SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 9:55:42 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577883
 
University of Connecticut Professor Goes 'Ape' at Christian Campus Presentation




by Dr. Susan Berry 24 Apr 2014
breitbart.com


A University of Connecticut professor went on a wild tirade on the Storrs campus Tuesday, claiming he came from an ape as he confronted a Christian gospel presentation that included discussion on evolution. As Christian News Network reported, anthropology professor James Boster spent more than two hours trying to draw students away from Christian evangelists who were preaching outdoors and distributing literature on campus.

Christian evangelist Don Karns of Hampton, Virginia, said Boster approached him as he was holding a sign about evolution, mocked him, and then became confrontational.

“He asked me if I had accepted Darwin as my lord and savior,” Karns said. “He was very agitated, very demonstrative… it was very unbecoming of a professor.”

Within minutes, Boster, who began teaching at UConn in 1997, also began to openly mock campus tour coordinator Scott Smith of Schoolmaster Ministries of Raleigh, North Carolina, as he preached.

“As I was pointing to Christ—I was talking about the sin nature—I said, ‘There’s probably some people out there—maybe even professors—who think they descended from monkeys,’” Smith stated. “[Boster] jumped off the ground and came running over and basically started screaming, ‘I did not come from a monkey! I came from an ape!’”

“He got about two inches from my nose,” Smith noted. “You could tell he was going to pop.”

Karns said that Boster then confronted him a second time, using profanity and getting in his face. Andrew Rappaport of Striving for Eternity Ministries in Jackson, New Jersey, said he witnessed Boster present a speech in an attempt to agitate the students.

“He started to address the students as ‘My brothers and sisters of Darwin,’” Rappaport said.

“I want you to join me in saying, ‘Praise Darwin!’” Boster mocked, as students echoed his refrain. “Amen!” Boster proclaimed.

Boster then told students to “feel your spiritual kinship not just with other humans, but also with your fellow mammals.”

“We are all bonded together in that great spiritual web. The divine saturates nature the way that gravy saturates cornbread,” Boster said.

According to the report, as Rappaport began preaching, Boster became increasingly agitated and, at one point, began screaming in Polish.

“He literally got two inches from my face and started yelling at me that I was ignorant,” Rappaport said. “I start trying to transition to the gospel and he then tried to get the crowd to tell me to shut up.’”

“He was being rude. He was talking over me,” he continued. “He was yelling at me, and I tried to say, ‘Can we have a reasonable discussion?’… But he asked a question and then talked right over me.”

Rappaport said that though Boster claimed he was going to conduct “open-air Darwinism” on campus because of the preaching, he then pivoted and said he would be open to exchange emails for future discussion.

Christian News Network said that Boster, who earns $119,486 per year, could not be reached for comment.

On its blog, the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC) referred to Boster as a “devout secularist.” Regarding Boster’s conduct toward the evangelists, FIC wrote:

Regardless of who they were, this lack of respect toward dissenting views by staff on campus is surely the fruit of UCONN President Susan Herbst’s excessive vocal and public preaching against Football Assistant Coach Earnest [sic] Jones’ statement in January that “Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle.” Coach Jones later resigned.

I wonder if President Herbst will similarly condemn Professor Boster’s endorsement and advocacy of a particular philosophy on campus... which has clearly taken on a spiritual dimension, since he encouraged visitors to “accept Darwin” as their “Lord and Savior” and in his interaction with students intoned them to say “Amen” – and some did.



On Wednesday, the university released a statement, which read:

Everyone has the right to exercise free speech on our campuses. At the same time, we expect our faculty to act in a way that promotes civil discourse and to express themselves respectfully. The use of abusive language and a confrontational posture are inconsistent with UConn’s values.

In its blog FIC referred to an incident in February in which UConn football coach Ernest T. Jones resigned following controversy regarding his comments that “Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle.”

