Our Porous (on purpose) Border

by Al Benson Jr.

It’s a good thing the alternative media is out there to fill us in on what’s going on at our Southern border and other places. What passes for the regular “news” media passes nothing along to us but meaningless drivel. While our Southern border is literally under assault, all the regular media can do is to prattle on about how “racist” the towns in Texas and California are because they are not embracing the invasion from Mexico with open arms. Of course you can’t expect anything else from them–this is the position they are paid to take–media prostitutes at best.

They deal with nothing of substance about the border situation and their agenda, as well as that of those that pay for their “services” is to keep the American people in the dark as to what is really going on.

In my “huntin’ and peckin’” for information today I came across an article on http://seriouslyepicstuff.com headlined: “Mexican Cartels Aid Terrorists Across US Border.” The article stated: “It is usually assumed that most illegals caught crossing the US/Mexican border are South Americans. You may be surprised to learn, however, that thousands of the illegals caught crossing the borders are classified as ‘OTMs (Other than Mexicans). A substantial number of these OTMs are Muslim terrorists. Records from a detention center near Phoenix, Arizona, show illegals from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen in custody. Former Arizona Congressman J. D. Hayworth said in an interview, ‘There are definitely people out there who mean to do us harm who have crossed that border’.”

An Arizona rancher living near the border found a Muslim prayer rug on his land. His comment: “This is a good indicator that there’s a whole lot of people other than just Mexicans coming into the United States.” A former border patrol agent also noted that “The American public has been kept in the dark about this whole issue.” Of course they have. We are supposed to be totally unaware of all this and our “news” media works mightily every day trying to see to it that we remain unaware. Likewise, our own government doesn’t want us to be aware of any of this. You can bet they know what’s going on but their “transparency” in all things does not include the public knowing. In fact, they are taking pains to deny it all.

When the information about the prayer rug turned up our intrepid Department of Homeland (in)Security, according to a report on http://gopthedailydose.com “…has denied that there is any ‘credible evidence’ that any terrorists have crossed over. So the reporter took another look–and the evidence he found is even worse than originally revealed. He found that 300 terrorists from the Somali Al Queda group Al-Shabaab–the group behind the terror attack at the Kenyan shopping mall last September–have entered the U.S. and are unaccounted for.” And that Muslim prayer rug, which is not the only one found, why that belonged to an ex-patriate Irishman, don’t you know. He brought it all the way from Dublin.

A report on http://www.breitbart.com for July 8th noted a Human Events article from 2010 entitled “Our border is a moving sidewalk” which stated that in 2010, “Iranian currency and prayer rugs were regularly found near the southern border.” Of course no one could consider that evidence of terrorist infiltration of our Southern border–most Mexican illegals carry a certain amount of Iranian currency with them, and their wives always have Muslim prayer rugs–don’t they? And we all know it would be “racist” to consider any other possibilities.

So the illegals get in, the terrorists get in, and if you think our government is not aware of all this then you are a candidate for belief in the Easter Bunny

A recent report on http://www.westernjournalism.com observed: While amnesty proponents are quick to call on Americans to show mercy to the poor children seeking refuge in America,  empirical evidence shows that the threat illegal immigration poses to America is exponentially greater than the thousands of kids streaming across the border…Recent evidence, however, indicates the security risks extend much further to potentially include Middle Eastern terrorists bent on destroying the U.S.” If the terrorists want to destroy the U.S. they had better hurry up or own own government will beat them to it!

And as far as the “race” question, http://www.prisonplanet.com has been showing a video of black protesters out there confronting the pro-amnesty demonstrators in Murietta, California. The black folks realize, all too clearly, that if too many of those people are let into the country then that’s less jobs for blacks and so they don’t want them here either. I wonder if that makes them “racists” along with the white folks.

Just a final thought from Infowars.com–”The orchestrated collapse of America’s southern border is part of an overall agenda to destroy the U.S. national sovereignty in order to usher America into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.” That’s something most of us had probably not thought about in the present context, but, hey, it does fit the pattern when you think about it. And if the Obama Regime could point to a border that cannot be defended then they could just say “let’s just do away with it because its more trouble to try to defend than its worth.” With their Marxist rationale I can see them taking that position not too far down the road–especially since the three North American countries have already been having talks about how to merge with one another. You didn’t know that? The “news” media probably forgot to mention it. Not to worry, though, they’ll “forget” a lot more before they’re done.

Cliven Bundy’s “Racism” Is A Diversonary Tactic

by Al Benson Jr.

Just after I had posted yesterday’s article about the War of Northern Aggression being thrust upon the Western States, the Internet almost started glowing with new reports that rancher Cliven Bundy had been identified, by comments he made, as a flaming “racist.” As slow as the prostitute press was to pick up on his stand against federal tyranny the previous week, they literally jumped on the “racist” story before the teletype machines has stopped spitting it out. Their stories lit up the Internet and most “news” programs like a theater marquee.

