By Alex Markovsky
The following is an excerpt of a New York Times report of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s views on the state of the black community and other social issues.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Mr. Bundy said. He 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.”
The mainstream media, whose support for a welfare society is a permanent part of the current political landscape, took pride in unmercifully attacking a man who genuinely dissented from liberal views and policies, calling his comments racist, repugnant, bigoted, disturbing and deplorable.
Ironically, in the excitement of denunciating Mr. Bundy, the critics did not notice that what Mr. Bundy observed and communicated so forcefully and extemporaneously was precisely the reality Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan foresaw fifty years ago, materialized before our eyes to an extent not even the senator could have imagined. Highly intelligent and well informed, Senator Moynihan, in his testimony to the collapse of socialist policies back in 1965, prophetically warned his fellow Democrats:
The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.
(“The Negro Family: The Case For National Action,” report, March 1965).
Moynihan’s report also stated, “The policy of the United States is to bring the Negro American to full and equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.” The Democratic Party, however, was marching to its own drummer and not to Senator Moynihan’s advice. It was not concerned with equality and responsibilities; it had a sinister political agenda shaped by the roots of slavery.
Martin Luther King, in his famous speech, envisioned, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” The reality of the relationship between the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners has been nothing short of a maelstrom of conflicting currents.
The authors of “All men are created equal” were slave owners governed by Plato’s philosophy that it was right for the ‘better’ to rule over the ‘inferior’. Neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor defeat in a bloody Civil War that caused more American casualties than all other conflicts combined changed slave owners’ moral convictions. Although defeated militarily, they retained political power and used it to set the direction and tone of race relations for generations. The slave owners, the Democrats, never intended to let the slaves to get too far from their plantations. They replaced emancipation with segregation that lasted for a hundred years, and some of them, like former Alabama governor George Corley Wallace Jr., who infamously proclaimed, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” believed that it would last forever.
But the leadership of the Democratic Party, faced with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, had no illusions that segregation would last. More importantly, they also realized that to be a slave one doesn’t have to work on a plantation and have his existence dependent on a slave owner. Government entitlements would have the same effect of dependency on the sons of slaves as Democratic slave owners had on their fathers. At this point the Democrats made one of the most critical decisions designed to ensure their electoral supremacy. If they had to let blacks into the voting booth, they needed to create a political process ensuring that blacks would vote Democrat.
In a majestic sleight of hand the Democrats abandoned segregation, stigmatized the sons of slaves as inferior, and portrayed them as victims of slavery who needed help and were entitled to redemption. They created government programs to provide assistance and offer privileges and protected-class status to the sons of slaves such as the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which included the “affirmative action” provision that conveniently replaced civil obligations with rights. Forget Senator Moynihan’s “equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.”
As LBJ put it, “I’ll have these N—ers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”[1] With the proliferation of the culture of dependency, the Democrats have successfully corralled millions of black voters within the Democratic Party and continue to enact more government programs to ensure that the financial and emotional attachments of the sons of former slaves to the sons of former slave owners will never dissipate.
This strategy has been proven effective over thousands of years, as the Greek historian Plutarch perceived:
“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”
No wonder that every attempt of the Republicans to break the chains of government dependency and liberate black Americans for the second time faces passionate hostility from the liberal media and has Democrats crying racism. Every time there is criticism of the system such as the one made by Mr. Bundy, the Democrats viciously attack the critics disparaging their characters, questioning their motives while the intimidated conservatives provide no counterweight to the Democratic offensive. Community organizers and self-appointedleaders of the black community like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton immediately get to work organizing rallies in support of the so-called victims of racism, making sure that not “All men are created equal” but that some are created more equal than others. In the absence of a counterweight to this onslaught, the Democratic policies are working as designed: black people have been voting Democrat for the last fifty years, ensuring a continued culture of dependency, with disastrous results for the nation.
Mr. Bundy is not a Harvard graduate and lacks the eloquence of Senator Moynihan, but unlike those of professional politicians his views were not forged in focus groups and approved by the experts. He spoke from his heart in a straight, cowboy, no-nonsense way, expressing his concern about the policies that encourage millions of people to rely on the government dole and do nothing while imported Mexicans are “picking cotton.”
We all should be concerned that the family disintegration that began with black communities has engulfed all races in this country and that the armies of those who enjoy representation without taxation keep voting for the preservation of the status quo. We all should be concerned about socialism replacing liberalism, and dependency replacing slavery, and we all should be concerned about the Democrats’ love for the poor; they love them so much that they want more of them. We all should resist the temptation of believing that no hard choices need to be made.
[1] The American Sentinel, September 1997, page 9. Also: You Don’t say, by Fred Gielow, page 33.
If both your parents are citizens of the United States, it doesn’t matter where you are born, you are are also a citizen of the United States.
In the same sense, if both your parents are not citizens of the United States and you are born in the United States, then you are a citizen of the country your parents come from. When these parents return to their country, does that country reject the citizenship of that child just because it was not born in that country?
Just as we accept the citizenship of the offspring of US citizen parents no matter where the child is born, so also is any other country going to make the same claim. Why would they do anything else unless they were trying to get rid of their own citizens or colonize some other country?
In the same sense, children born of parents who are not citizens of the same country are stateless. When those parents decide which country they wish to live in as citizens, then that child can apply for citizenship in either of the countries where their parents came from when they reach adulthood. No other way makes any sense. And this is the law.
The United States does not recognize dual citizenship. You may not apply for citizenship in this country without disavowing citizenship in any other country. Your first and only loyalty is to this country and its constitution and no other.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Ignorant. What happens when a people have been treated as garbage when the ‘real garbage’ still remains in power? This is your way of minimizing the accountability on what the whites did to them. And it still goes on today!
Did you here about the Canadian hockey team who’s winning goal was by a black. Some of the Boston fans tweeted obscene messages to him…calling him a N – saying he should go back to being a slave and several other derogatory comments. Do you really think the racist whites have met justice?
Or…..how about the billionaire basketball team owner who made several racist comments in regards to blacks. True – he got a slap in the face by being banned. He’s still rich. It takes a long time to undo a wrong – which can never be undone….but holding these people accountable is the only way it can be stopped….or at least diminished.
honeybee Said:
You are welcome!!!!! It is my pleasure, Dear Honeybee.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Thanks
dweller Said:
The decision made by the US Suprme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) created a precedence to treat a person born in USA as a US citizen.
honeybee Said:
The clause’s meaning with regard to a child of legal immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).[58] The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.[59]
Source: wikipedia dot org
@ dweller:
This amendment was pass to bestow citizenship on emancipated slaves.
@ ppksky:
If their presence is legal, then removing them from public education (and from subsidization if they need it) is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and sends the wrong message. The idea is to integrate them into the broader society as quickly & efficiently as possible. If they’ve played by the rules, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be welcomed & CELEBRATED.
It’s the ILLEGALS who should be cut off.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” United States Constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1.
Doesn’t say ANYTHING about the citizenship of (either OR both of) the parents.
If the parents came stateside LAWFULLY, any child subsequently born to them on USA soil is a US citizen, whether the parents were or weren’t themselves citizens at the time of the birth.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Unfortunately, young blacks and an increasing number of young whites seem to revel in the destruction of the nuclear family and the rise of the single parent household. Like it’s no big deam to be a “Baby Mama,” or “Baby Daddy.” (I guess the latter is the term for the unmarried father. Increasingly, single white woman are having children. I believe this is the influence of the black youth culture on white youth, who increasingly see black culture hip. That is why so many young whites are entranced by rap music. (I happen to be an aficionado of black music, by the way, by genuine black music, like blues, old R&B and old soul, but not the mindless, grating (and often vulgar, racist and violent) garbage that is called music. Add drugs to the mix. I suspect there are relatively high levels of anti-semitism among blacks, especially younger blacks. Some of the recent surveys done by the ADL (one of its few remaining useful projects) demonstrated a relatively high level of anti-semitic attitudes in the black community, around one third as I recall. This was roughly double the population at large, or the white population I don’t recall which. When I worked professionally in the Jewish community, I used to monitor anti-Jewish, anti-Israel activity in the black community. I used to attend functions as the only white at black colleges. I sat in the audience as the only white in the Howard University Chapel watching Stokely Carmichael. I watched thousands of young blacks, mostly college students, I believe, march on the old Israeli Embassy in D.C. An angry hateful march. While the whole American Jewish community was getting exercised over a small fringe Nazi organization led by a Jewish born nut (Frank Collin, formerly Cohn), no one was paying attention to the thousand of angry young blacks marching on the Embassy. This was about the same year. Most of those young blacks would probably be professionals of some sort. They would probably be in their ’50’s now, and many no doubt contribute generously to Obama and his allies.
I do know blacks who are friendly to Jews and who are not hostile to, and even support, Israel, but there is a population with resources and access to power who cannot be counted on as friends. I’m not saying this to demonize blacks, but we have to recognize the realities of what’s happening in this country. While polls still show some solid support for Israel, and supposedly a decline in anti-semitism, I wonder how this breaks down racially.
I don’t care about what Bundy said–he is inarticulate and got himself into some hot water, and made it more difficult for many to support him.
I would like to know how many black NBA players have at one time or another made an anti-white comment of the same level of offensiveness as that character who owns the Clippers. They have just gotten caught. All too often, though, black racism seems to get a pass by the media. It’s just not big news, the same way the whole liberal media establishment is up in arms over the botched execution in Oklahoma yet is silent on the brutal serial murders of helpless children by Gosnell in Philadelphia. I’m sorry that the execution was botched, I wish it had been painless and quick. We should probably go to beheadings, I’ve given it some thought. I think beheadings are probably the method with the shortest period of discomfort and pain. I’ve read that you only retain consciousness for 13 seconds, though maybe it’s a bit more. This guy wouldn’t have suffered much at all had he been beheaded. It’s just messy and no one likes a dismemberment. It kind of goes against our sensibilities, although it didn’t bother the French or British.
Every time I think of this execution–and I’ve never been a big fan of the death penalty, at most somewhat ambivalent–I think of that poor 19 year old girl who was buried alive by this animal.
Any thoughts anyone? electric chair? gas chamber? lethal injection? hanging? beheadings?
How about the American Guillotine? Sounds like the name of a new reality show.
ppksky Said:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
ppksky Said:
Please read what two well known and recognized Black American Professors have to say regarding the welfare state.
“During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “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. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
Read more at:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672
ppksky Said:
Both my parents were born to parent who were not citizens, but they became citizen of the USA upon birth.
Anybody who thinks the national public assistance that exists in the US is socially subversive should direct their attention to those non-citizens who are receiving benefits.
That means especially non-citizens who have children while on public assistance and claim that their children are citizens. It also means ending educational subsidies for immigration to include removing non-citizens from the public education system and the children of non-citizens.
Nobody who is not the child of parents who are BOTH US citizens is a citizen and should not be receiving benefits or money of any kind from any part of US government.
The history of African Americans in this country descended from slaves kept in the founding states of the United States is a history of desperate struggle against overwhelming odds. It is not over. For too many, to look at this history is a leisurely exercise done remotely by rumor and statistics.
The solution to problems of those African Americans lies in those communities and nowhere else. They deserve public assistance and more, like our immigrant communities do not.
dweller Said:
Stating a hard truth is now racist and criticizing Bernie Madoff is anti-Semitic!!!!
Well Stated, and about time.
@ yamit82:
It’s not dumbed-down Americans generally that have attacked Bundy — but the mainstream media specifically, as they are the PR branch of the Demo Party — and Bundy, not being media savvy, was a soft target.
American blacks are, in many respects, still on the plantation, only now it’s in the inner city, w/ contacts in DC; Bundy wasn’t far off the mark.
yamit82 Said:
The weekend that Bundy made his statement 9 young Black Men died and 40 others were killed in gang warfare. I always hoped that the end of Jim Crow and the coming of integration would end the violence directed at Blacks people by the KKK. Now they kill one another with greater impunity.
Bundy is no racist, I’ve know the real ones.
yamit82 Said:
That is true! Black americans did not have out of wedlock birth rates (now at 70%)under slavery. Youth employment rate among blacks were higher than even whites before the 1960s (according to some economists). The majority of slave owners in the south were democrats (to which the KKK belong). dependency on government are deliberately encouraged to keep blacks in the Democratic Party. The welfare system destroyed the black family by supporting single women instead of married ones. The sexual revolution of the 1960s by radical feminists weakend the institution of marriage.
Margaret Sanger’s (eugenicist)established the so called Planned Parenthood mainly for the destruction of blacks (about 13 million are believed to be aborted) and others whom she believed to be “inferior to other races.
The plight of black Americans would continue until they are taught to be responsible for their actions instead of blaming everything on slavery or whites.
Every Asian Immigrant to America puts paid to the excuses the black American has for lack of total integration and upward mobility in America. Affirmative action has not worked and most blacks in America believe they are entitled without having to earn their way.
Bundy spoke much truth undiplomatically, Dumbned-down Americans can’t handle the truth about themselves so they attack and vilify the messenger.