As the Hartford Courant reported, UConn president Herbst responded to Jones’s comment with a letter to the editor in the Courant in which she said:

…at public universities we value everyone in our community, and treat each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of who they are, what their background is, or what their beliefs may be. Every student, including student-athletes, must know they are accepted and welcomed at UConn. Always. Our staff should educate and guide students, to ensure they are well-prepared for life at UConn and beyond. But it should go without saying that our employees cannot appear to endorse or advocate for a particular religion or spiritual philosophy as part of their work at the university, or in their interactions with our students. This applies to work-related activity anywhere on or off campus, including on the football field. Our athletic director and Coach Diaco agree wholeheartedly with me, and have made this clear to their staff.

Popular UConn championship women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma reflected on the Jones controversy. He told the Courant:

When I was in high school, we prayed before every game. And we prayed after every game. That's part of the school you are at, part of the religious experience of going to a Catholic school. I get that. I did that. I was all in favor of it. And, if I coached at a Catholic high school right now, I'd be doing the same thing. But ever since I left high school, and ever since I have been a head coach, I don't pay any mind to that stuff. We don't pray in the locker room. We don't pray in the hotel room, pregame or after a game. If you asked me the religion of my players, I would say I have no idea. I really don't care. It's none of my business. And I have tried to keep it that way.

Auriemma added, however, “But all of those people who had a heart attack over what was said by our [assistant football coach] should go to whatever church they belong to and ask for forgiveness.”



To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 4:43:33 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577883
 
How did he become so wealthy?
Romney showed him where to hide his money....why are you so poor????



To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 5:27:39 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1577883
 
Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family
...............................................................................................
Toronto Sun ^ | APRIL 25, 2014 | TRACY MCLAUGHLIN


ALCONA - Still in the throes of agony from losing their son in a vehicle crash, the parents of young Brandon Majewski are now reeling after they learned the woman who struck and killed him is suing their dead child.

“I feel like someone kicked me in the stomach – I’m over the edge,” the dead boy’s father Derek Majewski said.

As he sits in his immaculate Alcona home sifting through piles of photographs of his son, the heartache shows on his face and he can hardly contain his tears as he speaks.

Just down the road, on the side of a quiet country stretch of Innisfil Beach Rd., is a memorial complete with a bicycle, flowers and photographs of his son Brandon.

The spunky, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hotdogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m.

Brandon was struck dead-on by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with broken bones and pelvis. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was hit but sustained only scratches.

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, a mother of three, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma it has caused her.

She’s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy’s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She’s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Even the family’s lawyer is in shock.

“In all of my years as a lawyer, I have never seen anyone ever sue a child that they killed,” Barrie lawyer Brian Cameron said. “It’s beyond the pale.”

In fact, he couldn’t even call the family to tell them the news this week.

“I just couldn’t bring myself to tell them on the phone.”

After a face-to-face meeting Tuesday, the parents and stepparents left his office almost staggering in disbelief.

“I’m devastated, I’m in shock,” said Brandon's mother, Venetta Mlynczyk, a dental assistant who is drowning in sorrow. “She killed my child and now she wants to profit from it? She says she’s in pain? Tell her to look inside my head and she will see pain, she will see panic, she will see nightmares.”

“It blows my mind,” Brandon’s stepmom, Lisa Tessier, said. “We are all devastated. This is so cruel.”

In a statement of claim filed with the courts, Simon is claiming $1.35-million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

“They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists."

Simon's lawyer yet to return a call from the Toronto Sun.

Brandon’s father shakes his head.

“They’re kids!” he gasps. “And they have a right to make mistakes ... it was a wet, dark road – what about slowing down?”

He insists the reflectors on the bikes would have been visible.

A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon was driving at an estimated 90 km/h in an 80-km zone.

The report also states: “no breathalyzer was performed” – a point the lawyer intends to delve deeper into, he says.

Her husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck, and shortly after both were allowed to go home. It was another witness who pulled over to tend to Brandon and called 911.

Two hours later, after Brandon lay dead in hospital from multiple traumatic injuries, police knocked on the door of his home.

The dogs began to bark. It was late.

“I knew,” says his father, and his voice breaks again. “I had a gut feeling.”

Therapy, medication, even booze, doesn’t dull the pain.

And then, six months after the funeral, he awoke to find his second son Devon, 23, who had just graduated as a paralegal, laying in his bed, blue and dead, after popping too many pills and drinking too many shots. Not an intended suicide, they are certain – he was just trying to stifle his grief.

