Manipulation by Democrats

The average benefit for food stamp recipients is currently $113.41 per month. The food stamp program was re-named SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) for politically correct purposes, but the “assistance” it provides is still not intended to be the only means of paying for food. Otherwise, the “A” (for Assistance) in SNAP would not be there.

Apparently, 26 Democrats in Congress are too dense to understand that or are just putting on a show in the media by taking what is being called the “SNAP Challenge” in order to protest a Farm Bill that, if passed, will reduce food stamp benefits. (Why a “Farm Bill” is dealing with food stamps is a whole different problem.) This SNAP Challenge is to live off of $4.50 per day for food to show how difficult that is, eliciting sympathy for keeping and/or increasing the current food stamp benefit.

Food stamps were never intended to be used in that manner, but idealism is blind to reality. This challenge involves spending $4.50 per day instead of buying in quantity like those actually receiving food stamps would do. It is a transparent ploy to make things seem as bad as possible. Would you buy just one apple or one hot dog per day if you actually had to subsist on food stamps? Would you buy them from an “organic” food store where prices are exorbitant? Would you buy pre-packaged, individually wrapped cheese slices? Would you buy just one apple?

The media, of course, loves this SNAP challenge and treats it as if it is a display of sensitivity in a creative, witty way instead of political theater. Unfortunately, many voters are manipulated easily. They bought the lie of being able to keep the health insurance they have and still believe health care premiums will go down. It’s a small step to believe food stamps should pay for all the food one needs. Don’t be surprised if it becomes one of Hillary’s campaign promises.

David J. Hentosh

Schumer’s Victory Dance

Sen. Chuck Schumer gleefully said on the Senate floor that “illegal immigration will be a thing of the past” once his immigration bill is passed. Where, exactly, is the pride in solving an illegal act by making it legal? Is that the best we can do? Apparently, it is, and it is one more sign of our escalating decline.

There is little doubt that if Schumer’s “solution” is put into place, border crossings will increase by those seeking the amnesty Schumer is eager to offer. Crossings are already rising in Texas. Schumer’s promise of securing the border later is as meaningful as “you can keep the health insurance you have”. Our government has a long history of reneging on promises and cutting funds.

When society stigmatized divorce, we made divorce easily obtainable. Today, 50% of marriages end in divorce and the family unit is crumbling. When illegal alcohol spurred out-of-control organized crime, we made alcohol legal again and organized crime flooded the country with drugs. We “solved” illegal gambling by making it legal through casinos and membership in Gambling Anonymous is steadily rising. When teen pregnancies increased, we handed out condoms in elementary schools and began actively encouraging their frequent use, resulting in a single motherhood epidemic. We “solved” the problem of dangerous back-alley abortions by making abortion legal, resulting in more and more abortions that have gone so far as murder outside the womb.

There is a pattern here. Society and our “leaders” are solving difficult problems with easy fixes and no forethought to consequences. The current easy fix being generated for our runaway drug problem is to make drugs legal. Does anyone really believe flooding the free market with legal, dangerous drugs (and that will surely be a result) will curtail their usage?

Chuck Schumer’s victory dance is not only premature, it is ridiculous. Amnesty, especially before securing the border, is a politically expedient fix for a difficult problem that will cause more problems. Obamacare is a perfect example of a hasty, politically expedient fix resulting in a nightmare.

When will we ever learn?

David J. Hentosh

Progressive Immigration Failure in Sweden

Progressives love to point to Sweden as an example of the type of utopian society they believe their agenda creates, but this past week’s riots in Sweden are a direct result of the continuing denial such an agenda demands. In the face of these riots, that denial continues as the press tries hard not to report that the overwhelming majority of rioters are Muslims.

Starting in the 80’s, Sweden began admitting a large number of third world immigrants, creating a generous welfare system to help them settle and assimilate. Economic and political upheaval in countries such as Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq brought a huge number of Muslims to welcoming Sweden. Rather than assimilate, however, they created their own communities mirroring the values and traditions of their Muslim homelands.

The progressive, non-judgmental attitude prevalent in Sweden not only allowed these communities to shun assimilation, it allowed, and encouraged, an entire generation of Muslim immigrants to grow dependent on the welfare system while being infused with values and traditions that clash with Western societies. The violence towards the West found in the Middle East Muslim world, therefore, became part of their upbringing.

