Rand and Walter Don’t See Eye to Eye

by Al Benson Jr.

After having watched Rand Paul, who is supposed to be the conservative of all conservatives, of late, I’m not exactly sure where he is going.

Back in April, when the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada was accelerating, Rand Paul came out in support of Cliven Bundy, which I had no problem with and agreed with. However, as soon as Mr. Bundy’s supposed “racist” statements were made, Rand Paul did double-time in back-peddling away from him. He released a statement condemning Bundy’s “racist” (actually if you heard them all, they weren’t) comments as loudly as anyone in the Obama Regime would have. In fact, he almost sounded like a closet Democrat in his denunciations. It would appear that he didn’t even bother to take the time to listen to everything Mr. Bundy really said, he just bought the media’s version of it, which as it turned out had been “photo-shopped” a bit as far as content. I was disappointed with his reaction, when a friend reminded me that “Rand is not his dad.”

The truth of my friend’s statement came back to haunt me, duly reinforced by comments from Rand Paul that were quoted on http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com for September 5th. Mr. Paul made some statements regarding the situation in Ferguson, Missouri and about the race question in general. He said, in part, “Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel their own government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African Americans not to feel their government is particularly targeting them.” This in the face of the fact that we now have a man who claims to be black as president and we have a black Attorney General.  And given what the current “Justice” Department has been doing you really have to ask just who is being discriminated against. But I digress.

Paul also stated: “Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.” Such a statement sounds typically Democratic and liberal. Rand’s name is one that has been touted for a possible presidential run in 2016, as a “conservative” Republican. I don’t know if he’s trying to sound “inclusive” enough so that he can reach beyond the conservative vote or not, but if he is he should know better. Most of the Democrats are not going to vote for anyone that is not an avowed socialist, and lots of those calling themselves Republicans won’t either, in spite of the Republican Party spouting all that drivel about being the “party of small government.” To give the lie to all that foolishness all you have to do is look back at Abraham Lincoln–and the socialists and Marxists that had his support.

Rand’s little diatribe sounds almost like the old “racist” line that “It’s all whitey’s fault that I’ve got all these problems, not my fault.” Suffice it to say that Walter Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist, has a little different take on it.

Professor Williams, in a column that appeared on http://www.lewrockwell.com on August 26th wrote: “Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn’t, then effective solutions will be elusive forever.” Dr. Williams puts his finger on something almost no one else will venture to deal with–personal responsibility.

He noted that a study in 1880 of family structure in Philadelphia showed that three quarters of black families were “nuclear families” which means that there were both a mother and father in the home. He also noted the fact that, in 1925, in New York City, 85% of black households were two-parent households. And he quoted from something written by Herbert Gutman, who was the author of The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925  where Gutman said: “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Dr. Williams also stated: “Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.” Bear in mind that this is a black professor saying this.

But then Dr. Williams cuts to the chase when he notes: “The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask the question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what the experts call the ‘legacy of slavery’ wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?” And Dr. Williams notes on statistic  that, again, no one bothers to mention, that the poverty rate among intact black families is, and has been, in single digits for more than two decades, while the poverty rate among other blacks is presently at 28.1%.

Dr. Williams then addresses an issue you can’t “blame whitey” for–weak family structures in the black community. He says: “Each year roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered.  Ninety-four percent of the time the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.” Kind of hard to “blame whitey” for blacks killing other blacks–although I’m sure there are some who will labor mightily trying to find a way.

Dr. Williams puts forth a statement that black “civil rights” leaders, and those who continue to play the race card so well, fervently hope most folks will miss or ignore. He says: “If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a ‘legacy of slavery’ when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield.disappointing results.” He is right on the money there. Deal with something that is not the real problem and you will literally get nowhere, but then, that will give lots of folks in the “racial discrimination” business an excuse to ask for even more money to be spent on their sacred cow. Who cares if it doesn’t work–they’re walking in high cotton.

Too bad Rand Paul didn’t read what Walter Williams had to say about all this before making his pitch for Democratic values to those listening to him.  I, for one, will really watch what Mr. Paul says in the future, as well as what he does, as I think we all should–watch and evaluate.

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!