Cliven Bundy doesn’t actually believe in liberty

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy positioned himself (with the help of conservative media and grassroots activism) as a champion of liberty against the oppressive federal government in his cattle dispute with the Bureau of Land Management. It turns out Mr. Bundy doesn’t actually believe in liberty, at least not for everyone.

After winning his fight with BLM, he continues to wage a pitched battle to maintain his 15 minutes of fame by holding daily press conferences on his property, usually with no more than single digit press coverage. During one such skirmish for relevancy on Sunday, he exposed himself as a disgusting racist and a dubious freedom fighter (emphasis added):

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy 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.

Everyone’s ideas are racist except mine

There are a few ways that a policy gets to be called racist: it is intended to negatively affect one race over another, it results in a negative affect on one race over another regardless of intent, or it has historically been used to negatively affect one race over another regardless of present intent or eventual result.

The first two are justifiably used to disqualify certain policies; of course we shouldn’t enact things that are intended to or serve to foster racial discrimination. But the latter is used as a fallacious smear tactic almost exclusively against conservative and libertarian policies. If that’s how we’re going to debate, it’s long past time the historically racist origins of certain liberal policies got considered too.

Federalism gets a bad rap obviously because of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The mantle of states’ rights was used for a long time as a means to get away with any number of heinous injustices and atrocities. That is almost never the case today, yet one risks being labeled racist for suggesting it, whether the issue to which federalism is to be applied has anything to do with race or not.

Well, if the putative federalist in question is a Republican, that is. Democrats are free to cling to states’ rights when it is convenient without having to worry about similar ad hominem attacks. Even after President Obama’s hailed conversion on the issue of gay marriage, he maintains that states should be free to decide the issue themselves.

This is effectively the same position as most elected Republicans, yet he doesn’t get called names because of it. Even the President’s signature health insurance reform grants states tremendous discretion in how much of the law’s new bureaucracy to implement themselves. Has anyone called Obamacare racist?

The War on Drugs Is a “Holocaust in Slow Motion”

Expect to see that tagline more than once associated with a forthcoming documentary, The House I Live In, winner of the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the 2012 Sundance Flim Festival. Written and directed by Eugene Jarecki, whose credits also include, among others, Why We Fight and Freakonomics, the film will have a limited theatrical release beginning with New York on October 5, just three weeks from today. The release will expand into other major metropolitan areas in the ensuing weeks.

The film’s official website describes it thus:

Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy.

For a scholarly examination of the impacts of the War on Drugs on state and federal budgets, see the September 2010 Cato Institute study “The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition” by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock.

Gay marriage opponents plan to use race card

With public acceptance of gay marriage at an all time high, social conservatives are feeling the pressure and are getting desperate. They are now planning to use race to their advantage, as an internal memo from the National Organization for Marriage reveals:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” read the memo, which outlined a plan to recruit African-American spokesmen to speak out against gay marriage, then organize a media campaign around their objections.

“Provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots,” the memo read. “No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.”

Apparently NOM’s opposition to social progression doesn’t stop at marriage. Merely a few decades past the civil rights movement for black Americans, they are content to hark back to an era of racial division in an effort to provide a lifeline to their dying, antiquated philosophy of government-sanctioned social inequality.

Using the government to enforce your views onto others is anathema to the principle of liberty, but dividing a people by race to do so is a new level of disgusting.

Playing the Conservative Hate Card

As we near the South Carolina primaries, the media is abuzz with the drama unfolding among the Republican candidates for president, and the harsh attacks being leveled by each faction. Some see this as detrimental to the eventual Republican nominee, but I tend to disagree. In 2008, when Mitt Romney graciously stepped down and conceded to John McCain, it allowed the Republican Party to coalesce around “their man”, who promptly went on to get an Electoral College tail-whipping, losing 365-173 to a smooth-talking political neophyte with no record to speak of, but a catchy, feel-good slogan and the media on his side.

This year, make no mistake, the gloves are coming off, and the Republicans had better have a battle-tested candidate that is ready to go up against Obama. The “Hope and Change” campaign is no more, and Obama knows it. He now has a record that can be used against him, so rest assured, the absolute last thing he will focus on is that record. He’s accumulated more debt than every other president combined, signed off on a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill that actually increased unemployment by more than two percent, the size of the federal government has grown by a quarter, and we have the scandals surrounding voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, the Solyndra scandal, Fast and Furious, his latest unconstitutional power grabs, and more.

Since he can’t run on his record, so what will he do? My guess is, first, he will claim that while things have been bad under his administration, he has the right policies, and therefore it would have been even worse under Republicans. The second angle I believe he will use, and indeed we saw it implemented in part during the 2012 mid-term elections, is to paint his opposition as being against him because he is black, and because they are just bad people. Why that route? Because if you can demonize the messenger you can avoid having to address the message.

Herman Cain Plays The Race Card

Remember the 2008 campaign (and afterward) when several of Obama’s opponents were called racist for criticizing him? Remember the conservative backlash against liberals playing the race card? Fast forward to the 2012 campaign and we are once again seeing the same filthy, immature racialism. Only this time it’s coming from a conservative – tea party darling Herman Cain.

