In his recent interview with Hispanic journalists from Univision in Miami, President Obama was asked about the “Fast and Furious” gun walking operation. Specifically, they asked if he thought he should fire Attorney General Eric Holder. As he began his verbal defense of Holder – the first Attorney General in the history of the U.S. to be held in Contempt of Congress – Obama did the unthinkable for a president. He lied. He lied with impunity.
President Obama told the interviewer that “Fast and Furious” was a field initiated operation started under President George Bush. When Attorney General Holder learned of the operation, he said, Holder shut it down. This was a blatant lie – not even a close approximation of the truth – just more evidence that Obama considers Americans ignorant, gullible and yes…stupid. The Bush era gun walking operation was known as Operation “Wide Receiver,” was worked in cooperation with the Mexican government, was considered successful and was terminated in 2007 – two years before Obama (or Holder) took office.
Will you Help?
While Obama and his people lie at every turn, spinning stories with no relationship to the facts, or even to commonsense, his favorable ratings continue to climb. I remember speaking to a lady who loves Obama and plans to vote for him in November. I asked, “Which of his policies are most important to you?” Her response was immediate and without apology. “I don’t know about that stuff. I just love him.”
You may say I don’t get out much, but the truth is that I’ve yet to speak with one Obama supporter who has read both his books. Perhaps, you heard the 2008 tapes of people supporting Obama and believing that his running mate was Sarah Palin! Do you know somebody like this? Can we just stand by and watch these people destroy the country through ignorance? Or, can we engage and talk to them while there’s still a chance to change their mind?
As I write on the Home Page, this is clearly the most important election of our lifetime. When a president lies to Americans in such an open and reckless manner; when he fails to protect the lives of U.S. personnel serving abroad; when he apologizes for America; when he opts for fundraising events over security briefings; when he forgets awarding a Congressional Medal of Honor; when he has time to call the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, but not the mother of a dead soldier – there is a problem.
When debt spirals out of control, when over 8% of Americans are out of work; when more men than at any other time in history have left the workforce, no longer looking for work – there is a problem. Would people vote for him if they knew these things; if they heard what he’s said about Americans? I’m praying they would not.
What if you could help reverse the damage by learning all of the facts in a quick, easy read and then just sharing that information with your friends in everyday, informal conversation. Here’s your chance if you don’t want the Obama lies, hate and divisiveness to continue.
Effective Monday, September 24, I’m reducing the price of my Kindle book, 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama, from $4.99 to to 99 cents – so that every responsible American voter can get it and share its factual – easy to read content – with all of their friends. 99 cents is the lowest allowable kindle book price on Amazon. You can order at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0080JOAUE. The paperback version of 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama is now available for $11.77. Use the discount code AYW7MDA4 when ordering from www.createspace.com/3838729 and receive $2 off that already low price.
I am speaking to you from the heart as a fellow American – not as somebody trying to sell books! If you believe as I do, that Obama’s policies are responsible for divisiveness, job losses, increased danger in the world, a weakening of America and potentially irreversible damage to our economy, please get, read and share 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama. 100% of all royalties remaining after these discounts will be donated to Wounded Warrior Project. My gain will be the same as yours: To know that together, we did our very best to stop the damage and return our nation to responsible leadership.
As this is being written, violent protests have occurred in more than a dozen Middle East and North African countries.
The wildfire of anti-American protests started on September 11, 2012, 11 years to the day after Islamic radicals brought down the Twin Towers and killed nearly 3,000 Americans. But, today there is a difference – a very ugly difference. Today, we face these attacks with an Administration ill suited to the task and seemingly preoccupied with damage control. In that effort of political self preservation, the Obama administration insults the intellect of the American people and insults the memory of four brave American representatives killed in the Benghazi, Libya assault.
First, we have an apology coming from the U.S. Embassy in Egypt – an apology that actually preceded the assault on the Embassy and the burning of the American flag. The subject of the apology: an obscure video released on YouTube in July, 2012, ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney quite correctly took issue with Obama’s apology. But, Obama has apparently been moderately successful in distancing himself from the Embassy’s statement, saying that he did not authorize it – while, at the same time, ridiculing Romney for “shooting before he aims.”
Well, how about that? Any person who has ever served in a sensitive position in the military, or in the government in general, will tell you that there are protocols for virtually everything – particularly, statements made in the international arena. The idea that an Embassy would release a statement essentially apologizing , on behalf of the United States, to a large religious block without presidential approval is stunning. It is particularly odd that a statement amounting to an apology did not come from Obama. The number of apologies he has made for our Country suggests strongly that somewhere in Washington there is an apology czar combing the wires for stories in any part of the world that could warrant a U.S. apology!
