Hi, Folks -

As Scott Owens points out, how a thing is framed is pretty important. Look at Bundy's remarks and frame them as "racist" and you may miss the point of what he's saying, which is simply that black people he's aware of or heard of don't seem to have thrived very much since the introduction of and within the welfare system.

Young black Candace Owens has repeatedly made the point that (paraphrasing), "Just because you're black doesn't mean you have to be a Democrat."

Her BLEXIT campaign or movement is about black people exiting from the Democrat party, which is the party that typically supports the expansion of government and of government-provided 'benefits' (e.g., welfare).

Stefan Molyneux has repeatedly made the point (again paraphrasing), "Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of outcome."

The perhaps well-intentioned notion of "affirmative action" (another Democrat idea, requiring larger government) has shown itself to be wrong-headed, not only failing to produce the equality of outcome many had hoped for but now clearly having resulted in a kind of 'reverse racism', denying equality of opportunity to many because of their color, gender, or religion.

Meanwhile, Molyneux and others are pointing out that the welfare system has led directly to the destruction of traditional families. The government provides more resources for families with more children and no husband, since it's presumed a husband would be able to provide resources for his family.

In effect, women are being paid to be single mothers and to have many children who will be raised without the benefit and influence of an actual father figure in the home. Yet the provided resources are not sufficient to do much more than survive in modest comfort, leaving that family "sheltering in place", typically for more than just one generation.

The effect, as Dinesh D'Souza has mentioned, is that of a plantation existence in the inner cities.

Which brings us back to bundy's remarks. :) His observation was on-target. The only problem is that he spoke of his observation using the only terms, the only mental image, he had available to use. Had he partaken of the thoughts of Owens, Molyneux, D'Souza and others, he may well have expressed himself differently.

--hobie

***************************************************************