“This has ripped our family apart,” says Majewski. “And now this woman has the gall to try to profit from our dead child she killed? Profit from another boy who was almost crippled?”

He flips again through the family photographs. Happy times of fishing, dirt biking, swimming, eating birthday cake, laughing. He chuckles for a moment when he remembers all the bikes his son rebuilt – sometimes he would sneak the parts right into his bedroom, and shine them till they gleamed. All another world away.

“This thing haunts us,” he says. “It will never stop haunting us.”

Cameron has launched a routine lawsuit against the driver, mainly for medical and funeral costs on behalf of the boys and their families. He alleges Simon was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cell phone.

“Sharlene Simon failed to take reasonable care to avoid a collision which she saw or should have seen was likely to occur,” his claim states. “She operated the motor vehicle while she was intoxicated.”

None of the allegations have been tested in court.



Brandon Majewski



To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 7:06:40 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577883
 
Media saying nothing about BLM killing a black man ? (video)

...............................................................................................
Silver For The People ^ | 4/25/2014 |




To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 8:02:10 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577883
 
Education as Covert Op

................................................................................................
Right Side News ^ | March 31, 2014 | Bruce Deitrick Price


[SUMMARY: The Education Establishment wanted to use the schools for social engineering. The US didn’t want this. So the top educators turned to covert approaches.]----- If you say to someone, “Your life can be improved, here is a set of rules, follow them and you will be a better and happier person,” that’s a legitimate approach. That’s Buddhism with its Eightfold Path, Christianity with its Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts with their Code.

That’s the way all religions and philosophies have operated since the beginning of time. They candidly state what they think you should do. Then they say, the decision is up to you.

None Of The Above is what our Education Establishment has been doing the last 100 years. They conducted their campaign against traditional education in a furtive and treacherous manner. They had a hidden agenda which they hoped to impose by cunning on the country.

Rarely honest, they were instead disingenuous and conspiratorial. The “progressives” who took over our educational system were very careful not to let people know what they were doing. These covert operatives clearly knew they had to work outside the law.

Ideally, from their point of view, they would control the government and not have to sneak about. Until they had that power, what does a secret cult (i.e., our Education Establishment) do to reach its goals? Answer: subversion. A huge amount of ingenuity has been displayed in hundreds of initiatives intended to sabotage traditional practice.

The primary technique was simply to demonize and delete knowledge, to assert that children do not need to know X, Y and Z. Much of this could be done openly. But parents continually demanded that traditional subjects be taught.

At some point the Education Establishment had to be more clever. They introduced pedagogical methods that kept children busy without advancing their education very far. The paradigm is reading During the 1920’s so-called “progressive” educators created a way to teach reading that did not teach much reading. This was called Look-say (1931) and then later Whole Word and other names. Children were told to memorize “sight-words” as graphic designs. Thus began the Reading Wars and the slide toward semi-literacy for all but top-level students.

The same sinister ingenuity went into creating New Math and later Reform Math. Kids were kept elaborately busy but years later they didn’t know how to multiply and divide.

A third breakthrough was called Constructivism which requires that children figure out everything for themselves. Teachers are no longer allowed to teach, which reduces the knowledge-flow tremendously. Again you have the semblance of education, often at a frantic level, but at the end of the year the children hardly learn anything.

All of these counterproductive methods and many others (nowadays promoted under the umbrella term Common Core) are commonly used in the public schools. How, you may well demand, could they do all this mischief in plain sight? How, we might equally well ask, could Bernie Madoff steal billions of dollars from people he knew personally? The con artist has the edge. He knows exactly what he’s trying to do, as does the covert operative. In contrast, the victims are trusting and oblivious.

At this point, Madoff is in jail, a convicted felon. But most people are not yet able to see that the Education Establishment, in conducting its covert op, has been engaged in criminal activity. What else can you call it when schools deliberately dumb down children, thereby stealing their IQ, and reducing their earning potential? These harmful activities should be regarded as the felonies they are—assault and battery.