Then there is the obvious – and again I call on those who have served in the military, or in law enforcement. Given the tensions in the Middle East – given the recent political transitions in Egypt and Libya – how is it even possible that this administration would not have increased security (with U.S. forces) for at least the preceding week and the week following the anniversary of 9/11? Was this an oversight, or was as it the result of sheer hubris on Obama’s part? Whatever the reason, four brave men were murdered. They might have still been alive today, if this very basic step had been taken.
Now, while Romney continues to be the subject of over the top political attacks based on his stand against the initial Embassy apology, the White House is in effect repeating that apology. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney points out that the protesters were not protesting against Obama’s policies, or his administration. They were protesting against a low budget video released in July, 2012 and amazingly causing people in Egypt and Libya to become sufficiently enraged to burn the American flag and kill four Americans – but, not until September 11 – a day that also “lives in infamy.” That’s not enough. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the audacity to repeat this theory in the presence of mourning family members of the four dead Americans.
While President Obama spoke today, during the arrival of our four murdered patriots, it is beyond comprehension that he reportedly first called the mourning families from his plane on the way to a campaign event in Las Vegas, that he has allegedly missed (presumably, by choice) 65% of his security briefings and that he refused a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in favor of an appearance on the David Letterman show. Even now, he continues to campaign – or, is he simply doing his best to avoid calls for a decision – to make this another “Present” vote?
This Administration seems thoroughly convinced that whatever they say to the American people will be believed and embraced without discussion or analysis. Their behavior is no longer just insulting. It is dangerous.
If these things are not sufficiently bizarre, former President Jimmy Carter has weighed in, saying that Obama should follow the example he set in handling the Iran hostage situation. Those who remember can tell you that Jimmy Carter did not handle the Iran hostage situation. He displayed weakness for the world as Barack Obama does today. The election of President Reagan was singularly responsible for the release of the hostages, as the timing of their release overwhelmingly proved. Perhaps, if we are fortunate, the election of Mitt Romney will have the same effect throughout the Middle East.
On June 23, 2011, speaking to members of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, President Obama – Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s armed forces – reminded the soldiers that:
“…First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to, who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[i]
This could have been a fine moment for a President remembering an American hero….except for one flaw in his speech. President Obama presented Staff Sergeant Jared Monti’s Medal of Honor, posthumously, to his parents at a White House ceremony conducted on September 17, 2009.[ii] Sgt. Monti was killed in action on June 21, 2006.[iii]
These should be moments indelibly etched on the mind of a caring person – let alone a caring President…unless, of course, they don’t care.
Just five days before leaving office, then President Bush – unifying the nation around a new President – proudly noted in his press conference:
“Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.”[i]
Eight days into the new Administration, President Obama’s new Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, told the American people:
“President Obama immediately made clear that the type of ethical transgressions, the blatant conflicts of interest, waste and abuses that we have seen over the last eight years will no longer be tolerated.”[ii]
This would be only an early and small example of President Obama’s seemingly infinite ability to divide America, direct blame, avoid personal responsibility and promote discord.
* * * *
Marxism v. “Income Inequality”
Our Founding Fathers believed that we were all “created equal” and endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Obama and his cohorts seem to view those words, not as a commitment to equal opportunity, but as a promise of equal outcome. It is only in that context that we can understand the words of such Obama stalwarts as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who promised:
“Nothing is more important to Congress, than reducing income inequality.”[iii]
The political system to which “income equality” belongs is not one that has ever been found in America. It is far closer to the one advocated by Karl Marx. It is nothing less than scary that these words should come from a U.S. Senator. In America we are guaranteed equal opportunity – not equal outcomes.
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.
As with nearly everything else, Obama has been given a free pass on his associations and what they might mean to America – with him in the White House. He freely admits sitting in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for more than 16 years, but somehow claims to have missed the Pastor’s most hateful, America bashing sermons. While the odds against that claim being true are statistically astronomical, perhaps the even bigger point here, is the influence of James H. Cone on Wright’s day-to-day operation of the church.
Says Brad O’Leary, author of The Audacity of Deceit, “Wright denounces ‘Colored Preachers’ who don’t subscribe to Black Liberation Theology (of James H. Cone) as people who:”
“…hate themselves, who hate black people, who desperately want to be white and who write and say stupid things in public to make ‘Masa’ feel safer.”
