It’s not surprising that today The New York Times would come out and write a snarky, ass wipe article on Cliven Bundy. What took so long? It may be that they were too busy kissing the butt of their marxist/socialist, heart throb writer Thomas Piketty. Why would the New York Times pay attention to any real news when you can fantasize about world communism and totalitarianism? Since when did they report real news anyway? Go ask Walter Duranty?
The Times article tries to make Bundy out to be a racist when he is actually channelling a prominent best selling author Star Parker.
The article quotes Bundy as using the term Negro. When did Negro become a bad word?
“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.”
Mr. Bundy is describing the damage that government dependency can do to the American family. I would agree with Mr. Bundy that government dependency destroys a family’s ability to nurture and grow. It only equates to more government dependency. This is exactly what Starr Parker writes about in her book. In it she writes, “government manipulates, controls, and ultimately devastates the lives of the poor.”
Mr.Bundy may have a point about people “having nothing to do.” A new study points out that under our wonderful socialist president, the unemployment rate among black teens nationally is at a 38%. In Chicago, Obama’s old stomping ground, that rate is a staggering 92%. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Illinois said, “If a white man would have been president we would be marching around the White House.”
The New York Times, a liar czar propaganda outlet for Obama, also quoted Mr. Bundy as saying, ““And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
What Mr Bundy is saying is that government dependency equates to government slavery. He is referring to the notion that you eventually become the property of the all powerful and ever growing state. He reflects on the idea that the Negro maybe better off being a slave in the old days when government wasn’t as big as it is today. I think what Cliven is suggesting here is that being a slave to big government is worse off than being a slave to a slave owner in the pre-Civil War days. That may or may not be true. But I get a sense he means that with big government and all of its growing agencies, an individual has to deal with not one, but thousands of government slave masters.
As far as what he says about the issue of abortion. He is correct. 1 in 3 women in America have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. Black teenagers were twice as likely to have an abortion than white or Latino teenagers.
The New York Times is trying to belittle and besmirch Cliven Bundy because he is the “headline” now in America. He is exposing the shocking story of big government over-reach that affects every single American of every race. Bundy gets in the way of their communist agenda. They don’t agree with his politics. He isn’t a communist sympathizer who admires Stalin and Lenin. Bundy is “The Man” here. He is getting in the way of the Times agenda. I would suggest that the New York Times stick to writing more whiney and useless stories about lovable little terrorists and communist/socialists ninnies and leave the real truth telling and heavy lifting to “real Americans.”