Denying Threats

When Romney said that Russia is the U.S.’s biggest geopolitical foe during a 2012 presidential debate, Obama scoffed, saying: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Voters ignored Obama’s inexperience and naiveté and he became president with a failed policy arrogantly and egotistically treating Putin as an insignificant threat.

During a recent GOP candidate debate, Marco Rubio (accurately) predicted Putin’s current actions in Syria and he, too, was ridiculed. President Reagan was vilified for daring to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. Pie-in-the-sky ideology does not recognize the existence of evil-doers – unless they are Republicans.

The Left downplays or completely ignores real threats to America because recognizing them would result in taking action and that could require use of military might which they loathe. In Obama’s case, it would also mean admitting his weak foreign policies have failed, especially with regard to Russia where relations have been “re-set” by his administration. The Left picks targets that are politically correct and safe.

During Obama’s administration our troops were prematurely pulled out of Iraq; the “red line” in Syria was crossed and ignored; ISIS developed and now violently rampages in the Middle East; Iran received more time to develop a nuclear weapon unimpeded; Putin invaded the Ukraine; illegal immigrants were encouraged to and allowed to invade our country; North Korea increased threats to South Korea; and China increased expansionist activities.

The Left, meanwhile, has concentrated on threats from: Israel; Christmas and crèches; traditional marriage; FOX News; border security; profiling terrorists; decreased government spending; voter ID cards; the Tea Party; a strong military; displaying the American flag; the Washington Redskins; limits on abortion; the police; school lunches; Republicans; lower taxes; the 2^nd Amendment; Confederate flags and statues; Uber; coal; the Keystone pipeline; male and female rest rooms; and even children playing tag.

Feeling Safe?

David J. Hentosh

Arrogant Overreach

Fingers are being pointed and excuses are being drummed up as Democrats scramble to find reasons for the beat-down they received in the mid-term elections. If they would step outside their agenda for a moment they would see the one basic reason: arrogant overreach.

Arrogance is a far-left characteristic that Obama brought to the White House and it infected his administration and the entire Democrat Party. It fueled the false beliefs that Obama had a “mandate” to transform America and that his far-left social engineering agenda was acceptable to the majority.

Because of these false “beliefs”, Obama was given free reign from Democrats and the media to do whatever he wished. This allowed Obamacare to get hastily passed into law by a Democrat Congress ignorant of its contents and willfully blind to the deceit used to sell it.

The quick and successful passage of Obamacare convinced Democrats they had a righteous infallibility and when combined with arrogance, it compelled them to overreach on almost every issue. Critics were demeaned, silenced, and ignored as free birth control, abortions, open borders, amnesty, higher taxes, troop pullout, drones, part-time jobs, bailouts, increased food stamps, school lunch programs, and much more was dumped onto society.

Obama and Democrats arrogantly forced too much too quickly. It was political overreach. Failure of many of Obama’s foreign policies can also be attributed to overreach. The world doesn’t accept change any quicker than society does, especially without investigating the consequences.

This mid-term election was proof of the adage that “pride comes before the fall”. One can debate whether pride or arrogance comes first, but they are almost always found together. One can also debate Jonathan Gruber’s claim of taking advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” but it is a known fact that taking voter stupidity for granted can be perilous. Just ask any Democrat.

David J. Hentosh

Yes – This Election Is About Obama

Many Democrat candidates now distancing themselves from Obama are trying to say that this election is not about Obama – but it is. How can it not be?

Democrats have unconditionally backed Obama’s agenda. That includes his executive orders, his failing foreign policies, his poor economy, his refusal to enforce the law or take responsibility for failure, his demonizing of FOX News, and his “transformation of America”. They even blindly backed Michelle’s unrealistic lunch program – the one now being dropped like a hot potato.

Many Democrats were elected to office riding the coat tails of the idealistic Obamacare, blindly echoing Obama’s ruse of keeping our health plans and doctors. Criticism of Obama was unabashedly attributed to racism and a “GOP war on women” was manufactured to scare up women’s votes. Democrats bought into it all and cannot now pretend otherwise.

Democrats were eager for power and wanted to “make history” so Obama’s inexperience and personal desire for social engineering was ignored. The mainstream media, predominantly Democrats, invested their journalistic integrity in Obama – and lost. This election is about them, too.

The Democrat House and the Senate were rubber stamps for Obama and when the House became a Republican majority, the Senate under Harry Reid’s dictate blocked everything sent their way, aided by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. This election is about Reid and Pelosi, too.

Obama’s rallying cry of “hope and change” has become “I hope they change” from a majority of the American people believing the country is going in the wrong direction. They are right, but they need to come out and vote in order to begin to change that direction.

Yes, this election is about Obama – and the sycophantic Democrat Party. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

David J. Hentosh

Michelle Losing Food Fight

Michelle Obama’s anti-choice campaign to make children eat what she wants them to eat is falling apart at the seams. Kids, parents, and school systems across the country have had enough of her government school lunches and are, literally, throwing them away.

The National School Board Association reports that since the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act” was passed in 2010, 83.7% of school districts saw an increase in plate waste and 76.5% saw a decrease in participation by students. School districts are dropping out of the school lunch program (321 districts in 43 states in 2013) at an increasing rate, some opting to start their own lunch programs.

In typical government fashion, a one-size-fits-all calorie limit has been established leaving many kids hungry and many lunches unappetizing. Michelle Obama’s kids dine on chicken wings, Cuban sandwiches, cheese steaks, and meatball sandwiches at the elite, private school they attend, but her school lunch program for the masses doesn’t allow anything like that.

Under the federal guidelines, some lunches seem like a joke. In Chickasha, Oklahoma, angry parents complained about a so-called “Munchable” meal consisting of a couple of slices of lunch meat, a couple crackers, and two pieces of cauliflower. Many lunches are skimpy, unappealing and, for many, simply revolting.

Some students are boycotting the lunch program, a move that can cause a financial loss to the school and force a change. Many students are just throwing the lunch away. Sadly, under-privileged children who may not get another meal all day go hungry and receive far too few needed calories.

There has been little negative press for Michelle because, like her husband, she received unconditional media support. She also has the same elite, liberal mindset as her husband, believing she knows best what is good for all. She will now join her husband under the bus as it all comes crumbling down – as predicted.

David J. Hentosh