Obama – attributing the words to the character “Rafiq,” tells us in Dreams from My Father, that:
“…they [blacks with whom Obama was working] spend half they lives worrying about what white folks think. Start blaming themselves for the shit they see every day, thinking they can’t do no better till the white man decides they all right.”[i]
The person credited with this statement was reportedly explaining to Obama how he would be dead if not for Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
James H. Cone, on whose Black Liberation Theology, Wright’s church was based, is credited with statements such as:
“While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”[i]
But, it is Obama himself who makes perhaps the most revealing and frightening statement of all:
“I wondered whether…a black politics that suppressed rage toward whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.”[i]
Apparently, Obama did take away something of Jeremiah Wright and James H. Cone during thos 832+ Sundays he spent listening to Wright’s less offensive sermons.
Peter Dreier, as described in Radical-in-Chief, was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America’s National Executive Committee, a frequent contributor to The Nation, a major influence on Community Organizing, “a key strategist” in the development of ACORN’s bank pressuring campaign, and a proponent of a scenario in which the expansion of state spending takes the public sector and – ultimately the entire country – to the brink of financial collapse. This forces a call for spending cutbacks which, in turn, mobilizes those receiving government entitlements to protest, even to the point of revolution.[i] Sound familiar? We need look only to our experience in Wisconsin to see a living albeit minor example.
Dreier reportedly believes that this entitlement crisis may result in violent revolution and lead the country finally into either Fascism or Socialism. He advocates the use of community organizers to assure that it is the latter and suggests the importance of having “a left wing grassroots movement already in place” to accomplish this.[ii] Again, we may have current examples under the Obama Administration – the “Occupy” movement, supported by Obama and the membership of Obama’s Organizing for America: a force of unknown size and strength. Could this be Obama’s Civilian National Defense Force?
Coincidentally, Dreier believes that corporations should be controlled by Labor Unions and community organizations. According to author Stanley Kurtz, “a 1980 piece in Social Policy” contains a drawing depicting such an organization – oddly enough – called “U.S. Motors.”[iii]
In spite of all these similarities to current events, if it still seems a distant stretch, it is also of interest to note that Dreier served as an Advisor to Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign.[iv]
(Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)
[i] Stanley Kurtz, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, (New York, 2010, Threshold Editions), 43-49
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:
“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”[iii]
Recall that Louis Farrakhan received an award from Obama’s Pastor – that he was invited periodically to speak at Rev. Wright’s Church, Trinity United – a church attended for 16 years by Barack Obama. Michelle Obama is pictured in a 2004 photo with Louis Farrakhan, his wife Khadijah and Rev. Willie Barrow, an Obama superdelegate and member of his 2008 campaign’s official faith outreach team. Barrow, according to a 2002 Farrakhan interview, also assisted Farrakhan in devising the platforms of the Nation of Islam.[iv]
No doubt all of this is merely a coincidence – just like Obama’s alleged ties to now convicted felon Tony Rezko, former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and to America bashing minister Jeremiah Wright.
Each time these associations surface, the Left immediately and scornfully condemns the idea of “Guilt by Association.” Reasonable and prudent people however, might agree that there is a “tipping point,” beyond which we must conclude, as one saying goes: “Show me the people with whom he surrounds himself and I’ll show you who he is.”
When we consider Alinsky, ACORN, SEIU, Wright, Ayers, Bell and the “Marxist Professors,” Farrakhan, Cone, Holdren, Sunstein, Dunn, Jennings, Khalidi, Rezko, the “Occupiers” and others, who then – who really – is Obama?
(Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)
On January 30, 2012, a North Carolina pre-schooler had her lunch replaced by an inspector from the Department of Health and Human Services’ “More at Four” program. “More at Four,” a stimulus funded program operating at the state level, ensures that home packed lunches brought into the schools by children, conform to USDA guidelines. Inspectors are periodically sent into the schools to check these homemade lunches.[i]
In this case, the inspector’s position was that a four year old child’s home packed turkey and cheese sandwich on whole wheat white bread, with a banana, potato chips and apple juice did not conform. Instead, the child was given a school tray, from which she ate only three chicken nuggets…CHICKEN NUGGETS! What a healthy alternative![ii]
For those who do not think Obama’s Healthcare Reform program is about federal controls, here is a great example of this Administration’s belief that government trumps parents – even in areas as personal as food choices for our children. It is fine, in Obama’s world, for a government inspector to tell, or imply to a child that there is something wrong with the lunch provided by his or her parents. It is apparently also o.k., for the inspector to make a change in that lunch and for the providing school to charge the parent, as they did in this case.
While stimulus funds were marked for the hiring of police officers, it is fair to say that no rational American believed the Administration meant “Food Police.”
Is this the type of change we should believe in?
(Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)