John Dewey and his socialist pals wanted a new kind of country. They were willing to tell lies and break heads (metaphorically at least) to achieve their agenda What they were not willing to do is candidly explain their beliefs. They were not willing to say, “Mr. and Mrs. America, we think too much literacy is a mistake. Your children don’t need to read all that well. They don’t need to know very much. They’ll be working in factories and on farms. What’s the point? Frankly, we want a simpler and dumber America, where smart people like us make all the decisions.”

So Dewey and his pals put on their poker faces, stuck an extra ace in every pocket, and set out to fleece the suckers. Finally, their every action was like an email scam. It was like putting fluoride in the water supply (which the Nazis and Communists talked about and probably did). It was like bombarding somebody’s house with microwave until they get sick (the Russians are fond of this technique). That’s what education has been in America for 75 years.

One knows this covert assault has taken place simply by looking at the results. According to Professor Allan Ornstein “U. S. students consistently score on achievement tests below students in other industrialized nations, despite the fact that we spend more money per student on education than all the countries except Switzerland.”

The Education Establishment is always in the curious position of having a losing season, as they say in sports. But in education we are always having a losing century. The ever lower stats, the country’s ever growing ignorance— how else can you explain all that without recourse to intent and malfeasance?

Finally, there is no other way to explain how a country with our brains and resources could possibly end up with such dopey schools. You are finally forced to the conclusion that the people in charge of our schools conspired to create the schools we now have. What’s the appropriate punishment for these felons?

CODA: Common Core should be opposed because it is arguably the culmination of all these covert ops. Indiana just opted out. Hopefully, all states will pull back from this draconian scheme.




To: longnshort who wrote (781654)4/25/2014 8:10:40 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577883
 
Is Cliven Bundy a “Racist”? Where’s the PROOF?
................................................................................
by William F. Jasper Friday, 25 April 2014
thenewamerican.com



Here we go again. You had to know it was coming. When the Left wants to distract America from the central point of a burning issue, they find (or manufacture) a “gotcha” moment and yell “RACISM!”

So it is no surprise that embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose struggle against the federal government’s overreach has won widespread sympathy, has ended up as the latest victim of “race card” politics.

“But haven't you heard the TERRIBLE RACIST comments he made?” the critics scream. “It’s on video, in his own words; Cliven Bundy SUPORTS SLAVERY!”

Actually, yes, we’ve watched “the” video comments that have caused such a raging firestorm amongst the “progressive” mainstream-media commentariat, and that also have caused panic and consternation amongst Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians who have supported Cliven Bundy.

Many of these erstwhile supporters have been caught off-guard and frightened into denouncing Bundy as a “racist” and his remarks as “vicious” and “reprehensible.”

But it might be helpful to take a calm look at what he actually said and see if it really should be engendering so much angst and furor amongst the political and chattering classes. In the video below, from which the New York Times selected its excerpts to stir up the racism charge, Cliven Bundy makes some statements that are sympathetic to Blacks and Mexicans. He states:

I was in the Watts riots. I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen was civil disturbance, people were not happy. People thinking they don’t have freedom, didn’t have these things — and they didn’t have them. We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want these 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....

Any fair rendering of the above comment would have to admit that Bundy is saying that he’s glad for the gains that racial minorities have made and he doesn’t want to see them to the pre-1960s status. So, is he then saying in the next breath that he wants to see them go back to their status in the pre-1860s? Is he really saying they we’re better off under slavery, that he would have favored slavery back then, that they should have stayed in slavery, that he would like to see them in chattel slavery once again?

That’s the message his critics are promoting. And if it were true, Cliven Bundy’s statements would indeed be reprehensible, and he would, understandably, be a much less sympathetic character. It would not change the facts in his case or affect the merits (or lack thereof) of his claims that the federal government is acting unfairly toward him and abusing its authority. But it would cause support for him to diminish, if not collapse. And that, of course, is the point of this whole media “gotcha” provocation.

Much of what Mr. Bundy is saying closely parallels what even many black leaders, authors and intellectuals — such as Prof. Walter Williams, Rev. C.L. Bryant, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Bill Cosby, Alveda King, Star Parker, and Alan Keyes — have been saying.

