On July 2, 2008, during a rally in Colorado Springs, then Senator Obama made one of the most startling statements ever heard from a Presidential candidate. Obama told the American public:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a Civilian National Security Force that’s just as powerful – just as strong – just as well funded.”[i]
FactCheck.org soundly ridiculed Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), after Broun responded to Obama’s comment, saying “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s [Obama’s] the one who proposed this national security force. … That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.”[ii]
How does any person, news, or other organization of any kind justify ridiculing anyone questioning such a bizarre announcement from a sitting Senator and would-be President of the United States? The ridiculing of Rep. Broun was no less dangerous than the Obama statement itself.
Following are the words of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), ardent Obama supporter and a Democrat not afraid to play the race card when it buys ink or air time. Here, she attacks GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich as a racist.
“Let me say that the code words are, as far as I’m concerned words that generate and signify race. You recall, Martin, that comments made by someone other than the president when he was a candidate in 2008, caused him to make a significant speech on race to say “Race is a factor in the United States, but I work and will represent all people.” Here we have Newt Gingrich, taking the opposite road, if you will. It’s I will use race to divide.
“I will call the president the food stamp president, obviously not knowing that food stamps are utilized by our soldiers, utilized by Caucasians in a higher percentage than both African-Americans and Latinos. Food stamps are for people in need. Food stamps are for children.
“But, these code words are dividing us – telling us that a janitor who makes $37,000 a year would be in a better position to give his job up so that the children of the poor in New York, I think he used the example, the school district predominantly Latino and African-American can pick up a broom and work. So, we know that those children and children from other places as well, should have an opportunity to be an astronaut, mathematician, a scientist – and absolutely, we’re not against work. These children want work. They’re fighting for summer jobs. But, that is a code word to, if you will, portray poor children and poor school districts that they have seen no one work legitimately; that they don’t have a work ethic and these janitors are overpaid unionized workers who don’t have family and not making $37,000 a year.
“I think Mr. Newt Gingrich should be ashamed of himself and we should not want to win at any cost. Let’s bring the country together. Let’s not destroy Mr. Obama. Let’s talk about helping the American people.”[i]
Of course, there is always more than one way to look at words, actions, and intentions. The filter used by Congresswoman Jackson Lee is incorrect, an obstacle to lasting solutions and still another useless racial trigger. She points out that “food stamps are…utilized by Caucasians in a higher percentage than both African-Americans and Latinos…” This is true on its face, but represents a very selective manipulation of statistics – one that serves nobody. It would be more productive for Jackson Lee to base her words and actions on reality, rather than racial defensiveness. The general population of the United States, according to the U.S. Census, is broken down in part, as follows: White non Hispanic, 63.7%; Black, 12.6%; Latino, 16.3%.[ii] In terms of reliance on Food Stamps however, a 2005 study revealed that among rural recipients, 53% were white non Hispanic and 27% black. Among urban recipients, 34% were white non Hispanic and 35% black.[iii] This means two things: First, as a percentage of food stamp recipients, whites comprise the majority of rural recipients and only one percent less than blacks as urban recipients. In this respect, Jackson Lee is 100% correct. Unfortunately, this would suggest the need to apportion the bulk of our dedicated financial and other resources at programs that would assist white food stamp recipients in becoming less reliant on government assistance – a very wasteful approach, when the same statistics are properly interpreted.
The second thing these statistics tell us then, is this: As they relate to their percentage of representation in the overall population, whites are underrepresented as Food Stamp recipients, by nearly 11% (rural), or 30% (urban), while blacks – based on their participation in the overall population – are over represented as food stamp recipients by 214% and 278%, respectively. Ignoring, or defensively manipulating these statistics for political correctness, or racial defensiveness does not help blacks out of this difficult problem.
Additionally, Rep. Jackson Lee ignores the fact that Gingrich’s own daughter worked as a janitor during her teens – making his comments very unlikely to have been racially motivated. Nobody wins with this type of rhetoric – a style of choice for Democrats since Obama became President.
During his 2008 campaign, Senator Obama claimed kinship with a number of very famous people, including actor Brad Pitt. As we honor our nation on this July 4th, please take a few moments and read again, one of our greatest documents; written, signed, distributed and defended by some of our bravest citizens. Could our current president claim kinship with any of these inspired Americans? Interestingly, he does number six U.S. Presidents among his cousins – one of whom he has treated most shabbily: George W. Bush. 
When President Obama says America is not a Christian nation, perhaps he should read this Declaration as one of the best fact checking mechanisms available. Does Obama believe he derives his “…just powers from the consent of the governed…?” If he did, perhaps he would be far more concerned about working with, rather than around our Congress. Perhaps he would show greater respect to Americans who disagree with his policies, rather than attempting to publicly ridicule them.
We know it would be ridiculous to compare President Obama to a King. Yet, how striking the similarity between the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence and the struggle that has played out between our own federal government and the state of Arizona.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
To be sure, we are a very long way from experiencing the government abuses borne by our forefathers. Still, an imaginative mind might find a few other startling similarities in this document.
Thank God for this Declaration and for the long line of brave, committed Americans who, throughout our history, have placed their “Lives,” their “Fortunes” and their “Sacred Honor” on the line to preserve it. Thank God for a system in which we can place an end to political abuses at the polls, rather than through revolution.
God bless you and yours on this July 4th!
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1 Georgia:
Column 2 North Carolina:
John Penn South Carolina:
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Column 3 Massachusetts:
John Hancock Maryland:
Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia:
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Column 4 Pennsylvania:
George Ross Delaware:
Column 5 New York:
Lewis Morris New Jersey:
Column 6 New Hampshire:
William Whipple Massachusetts:
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:
William Ellery Connecticut:
Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire: