Let’s show him how tolerant we can be.
Indians Native Americans and Negros African Americans are fooled by patronizing nonsense of the type satirized in the video? Too many, it seems. Perhaps libruls are also fooling themselves, not a difficult task.
As shown below by excerpts from an unexpurgated version, it now appears that Mr. Bundy’s “racist” remarks — that have drawn substantially more media attention than did his far more important stand and that of his supporters against governmental excesses at the Bundy Ranch — boil down to his use of the politically incorrect words “Negro” and “Colored.” It does not matter that even the beloved Senator Reid said,
Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Senator Reid promptly apologized for his “poor choice of words.” The no longer politically correct word, Negro, was probably his reference. Was he also apologizing for his damning but accurate assertion that President Obama did not have such an accent “unless he wanted to have one?” It does not much matter. Spontaneous comments are generally more revealing than prepared apologies.
Is purported tolerance toward people of different races, even to show that one is properly attuned to the modern requirements of political correctness, good? Is it honest? It seems to work, but that’s not the question. The real question in the present context is how best to use remarks, edited to demonstrate racism, to shift the focus away from governmental corruption, overreach and our resulting loss of freedoms toward “racism” instead.
Following media reports of the extemporaneous remarks of old “racist” geezer Cliven Bundy, libruls rose as one to condemn him. So did many who consider themselves conservatives. It helped to have the New York Times publicize its edited version very effectively.
As noted in an article at PJ Tatler titled Reid Tells GOP Leaders to ‘Show a United Front’ Against ‘Hateful, Dangerous Extremism’ of Bundy,
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus quickly struck out at the rancher’s statements.
“Bundy’s comments are completely beyond the pale,” Priebus said in a statement. “Both highly offensive and 100% wrong on race.”
“Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” said Chandler Smith, spokesman for Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
“His remarks on race are offensive, and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a statement.
The second most popular article today at the Washington Post was on the same topic.
“It undermines the broader, more important goals to rebrand and reestablish a conversation with a community that looks suspiciously upon most of the things you say,” said former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, referring to African Americans in particular. [Emphasis added.]
Steele, who was the RNC’s first black chairman, added that Republicans must declare that “there is no place for this level of ignorance and stupidity around matters of race in our party.” [Emphasis added.]
I wonder what, if anything, Mr. Bundy said — taken in context and beyond the “N” and “C” words — was offensive. What did Mr. Bundy, not a politician, say that was “stupid” or “Ignorant?” What was “wrong on race?”
Like the Washington Post article, other libruls and many conservatives have not bothered to comment on the far less commonly read unexpurgated text of Mr. Bundy’s remarks highlighted below and available here courtesy of The Last Refuge. Here are parts that the “news of record” seems not to have considered pertinent for its purposes:
I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the 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. [Emphasis added.]
Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.
When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, 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 was 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 the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the 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, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy? [Emphasis added.]
You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces – they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom. [Emphasis added.]
Were Mr. Bundy’s references to the Democrat plantation where Blacks are little more free than were slaves on earlier plantations wrong? What percentage of Blacks on the Democratic plantation have managed or tried to escape from it and what percentage tried or managed to escape from earlier plantations? There is no underground railroad to provide help in escaping from the Democrat plantation; the trains run to, not from, the Democrat plantation. The only abolitionists in evidence are conservatives. Perhaps Dr. Carson and LTC (U.S. Army, ret) West, both of whom have expressed strong disapproval of the Democrat plantation, might have something to say. I have seen nothing yet from either concerning Mr. Bundy’s remarks or the out of context ways in which they were promoted to shift the focus away from governmental excesses.
A few years ago, Attorney General Holder chastised Americans for not having “honest discussions” about race.
Assuming that an “honest discussion” is not necessarily one in which all of the participants agree with General Holder, isn’t that what Mr. Bundy was trying to do — neither artfully nor in politically correct fashion — but honestly? However, he used the banned words Negro and Colored. Shame on him and all those who stood with him at the Bundy Ranch! Nothing matters beyond charges of vile racism such as evidenced by Mr. Bundy’s (edited) comments. That far surpasses governmental overreach, corruption and our loss of freedom in importance and consequence. That’s the fair, common sense path to social justice in the Age of Obama.
The Left cares little about the target individual, or the inconvenient facts that may humanize him somewhat. You can’t cultivate sympathy for one you want to destroy. Cliven Bundy is not a wealthy man. He is not an educated man. He has not had decades in the practiced art of prevarication that is the Left’s stock in trade – in fact one of the only things the Left does well. He is a simple man who simply expresses his opinion, without careful word crafting, without considering that there is an entire industry out there with nothing better to do than put his words under a microscope so they can misrepresent them for their own unscrupulous purposes. [Emphasis added.]
In fact, Bundy was trying to say what many have said for decades, i.e. that the Left has created a nightmare for the black community, and that many blacks are much worse off today than they were before the great liberal welfare experiment of the 1960s. The welfare state is primarily responsible for destroying the nuclear black family, and endemic crime, drug addiction and unemployment are the direct result. Prior to President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” welfare expansion, the unemployment rate for young blacks was lower than that for whites. Out of wedlock pregancies were a fraction of what they are now, and crime and drug addiction, while problematic in inner cities, were nowhere near today’s levels. [Emphasis added.]
Please read the entire piece.