But Cliven Bundy’s “sin” is that he is an elderly white man who is unschooled in traversing the minefield of political correctness — and he was careless in failing to make important distinctions and clarifications. He “sinned” by being born when he was born, and failing to keep up with the constantly changing terminology for ethnic designations. He still uses the terms “Negro,” “colored people,” and “Mexican,” instead of “black/ African American” or “Hispanic/Latino” — but then, race activists still argue amongst themselves concerning the “proper” ethnic label to apply to their lineage and group identity.

“In the course of his remarks, Bundy also uses the word ‘Negro’ to refer to African Americans,” the Washington Post noted ominously,
as if that is de facto evidence of the rancher's alleged racist mindset. Others have noted that he used the term “colored people.” Horrors! Well, guess what? Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and virtually every other black leader has used those terms as well. (Check it out; you can find news footage and their speeches online from the 1960s and ’70s.) And the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are still two very prominent black organizations that have not changed their names. So, perhaps, Bundy can be accused of being stuck in a time warp and having a tin ear and being insensitive to how certain words from his era now sound out of place to the “modern ear” — and even connote (wrongly or rightly) to some people evidence of racism. But it's a big stretch to translate those "sins" into a credible indictment.

So, let’s look at the few sentences that have caused all the uproar. Bundy said:

I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. When I go through 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 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? 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.

Yes, those intent on seeing an endorsement of slavery in Cliven Bundy’s statement, can make a flimsy case based on the above statement. But is that really what he was trying to say? Is he not, perhaps, trying to make a point about the dignity of work and the importance of strong family life and self reliance, and the destructive, debilitating, denigrating effect of dependence on government for sustenance?

Is Cliven Bundy not trying to say much the same thing, for instance, as Prof. Walter Williams, the popular economist/columnist/author/speaker, who happens to be black? Williams, whose columns appear regularly here in The New American, was interviewed in 2011 by the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley, following publication of Williams’ autobiography, Up from the Projects. Here are a couple of Bundy-sounding excerpts:

"We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects" in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. "My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn't have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house."

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."

... "Racial discrimination is not the problem of black people that it used to be" in his youth, says Mr. Williams. "Today I doubt you could find any significant problem that blacks face that is caused by racial discrimination. The 70% illegitimacy rate is a devastating problem, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with racism. The fact that in some areas black people are huddled in their homes at night, sometimes serving meals on the floor so they don't get hit by a stray bullet — that's not because the Klan is riding through the neighborhood."

Cliven Bundy’s remarks also sound remarkably similar to the comments made by Rev. C.L. Bryant, and other black leaders who appear in Rev. Bryant’s hard-hitting documentary Runaway Slave. The fiery Bryant, a former black radical leftist and NAACP official, says much the same thing as Bundy — only much more emphatically and defiantly. One of the black pastors who appears in the last few seconds of the five-minute short version of “Runaway Slave” below makes a very relevant comment concerning the devastating effect that socialism and government paternalism have had and are having on black Americans and the necessity of black men to speak up against this. “What we need in this country today,” he says, “is more black men to confront it, because you as a white man can’t confront it. Because right now, if you said anything to the black community you’re going to be accused of racism.” Mr. Bundy can say amen to that.

Alan Keyes, former U.S. ambassador to the UN’s Economic and Social Council, is one black leader who immediately came to Bundy’s defense. “He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks,” Keyes said in an interview with World Net Daily, where he also is a columnist.

“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”

“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects — the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said. “Now it’s racist to point it out.”

World Net Daily’s David Kupelian today provides a very insightful companion piece to the above article, entitled, “HARRY’S WAR: What’s really behind the targeting of Cliven Bundy,” that provides an excellent analysis of the agenda behind the attacks on Cliven Bundy by Harry Reid, the Obama administration, and their media allies.

Finally, since Mr. Bundy has been subjected to non-stop smears and vitriolic attacks for the past several news cycles, in the interests of fairness, we’ll let him have the last word. What follows is a press statement of Cliven Bundy sent to The New American by his wife, Carol Bundy, moments ago:

We are trading one form of slavery for another.

What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.

I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I'm free, free at last, thank God I'm free at last! But all of us here [in] America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA — all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did — I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.

I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Cliven D. Bundy