As the nation’s attention continues to be diverted by the Obama propaganda news outlets with their stories that fit their socialist narrative on racism, poverty and income inequality, the real news about the Obama administration is starting to see the light of day. New emails provided by Judicial Watch reveal that Obama senior adviser Ben Rhodes was the person who gave advice to Susan Rice, then Ambassador of the UN, for her appearances on the Sunday news shows.
The advice was, “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” and “to reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” The Rhodes email was sent to over 100 people in the White House inner circle.
Rhodes emails, dated 9/14/12, also stated this about the internet video, “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”
You may recall Hillary Clinton, alongside Obama, using just that phrase the very day that email was sent out on September 14, 2012. They started the lie that would eventually travel around the world in front of the victims and their mourning families.
Susan Rice used the same lie when she appeared on all of the Sunday news shows.
Ben Rhodes is an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. He works for Obama. He does what Obama tells him to do.
Ben’s brother, David Rhodes is President of CBS News. Sharyl Attkisson worked for CBS News. The same network that spiked Sharyl’s reports on Benghazi.
Meanwhile I have blithering, blabbering, talking heads on CNBC tout television; reminding me about “money on the sidelines waiting to come in”…
Ponder this – if money is on the sidelines and coming in – does then, that not mean… that other money is selling to them and coming out? Hello? SIR! Who wants to be the next bag holding retard? Or as my French Canadian future ex mother in law would say…“ray-tard”. Eh?
BTFD! and BTFATH! And then go read some ancient history from March 2000
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 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.
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.”