This is the kind of stuff our “news” media literally drools over. They get a chance to make someone conservative, that they don’t much like, look bad. That makes their day. They get a chance to put their spin on something that was said by throwing around that politically correct “R” word–the one that’s supposed to scare everyone off and silence any legitimate dissent against their agenda and that of their Washington puppet masters.

I read some of Mr. Bundy’s comments and listened to the doctored video the media put out about his alleged “racist” comments. And I came away with a distinct impression, and it was this–this whole “racist’ situation was manufactured as a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the federal government for what they have been trying to do to Mr. Bundy and his family and, as it develops, a lot of other ranchers and landowners in the West, and to make Mr. Bundy look bad. It’s an old Marxist trick–condemn others and elevate yourself.

All of a sudden no one is concerned anymore about federal tyranny in Nevada Texas, or anywhere else. All they are concerned about is the Cliven Bundy is a “racist.” Nothing else matters anymore.  And if he is a “racist” (I use that term in quotes because it’s a term of Trotskyite origin, and therefore, a propaganda word) he probably deserves what the feds are doing to him because, after all, everyone knows that “racism” is the one unforgivable sin in the leftist litany of sins for propaganda use. Abortion is just fine with them. Murder might be okay.  Sodomy will always get a free pass, but “racism” cannot be countenanced under any circumstances–anything is forgivable to the left but “racism.” And even that might be forgivable, depending on who’s practicing it. Black racism is okay. White racism is totally beyond the pale. This is Cultural Marxism to the fullest degree and guaranteed to shut down most debate. And it usually works.

Look at how these “neo-patriot” conservative politicians lined up to protest what the feds were doing to Mr. Bundy–until the “racist” angle was put forth. To a man they all tucked tail and ran, loudly disavowing their support for Bundy as they headed for the woodwork. Even Rand Paul, who I would have thought better of, played the game and withdrew his support.  I was talking with someone about this just today and they said to me “Rand is not his father.” He sure ain’t! I’m beginning to wonder if he’s even a pale imitation.

I don’t pretend to be privy to all Mr. Bundy’s views on the race question, but one thing is for certain sure, the problem with federal tyranny in the West is still there. It still remains, but now, it will probably be pushed aside and forgotten in favor of the race card being played.

Someone sent me this article today, which I thought was worth quoting from because it is so typical of what the “news” media does. It was on http://benswann.com and it stated: “As media are blasting Bundy for the remarks and politicians are running away from Bundy as quickly as they can, the full context of what Cliven Bundy said has not been reported on. Here is the full 3:19 of his statement. It is worth listening to the comments about Hispanics which were conveniently removed from the videos being played by mainstream media.” I can’t reproduce the video on this blog spot, but go to the source and watch it and listen.

And then, Mr. Swann asks “Why were the comments about ‘Spanish’ people not included in media coverage? The answer is simple. What Cliven Bundy says there does not fit the narrative of a racist. In fact, some people could call him a ‘liberal’ when he says that even if illegal immigrants have ‘violated our Constitution, they are here and they are people’ when he says that Hispanics ‘have a stronger family structure than many of us white people’, and when he says ‘don’t tell me they don’t work and they don’t pay taxes.’ Those comments would strike many ‘conservatives’ as being too sympathetic toward Hispanic immigrants.” And of course, such comments, if aired, would blow the phoney race card out of the water, so the media just leaves them out. The public doesn’t need to be aware of all that–doctored videos for a bemused audience. So typical of the Ministry of Propaganda we still refer to as the “news media.”

I remember, back in 1999, my wife and I went to a Confederate Alliance Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, and, being the kind of conference it was, we had Confederate flags of different kinds on the walls of the meeting hall. The “news” media came in during the late afternoon and interviewed the man responsible for the conference.  All the media wanted to talk about was Nazi’s and white supremacists. The man they interviewed took great pains to explain to them that Nazi’s, skinheads, and the white supremacy people were not what we were all about, and they were not welcome at our meeting. It had nothing to do with any of that. The “news” media people didn’t want to hear that. Every single question they asked the man they interviewed eventually worked its way back to the white supremacy angle. That’s the only thing the “news” people were there to deal with–and if that wasn’t what we were all about, they were darn well going to make sure everybody thought that’s what we were about.

The exact same game is being played with Mr. Bundy–to make him look bad and to discourage support for him so the feds would look much better than they really are and Mr. Bundy and the ranchers would look worse than they really are. It’s all a clever diversion, folks. Don’t buy it!

Why Is It Only A Crime If The Perp Is White???

by Al Benson Jr.

Back on November 24, 2013 a white man from the Houston, Texas area knocked an elderly black man down and broke his jaw in two places. It was said that he laughed and shouted “knockout” as he did this.

The man, a twenty-seven year old, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston for a hate crime against the elderly black man. No one argues against the fact that this was a despicable act and that the man should be punished for what he did. However, if he shouted “knockout” when he did it, where do you suppose he got the idea for calling it that? It couldn’t have been from blacks that have done the same thing to whites could it? If anyone has kept track of the news for the past few months you know that’s exactly where he got the idea. I don’t know how many cases of this same dastardly act I’ve read about in recent months where a black, or blacks, have done this selfsame thing to some elderly white person and that’s what they call it–knockout! Of course, thanks to our progressive “news” media, we didn’t read about nearly as many of these black on white crimes as actually happened. Many of the stories about these were simply spiked and you never heard about it, but you did hear about some.