I came across this story from ThinkProgress and was immediately skeptical as I am a frequent viewer of The Daily Show and consider myself to be a huge fan of Jon Stewart. I have never once even considered that Jon Stewart harbors any sense of racism. However, keeping an open mind and not wanting to cast a hasty judgement, I decided to hunt down the clip of Stewart’s show in question to see just what it was that Herman Cain was referencing. Perhaps Stewart has said something that Cain merely took out of context. To my surprise, the segment was from a show which I had already seen. The issue of race did not so much as pass through my mind upon my initial viewing that episode, and I did not detect the slightest hint of it the second time.

Here’s what Herman Cain had to say:

Charity and Government

On April 15th, I went down to the Georgia state capitol to hang out with about 5000 of my racist friends as we discussed ways to oppress the poor, exploit and denigrate minorities, engage in violent protest and call for the death of President Barack Obama. At least, that is what we were doing according to the media, who reported breathlessly about this violent uprising which stemmed from the hatred of a black president (while conveniently ignoring the fact that the same president could not have been elected without a huge number of white voters casting their ballots for him…maybe white voters did not realize he was black until after the election).

About half an hour before the rally ended I went up to the barricade which police were monitoring, behind which was about a dozen counter-protesters. As I approached they directed their invective at me, calling me a racist, saying I hate the president, saying that because I oppose the health care control law I want poor people to die. The whole time I just smiled and listened.

When they finally calmed down I began to engage in conversation with them. I asked why I was considered a racist just for opposing big government, and pointed out that I had seen dozens of blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the crowd. Were they racists too?

The Complicated World of Bigotry

In the greater Seattle suburb of Kirkland, a very quaint and beautiful area where I would love to live someday, there is a grade-A @$$hole who has led a fevered vendetta against gay rights. He’s the pastor of Antioch Bible Church (where he’s been for over two decades) and has not only been a firm opponent of gay marriage, but of anti-discrimination legislation and domestic partnerships. He is arguably to the right of many gay marriage opponents from far more conservative areas of the country.

It’s worth noting that the pastor in question, Ken Hutcherson, is black. Whatever solidarity he is supposed to have as an ethnic minority for a sexual minority is apparently quite lost on him. Ken Hutcherson’s existence shouldn’t be shocking to those with life experience outside of textbook indoctrination. I’ve met many racists and homophobes, some white, some Hispanic, some Asian, and they all come in many different colors, shapes and sizes. It’s nearly a waste of time to confront them about it. Bigotry is not something people like to admit, and if you mention it they tend to act like they’ve been unfairly attacked.

Now that the high emotion surrounding the passage of the health care bill is in the past, it is very important to remember this. Racism and xenophobia is rampant in the culturally homogenous society of Japan, where even those of Japanese ancestry who were born elsewhere have difficulty being accepted. I’ve personally heard very disparaging remarks towards blacks from Hispanics, heard bigoted comments towards blacks from Indians, heard whites say horrible generalizations about black people and vice versa. Racism is not a homogenous factor of one particular ethnic or political group; it’s the result of the natural tribal instinct that we share with our primate cousins.

The Brazen Demands of Black Lives Matter

“There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.” ~ Booker T. Washington, freed slave, educator, orator


As if this election season had not already been enough of a mind-boggling, common sense-defying circus, along come more clowns to add to the antics. In this case I am referring to the Black Lives Matter movement, the latest incarnation of the racial grievance cartel, carrying on in the (not so) proud tradition of huckster race pimp Al Sharpton.

As reported in the Daily Democrat (formerly known as The New York Times), sixty groups associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have issued a list of demands. These demands include reparations for slavery, additional “investment” in education (including free education for life for all blacks), jobs programs, and an end to the death penalty, just to name a few.

It may surprise some, but I am willing to consider reparations for slavery. This is a reversal from my previous position of complete opposition to reparations, which I felt were unjust because no one alive in this country today was ever held as a slave in this country, nor even lived as the child of a slave, so reparations would be punishment for those who never participated in slavery, and rewards for those who never suffered from slavery.

Gay Marriage is Racist Since Only White People Support It (Not Really)


Usually when something becomes popular because mostly or exclusively white people enjoy it, the collective media/internet outrage machine works overtime to mock, discredit, and destroy that thing. Whether it be pumpkin spice lattes, Wes Anderson, or not vaccinating your children, Stuff White People Like is usually not good for anyone else. But what if only white people like a certain civil right?

A new poll of gay marriage support suggests that might be the case. Last week, YouGov polled nearly 1,000 online respondents and found that 48% of whites support “allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally”, but only 31% who identify as black and 39% as Hispanic do. In fact, they found that a majority of blacks oppose gay marriage.




But is it really? And is it even true? (Hint: No, and probably not.) Let’s find out!

The first red flag is the top-line number. This poll finds that only 45% of respondents support same-sex marriage. I say “only” because that’s about 10-15% lower than almost every other poll conducted on the issue in the last few years. If the overall support response is that far off, the demographic breakdowns are probably a bit off too.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.