[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Cliven Bundy, Gandhi and Self-Genocidal Idiocy The brain-damaged leftists generally elevate people to hero status on a very narrow range of issues. For example, the National Organization for Women soundly endorsed Bill Clinton despite sexual harassment of a subordinate and credible allegations of rape simply because he favored public funding of abortions. Abortion, it is well-known, disproportionately affects blacks -- practically to the point of genocide -- yet he also received the support of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Or, at least those who haven't been aborted). A quick examination of heroes championed by the left reveals that, so long as these heroes serve a particular narrow purpose, they can hold practically any view without penalty. Gandhi is extolled as an example of wisdom and ultimate virtue. Yet, his views on blacks as a species so inferior he wouldn't even tolerate them in his home were even more extreme than those of many labeled as "racist" today in America. Likewise, his views on homosexuals would have been entirely consistent with those of Iran. But because he served the leftist purpose, most people aren't even aware Gandhi held such views. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered that in most of the United States, his birthday is a holiday. His agenda served a purpose of the left. Therefore, his sympathies with the murderous regime in Moscow that had murdered tens of millions of people and his extremely misogynistic views on women are hardly even known to the general public. Likewise, Harry Reid was unafraid to refer to then-Senator Obama as having "No Negro dialect." He could get away with that because, of course, he served the purpose of the left. So what does this have to do with Cliven Bundy? Cliven Bundy is the rancher whose use of public property has been a matter of contention with the Bureau of Land Management, because of a crony-capitalism deal to make that land available for a solar energy project backed by Harry Reid. Bundy owns no firearms of his own, but his confrontation with Federal officials made national news when independent citizen militias came to his aid to prevent the illegal destruction of his cattle. Though the left labeled him as a terrorist because of the aid he received from citizen militias, he was a darling of the moderate right for this same reason. But one thing we need to learn is that, to a large degree, left and right are the same thing in this country, simply displayed under different rhetoric. If you don't believe me, just look at results. Don't judge them by their words. Judge them instead by their deeds. Several times in the past 20 years, Republicans (allegedly a "right wing" party) had control of the Presidency, both houses of Congress and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. During those times, was Affirmative Action repealed? No. Was the size, scope or cost of government decreased? No. Were any gun laws on the books repealed? No. Was the offshoring of American jobs stopped? No. Was the number of H1-B visas reduced? No. Was the size of the welfare state reduced? No. Were our borders enforced? No. I could go on and on. On any issue that actually MATTERS, the standard right and the standard left may differ in degree, but they do not differ in substance. Instead, they pose and posture over issues that generally affect less than 1% of the population, such as gay marriage. But the marriage tax penalty that affects everyone else is left alone. Therefore, it should come as no shock that the moderate right has now deserted Cliven Bundy over a poorly phrased remark with zero racist intent, but can be taken out of context and made to sound bad. Cliven Bundy, looking at the destruction of the black family precipitated by the Great Society programs of the left, the rampant violence in black communities and so forth, stated that blacks were better off under slavery. Now, obviously, in terms of personal freedom, blacks are better off today. However, in terms of human misery and death toll as a whole, Bundy has a point. More black people die from violence in their communities in a single week today than died under the entire period of Jim Crow. Between 1619 and 1807, about 388,000 blacks were imported into what is now the U.S. as slaves. By 1860, there were a total of 3,950,528 slaves in the United States. During slavery, about 64% of blacks lived in nuclear households with a father, mother and children. About 21% were single parents. Today, those statistics have reversed, with 67% of black children being raised without fathers. Since 1973, over 200,000 blacks in the U.S. have died from AIDS, 306,000 have died from violence (usually black-on-black), and over 13 MILLION have been aborted. That's right. The total number of blacks who have died from the violence in their communities since 1973 is nearly as large as the total number of blacks imported into the United States during slavery, and the number of blacks aborted since 1973 is 300% larger than the total number of slaves in America in 1860. So yes, in terms of sheer death toll and the scope of human misery, Cliven Bundy was correct. And that is because the welfare state is, in itself, a form of slavery. Quite frankly, if I were black, I'd be outraged at both the left and the (fake) right. But I'm not black. Because whenever blacks show up to vote, they block vote at a 90% rate in favor of the very candidates whose policies are most responsible for their genocide. Unfortunately, most white voters don't seem any smarter. They keep voting for their own genocide as well. I wonder when they will wake up? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
M.L.K. was correct in his opposition to the Vietnam War and his speech on that issue is one of the most eloquent he ever made. His opposition to the war state should be better known than it is, but not for the reasons that the author implies. The fact that communists also killed people does not make M.L.K. wrong to oppose Vietnam.
OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorage, leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight. I come to this platform to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor - both black and white - through the Poverty Program. Then came the build-up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political play thing of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor. My third reason grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years - especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||