and set them all free. Judge Gloria Navarro used the words “flagrant” and “reckless” in describing how the government withheld evidence from the defense. It turns out, the information federal agents was withholding was information regarding:
Wow. Imagine if we went to war with a country, our soldiers misbehaved and the CIA tried to cover it all up. That’s kind of what this all sounds like.
Although the outcome for the Bundy family turned out happy, this story is troubling for three different reasons. Number one: the Bundy’s and everyone involved in the standoff enabled this to escalate way out of control. It should never have gotten as far as it did. But… Number two: the government, likewise, went off the rails with the way they dealt with this. A massive surveillance operation, snipers, out of control BLM agents, and then trying to cover it all up?
Number three – and this is the most important – this story is much larger than the Bundy’s, the misconduct of government agents, and most of the other headlines you’ll see about this today. This story is mainly about one thing: The federal government has NO business managing public land. Judge Navarro called the government’s actions in handling the Bundy case a “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations,” but I contend that the entire premise for the government seizing land and then charging private citizens to work on it is ALSO a “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations.”
To Washington D.C., you have NO RIGHT meddling or managing public land. It belongs to the 321 million people that live here. We neither want your help there nor do we need it.
Remember James Damore? He was the senior software engineer at Google who was fired last August for his internal memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”. His memo criticized Google’s diversity policies that he said actually result in reverse discrimination and suppress conservative political views.
The memo got a lot of media attention at the time, mainly because Damore’s memo was painted as being sexist. You see, Damore dared to point out that men and women have biological and personality differences that may account for different professional and personal priorities. What a Neanderthal.
He said Google’s culture of bias included programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race, and that they prioritized “diversity” candidates.
Well, Google didn’t like that very much, so they canned Damore. It was a ridiculous overreaction by Google. By firing Damore, Google basically confirmed the criticism in his memo. No one at Google or in the media seemed to appreciate the respectful, well-reasoned arguments Damore made in his memo. Instead, they only had blind rage toward his discussion of gender.
Now Damore is fighting back. Yesterday he filed a class action lawsuit against Google. His claim? You don’t hear this every day – that Google “unfairly discriminates against white men who have perceived conservative political views that are unpopular with its executives.”
Another former Google employee, David Gudeman, joined Damore in the lawsuit, and they are really going for the jugular. The suit alleges that Google uses “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates” and that the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”
Google’s unhinged response to the Damore memo is the end result of progressive extremism. When you promote “diversity” as the end-all, be-all of virtues, and then you fire someone for actually being diverse, you violate your own ultimate virtue. It is insane hypocrisy.
But don’t point that out at your workplace. It might just get you fired.
Everyone is going gaga over the fantasy of Oprah Winfrey running for president in 2020 after her Golden Globes speech.
Some people called her speech about sexual assault victims “empowering.”
British actress Kadian Noble would call it hypocritical.
She claims that Harvey Weinstein used his relationship with Oprah to seduce young actresses like herself.
Weinstein would cavort around parties with Oprah by his side—duping young women into thinking he was a charming and safe person to be around.
He used Oprah to make him look like a good guy.
To Oprah’s credit, she may have been unaware that she was being used as a wingman for Weinstein’s sordid intentions, but that seems rather impossible to me.
Oprah has been friends with Weinstein for decades. She co-produced “The Butler” with him just a couple years ago.
She couldn’t even bring herself to blame him personally at the Golden Globes saying “If we make this just about Harvey Weinstein, then we will have lost this watershed moment.”
How can Orpah, who is a multiple rape survivor herself, not be utterly disgusted by Harvey Weinstein?
Because he is her friend.
Just like Bill Clinton is Oprah’s friend.
During the Golden Globes Juanita Broaddrick tweeted Oprah about never once mentioning her story about Clinton raping her even though Bill had been on her show many times over the years.
How can someone who so passionately called for sexual abuse victims to have a voice, silence them with her own actions and relationships?
If Oprah does decide to run in the future, I think she will have a lot of explaining to do.
There is an old proverb that goes like this: “If you want to know a man, look at his friends.”
If you want to know Oprah Winfrey, look at her friends.