At this point, I have a couple questions which I hope my readers will ask at every opportunity. This one white man did this to one black man and it was labeled a “hate crime.” What was it labeled when all the different black guys did it to elderly white folks? I never once, in the “news” media saw that labeled as a hate crime. Why not?

If it’s a “hate crime” when a white guy does it then why isn’t it a hate crime when a black guy does it? Nobody seems to want to deal with that question. Why not? Seems to me that what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If it isn’t then we have a monstrous double standard we are operating on in this country, or maybe you hadn’t noticed that.

If it’s a hate crime when the white guy commits it, then why isn’t it a hate crime when the black guy commits it? I have yet to see that question even addressed by anyone. Most of what passes for our “news” media sincerely hopes no one will think along those lines and that no one will ask such embarrassing  questions, especially not in public. Of course should someone dare to address this sensitive issue they can always be labeled a “racist.” That should shut most folks up right there.

But it won’t shut all of us up! Of course I realize there are some whacked-out college professors that glibly inform us that “only white people can be racist” and no one else ever could. But, folks, in all honesty, who really believe that bovine fertilizer except the most politically correct of the politically correct? Ordinary folks that live in the real world just don’t buy it. They may not argue over it for fear of being labeled as “racists” but in their heart of hearts they know it’s all balderdash.

So I keep asking–why is it “racist” for a white man to do something when it is not racist for a black man to do the same thing? I have never forgotten the missionary from South Africa I talked to years ago who said, of blacks, that they were “the most ethnocentric people in the world.”

If that is, in fact, the case (and I realize there are exceptions) then you have to ask yourself–who are the real “racists?” Since the term “racist” is of Trotskyite origin I don’t really like to use it. Maybe the term “racialist” would be more appropriate.

So who is the real racialist? Is it just possible that it’s the person who accuses everyone else of being one?

Is The Bias Always All White?

By Al Benson Jr.

On October 29, 2012 I read an Associated Press article by Sonya Ross. It the paper I read it in it was entitled Study: Bigotry Alive and well. It dealt with what the author labeled as bigotry from only the perspective of white bigotry. Ross stated that: “Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.”

She went on to say that “Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found…Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 …In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey.” There is more, but it is mostly along this line. You can translate this as follows: “you are a racist if you don’t vote for Obama.” Shorn of all the sophistry that is basically what she is saying. Racial prejudice could cost Obama the election.

She also takes another whack at white folks, noting that 52% of “non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes.” And the translation of that little gem is “you are a racist if you don’t like illegal immigrants.” This lady is expressing the old Marxist class struggle message whether she realizes it or not. But after all, this lady is part of the “news” media so we should, by now, expect little else from the “useful idiots” of the press.

The survey or poll she took this from may even be accurate as far as it went, but let’s think for a minute about what the poll did not cover (probably purposely).

What is the percentage of anti-white prejudice by blacks? How many blacks will vote for Obama strictly because of his skin color without having the least clue of where he stands on issues that will affect them and their children? How many will bother to take the time and effort to check out his views and where they come from before voting? Or will his skin color be enough to garner him their votes without any further qualifications needed or wanted?

Now that would be an interesting poll if we had accurate numbers. You might find that lots of blacks vote for a black man because they are prejudiced against whites. Does that make them racists? I can see the college professors now, tearing out their hair at even the thought of such a question. “Oh no” they will chant, “Only whites can be racists, No one else has that power or ability.” To which I would reply—well, maybe it’s better if I bite my tongue and don’t say it.

The thing that really bothered me about this poll was that they only took into account the bias of white folks and no one else, as if only white folks have prejudice regarding race. Anyone with a brain knows that’s not remotely close to the truth.

I remember when we lived in West Virginia, how my kids came home one afternoon and told my wife and I that the black kids they had been playing with told them they were not human because they were not black. Where do you suppose those black kids picked up that sentiment—possibly at home? And if you really want racist rhetoric you should read some of the things said by Mr. Obama’s friends in the New Black Panther Party—oh, sorry I keep forgetting—whatever such groups say no matter how racist it sounds, it’s not really racist because they aren’t white.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say this kind of thing demonstrated a gigantic double standard by such people—do as I say, not as I do, the pot calling the kettle black and all that, but that is not really the case.

These people are practitioners of Marxist truth, which I dealt with in an earlier article. Remember, to the Marxist, whatever furthers his agenda is “truth” and everything else, even if based on fact, is a lie. Dealing with white prejudice and not bothering to deal with black prejudice constitutes Marxist truth.

You can learn how to play this little game once you understand the rules. Whites are all racists; blacks can never be racist—unless, for some reason the Party line changes—then all bets are off.

If you want a little different viewpoint than that given in the managed media do a
Google search on “black bias against whites.”