As Sweden tries to address the economic burden of their welfare system and revamp immigration policies, accusations of discrimination abound from those who have benefited most from those progressive policies. The autonomous communities that have been allowed to form are becoming offensive to many and as refusal to change continues, discrimination will undoubtedly occur.

There is much confusion on the part of officials in Sweden concerning the riots. Fully engrossed in progressive idealism, they do not understand how the recipients of their generosity could do such a thing. For those without progressive blinders, it is an inevitable result of being conditioned to welfare and treated with non-judgmental deference.

There is a lesson to be learned from this, but it is highly doubtful progressives here will see it. They have the same idealistic blinders on, believing open immigration and unlimited welfare works. The mainstream media agrees and will continue to conceal the rot such policies bring. They are much too invested to turn back now and will not allow riots in Sweden to be an omen.

David J. Hentosh

Is the Obama Administration Imploding?

The Obama Administration’s incompetence, arrogance, and mistakes are becoming too big to hide. The liberal media’s pretense that all is well is cracking as the public slowly becomes informed rather than misled.

“What difference does it make?” was Hillary’s arrogant attempt to dismiss Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerns on Benghazi and advance an administration cover-up, but her transparent act of being offended has now become offensive to many. Hiding facts surrounding the death of Americans does, indeed, make a difference.

Obama’s re-election was protected by the Benghazi cover-up but Hillary’s presidential bid may now be in jeopardy. Senator Durbin (D-Ill.) can pretend the GOP is conducting a “witch hunt” because of fearing Hillary in 2016, but the real fear is that the entire Democrat Party will face dire consequences – and it should. The rubber-stamping Obama received from Democrats made this all possible.

Revelations of the IRS targeting non-profit groups such as the Tea Party for political purposes are further proof of an administration out of control, but blinders remain. Carl Bernstein declared that he “can’t imagine” President Obama is possibly involved in this IRS infraction, though he had no problem imagining Nixon’s involvement in a minor, bungled break-in, and helping to bring about his resignation because of it.

Much of the public has been kept in the dark and, therefore, also “can’t imagine” the depths of this administration’s errors and political tactics. The facts coming forth now do not rely on one’s imagination and should shock all out of the political stupor that has taken hold, but perhaps that is too optimistic a view.

Hillary for president is being advanced even in the wake of her Benghazi debacle. Joe Klein, on the Chris Matthews show (soon to become the “Hillary-for-President Show”), began the erasure of the 2008 liberal campaign theme that experience doesn’t count by stating that Hillary is “…one of the most experienced candidates we’ve ever had running for president”.

One can hope that Hillary’s “experience” in the Benghazi cover-up will be remembered and will count. Perhaps Obama’s administration will have completely imploded by then – that is, if the media will allow it. There is “Hope” for “Change” in 2016.

David J. Hentosh

Irreversible Damage

After the Boston bombings, a poll revealed that Fox News was the most watched and most trusted network covering the incident. Although the rejection of liberal biased networks is encouraging, damage caused by years of voter ignorance aided by media bias may be irreversible.

A recent poll shows that 42% of Americans don’t know that Obamacare has been passed into law. Unfortunately, many of these people vote. The hastily passed healthcare bill that is proving to be a disaster was sold to the public by a media vested in “making history” and reluctant to report on the bill’s failures. Congress is now trying to exempt itself from Obamacare while some unions, avid Obama backers, are trying to get many of its provisions repealed, but the media continues praising it.

Another poll shows that 55% of Americans don’t know that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, actually performs abortions. It receives taxpayer money based on the perception that its function is only women’s healthcare, a notion reinforced by President Obama stating publicly that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms, which it doesn’t.

The current trial of abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell, accused of killing newborns as part of his abortion practice, went unmentioned by the mainstream media until it was forced to cover it because of the attention from Fox News and other responsible news outlets. The progressive media fully approves of abortion so it is reluctant to report anything negative concerning it.

Due to media-assisted voter ignorance, many abortion practices that most find despicable have taken root in society and flaws in Obamacare adversely affecting everyone have become law. It now seems likely that immigration reform will focus on amnesty and ignore border security, putting us all in danger for years to come.

Permanent damage has been done and more is sure to come if the biased media continues unfettered. A Republican White House would surely compel the liberal media to return to being a “watchdog” critically investigating administration policies. If that doesn’t occur, the damage already done will end up seeming miniscule compared to what is coming.

