[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#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.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||