The late Andrew Breitbart’s video release of Barack Obama during his Harvard days revealed one more link in the president’s early chain of associations with radicals. But I watched a video a couple weeks ago that I believe is far more incriminating of our president, because it shows the present fallout from his radical agenda, including the redistribution of wealth.
Obama has been called the “food-stamp president” because more federal grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than most others combined. But far more than that, this president is the sultan of socialist swing with his assault of federal government entitlement expansions (Obamacare), spending, accruing of national debt, interdictions, seizures, regulations, overreaches, unilateral legislations, czars, presidential orders, Chicago-style politics, etc., and an award-winning and canny ability to make most believe he’s doing none of them!
The Heritage Foundation has reported that not only has the president greatly expanded welfare, “but he has also eliminated a program that aims to reduce the prevalence of single motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States.”
The Heritage Foundation further documented that President Obama’s 2011 budget increased total welfare spending to $953 billion, a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in 2008. And in the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion.
Worst of all: Rather than weaning generations off government aid and creating independent, hard-working citizens, President Obama and his administration is further enabling and expanding the already mammoth movement of government-dependent citizens.
The infamous Judge Judy Sheindlin agrees! She wants the government to know about it, as she recently told her courtroom and millions of people in her viewing audience.
Let me set the scene.
A woman plaintiff was suing an ex-boyfriend for living with her for months and never paying a dime of rent, even though he collected unemployment compensation, $437 a month from the county for rent, $22,000 a year of federal monies for college tuition (though even the least of skeptics would question if he even attended his classes after watching this segment).
When Judge Judy confronted the defendant for using taxpayers’ hard-earned monies for things other than his rent for which it was earmarked, he flippantly dodged any responsibility to help his former live-in girlfriend with rent by saying, “That’s what she was there for!” (That is, paying his rent.)
An increasingly upset Judge Judy retorted to the defendant, “I don’t even want to pay your rent; [but] the government says I have to pay your rent.”
Judge Judy then asked him, “What do you do?”
He responded laughing and almost mockingly, “I’m me! That’s what I do.”
Obviously disgusted, Judge Judy turned over to bailiff Petri Hawkins-Byrd and gave her commentary regarding what responsibility government bears in creating defendants like the one standing before her: “That’s what we’re creating: a him!”
And just to clarify to whom she was referring, Judge Judy followed up her tirade against the subsidy-abusing defendant by categorically stating, “I’m sending this tape to Congress!” (Don’t worry, Judge Judy, We the People will help you send it to Washington and everywhere else via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.!)
That defendant reminded me of the woman four years ago who was excited to explain to a Florida news crew why she voted for then-Sen. Obama: “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. … He’s going to help me!”
Watching the YouTube video segment of Judge Judy is well worth your seven minutes of time, if you can stomach the surprising and pathetic cliffhanger ending!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJRIFTQwSq4
Now we know what President Obama meant by “hope and change.” He clearly stated that goal and mission from the outset of his election: “fundamentally transform America.”
As a billboard outside of Clovis, N.M., which was “paid for by a Vietnam vet who is still fighting for his country,” explains: “So now we know … ‘change’ = MORE debt, MORE taxes, MORE welfare, MORE regulations, MORE government, MORE wasteful spending, MORE corruption.”
And all of Obama’s big-government expansion is creating more government-dependent citizens, who feel more and more entitled to siphon all the federal, state, county and city subsidies that they can get.
All of these socialistic (and, quite frankly, communistic) tendencies make me want to get the bumper sticker that I saw the other day, which has a picture of coins all over it and the words, “I’ll keep my God, my guns, my freedom, and my money. You keep the change!”
Is this the type of hope and change you were counting on with the Obama administration? (And to think nearly 40 percent of Americans still want to re-elect him for another four years?) It all smells to me like more SpreadingBO.com.
If you’re ready for real reform and bold solutions for our welfare state, then you’ll love former Speaker of the House and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s plan, “Unleashing Growth and Innovation Move beyond Welfare State.”
On March 5, 2012, Newt unveiled his plan that details a vision of how we can fundamentally move beyond the welfare state through growth and innovation.
Growth and innovation means liberating the poor from the trap of the Welfare Empire through new programs that are tailored to local communities, that promote work and that incentivize lifelong study. Building on the success of the 1996 welfare reforms, block-granting all federal means tested welfare programs back to the states would help millions move from dependency to prosperity while saving taxpayer trillions.
You can read more at Newt.org.
Thomas Jefferson summarized my views, as well as those of most patriots I know, in his comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy’s “Treatise on Political Economy”: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
|