David J. Hentosh

Pre-writing History

Repetition, repetition, repetition – It is the method being used by the left to forge public perception and pre-write history. The bombardment of false perceptions has taken root in many, and future historians may not be able to discern the truth. The squeaky wheel of the left may get the historians’ grease.

According to the progressive left (including, of course, the media): Dick Cheney is evil; the GOP is racist; the rich pay no taxes; Bush wrecked the economy; the Catholic Church promotes pedophilia; Obama has superior intelligence; the US is the most terroristic nation in the world; socialism works well; Castro is an humanitarian; there is no deficit problem; taxing the rich for their “fair share” will solve the deficit problem; limiting abortion is a war on women; Obamacare costs less; etc., etc.

The list goes on and on, with reality never making an appearance. Yet, these things are accepted by a lot of people, and they vote, sometimes more than once. Obama was elected, then re-elected, by an overflow of uninformed voters inundated with talking points from the media, celebrities, and progressive politicians. Nothing negative was attributed to Obama and, consequently, may not appear in future history books, either.

Before thinking this is too pessimistic, look at how many in the GOP have panicked and are now abandoning conservative principles in an effort to become “relevant” with what they perceive to be a progressive majority. They see the writing on the wall as: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. For them, abortion is losing its ugliness, immigration reform is beginning to sound like amnesty, same-sex marriage suddenly appeared in the Constitution exactly where the right to bear arms disappeared, social issues are becoming the government’s main responsibility, and Obamacare is beginning to look cheap at twice the original estimate.

If the Republican Party caves, only one, distorted view of history will survive and it is currently being written. Historians will have to drink the Kool-Aid because it may be the only drink available.

David J. Hentosh

Another Feel-good, “Make History” Election?

Former Democrat Party spokeswoman Karen Finney tells us that a 2016 presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama “…would truly be a dream team for America…Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children”.

It seems that making history by electing (then re-electing) totally inexperienced Barack Obama felt so good that doing it again is even more desirable. Breaking the “glass ceiling” with a woman president would again make history, and combining it with a woman vice president would be a great historical twofer to cherish.

Michelle Obama’s absolute lack of professional political experience is irrelevant. After all, she “raised children”, proving she is an “effective leader”. (Sadly enough, that may be more of a real accomplishment than Barack had when he was chosen to make history.) Hillary, of course, proved her qualifications by becoming a Senator with no political experience and then was anointed Secretary of State – perhaps because she also “raised children”.

It has always been a fault of our election process that popularity played such a key role, but it was mostly the popularity of politicians. In today’s politics, popularity is bestowed upon whomever the progressive media decides is worthy, and combining that with a desire to make history is a recipe for disaster.

Should Hillary decide not to run, the media could push Michelle to the forefront and bring in Sandra Fluke as candidate for vice president. She, too, has no political experience but was made a celebrity by the progressive media because…well…one isn’t quite sure – much like one isn’t quite sure why Kim Kardashian was made into a celebrity. It’s a media thing and people follow.

There’s the frightening thing: People buy into it. Voters elected Obama with no experience because of media endorsement, then re-elected him because the media ignored negative results of his inexperience. The media has already decided making up news is part of its job, so making history is a natural progression. Michelle becoming president would not be a fluke, but Fluke could very well be vice president.

We may be doomed.

David J. Hentosh

Leftist Denial Intensifying

It seems that the public’s continued lowering opinion of the media, Congress, and the president has had an effect on leftist denial, but it has been to increase it rather than decrease it. The hardcore left is doubling down instead of backing off.

Unconditional, and irrational, adoration of Obama broke new ground with Sports Illustrated naming president Obama as one of the 50 most powerful people in sports. Sounding like a Saturday Night Live skit (or a North Korean news story about their leader), SI considers Obama’s off-handed and un-presidential remarks about various sports as powerful influences.

Nancy Pelosi continues to make senseless statements intended to elicit unconditional acceptance of the administration’s agenda. She redefined tax cuts as spending, adding that we should cut spending by ending tax cuts. Furthering her distance from reality, she also said that Obama has been very bipartisan.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, arguing for gun control, asserted that “…it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines”. Perhaps in Feinstein’s personal Bizarro world this may be true, but it makes her sound battier than Pelosi – a difficult thing to do.

Refusing to bow to the pressure of reality, the Associate Press continues spin for Obama by lauding a recent drop of .2% in the unemployment rate, adding: “The American job market isn’t just growing. It’s accelerating”. Chris Matthews certainly agreed, wondering when Obama would get “credit for this amazing economy that’s coming back”. For those who have given up looking for a job or forced to settle for a part-time job, this job market is far from having an amazing acceleration.

With reports of global temperatures remaining stable for the past decade, one would think Al “global warming” Gore would take his fortune along with his panic and just go away. Instead, he continues to present himself as a science expert with a new book, “The Future”, expecting his credibility to be intact. It isn’t, but many caught up in political inertia still buy his act.

Perhaps it is true that a good offense is the best defense, but leftist denial propaganda is stale, overexposed, and seemly. It is time to give up that ghost.

David J. Hentosh

Obama is Campaigning Instead of Governing

President Obama does not like governing. He has little experience with it; he is not good at it; and it deflates his ego. He does, however, love campaigning because it consists of rhetoric with little substance or accountability.

Much of what Obama has been doing is rooted in the campaign tactic of demonizing opponents. He created class warfare to turn people against the wealthy who are severe critics of his policies. Throughout his first term, he continued campaigning by demonizing Bush, blaming him for everything. His second term finds him using fear to help make Republicans the fall guys.

With most of the mainstream media in his pocket, Obama has made several attempts to demonize Fox News for refusing to blindly back his administration. Badmouthing Fox News from the White House is unseemly, petty, and highly unprofessional, but it is standard practice on the campaign trail and Obama has not left that trail.

Passage of the health care bill was treated like an election by Obama with promises and feel-good rhetoric substituting for facts in his many campaign-like speeches. His only goal was to win and winning simply meant passage of the bill by any means. Details as well as consequences of the bill were absent in those speeches. It was just another campaign for Obama filled with hollow promises.

Obama had no interest in cutting a deal in lieu of the automatic budget cuts (sequester). His dabble in governing on the issue consisted of short photo ops with GOP lawmakers that produced nothing. His disinterest in getting a federal budget passed in Congress (required yearly by law and accomplished only once in his administration) has been an obvious failure to govern.

With no re-election campaigning needed, Obama should be governing full time but it is not evident that he knows how to do that. He seems to be stuck in campaign mode while the country is in dire need of governance and leadership. We may have to wait until 2016 to see a “change”.

David J. Hentosh

Separation of Hollywood and State Needed

From the White House, Michelle Obama presented the Best Picture award at this year’s Academy Award ceremony. It is the first time a president or first lady presented an academy award, but it certainly isn’t the first time the White House used Hollywood. That has been occurring frequently the past several decades, but Obama has taken it to a level screaming for some of the attention separation of church and state receives.

Hollywood is universally known to tilt left and in recent years, many celebrities have used their popularity to speak out in favor of left-leaning politicians and policies. The mainstream media, also left-leaning and infatuated with Hollywood, indulges these celebrities with air time as if they were political experts, creating a false sense of a majority acceptance that highly influences many voters’ opinions.

Michelle’s Academy Award appearance topped off years of Obama’s blatant use of Hollywood’s partisanship. His election and re-election were aided enormously by Hollywood celebrities and his continued appearances on entertainment TV shows are used to bolster favorability ratings in the polls, not to inform the public.

In April of 2012, Barack and Michelle were credited with a total of 195 TV and movie appearances, surpassing those of President Reagan and his wife Nancy (both former actors). In his short political career, Obama has appeared seven times on the “Letterman Show”, five times on “The View” (once with Michelle who also appeared four times on her own), six times on “The Daily Show”, and five times on “Leno”.

In 2007, Oprah, the most powerful celebrity in the country, openly backed Obama’s candidacy on her show, hosted a 1500-guest fundraiser, and made four campaign appearances. Her endorsement is considered to be the major reason that Obama, an unknown, became the Democratic presidential candidate instead of Hillary Clinton. Obama learned well.

The White House visitor logs are highly populated with Hollywood celebrity names, and some have even taken part in supposedly serious policy-setting meetings. It is not for the good of the nation. It is only for the political good of Obama. Separation of Hollywood and State is in need of a national discussion before the president and the White House become a reality TV show. Or is it already too late?

David J. Hentosh