Wednesday, February 15, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 265 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS

Government Gone Wild

If I told you that government food inspectors would soon be checking your child's lunchbox, you probably wouldn't believe me. I wouldn't believe me either! But that is exactly what happened at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford, North Carolina, recently.

The child's mother sent her to school with a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. Sounds good, right? Evidently, it failed the mandatory lunch inspection because the lunch did not have a vegetable. The child was then given a school lunch of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable. Guess what she ate? The chicken nuggets!

According to the Carolina Journal, the mother got a note from the school, "stating that students who did not bring a 'healthy lunch' would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria." So not only are government bureaucrats searching through your child's lunchbox, they are going to fine you for it too!

The child's mother wrote a letter to her state representative, who said he was shocked to learn this was happening. He looked into the issue and "has since learned this is a nationwide practice based on federal guidelines."

The girl's grandmother, who often makes her granddaughter's lunches, asked rhetorically, "This isn't China, is it?" Not yet, but welcome to Obama's brave new world. If the government can force us to buy specific products, force religious institutions to violate their values and send lunchbox inspectors to sort through our kids' food, Chinese-style "commissars" are in our future.

What's Next?

In a column at CNSNews.com Terry Jeffrey examines Obama's "contraception compromise" and asks the logical question, "What's next?" Consider this excerpt:

"Obama's 'solution' escalates his attack on freedom: He is now ordering private companies (in this case insurers) to provide a product for free… If Obama had the constitutional authority to tell insurance companies they must provide contraceptives and abortifacients for free, he could also tell grocers they must provide meat and bread for free. He could tell doctors they must provide abortions for free…"

Abortion coverage nearly derailed ObamaCare in Congress. Yet less than two years after he signed it into law, Obama is already trying to force religious institutions to pay for abortion-inducing drugs or insurance companies to provide them "for free." If Obama gets a second term, is it really a "bridge too far" to think that the most pro-abortion president in our history could decide that "reproductive justice" and "preventive care" necessitate free abortions under ObamaCare?

Obama Budget Director Bungles ObamaCare

Jeffrey Zients, Obama's acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, was grilled today on Capitol Hill over a key aspect of ObamaCare. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) asked Zients if Obama's budget imposed new taxes on those making less than $200,000, and Zients dutifully said no. Rep. Garrett then sprung a trap.

He asked Zients what would happen to folks who refused to purchase health insurance under ObamaCare's individual mandate. Would they pay a fine or a tax? Zients said the penalty was not a tax. If this line of questioning sounds familiar, it should.

In 2009, ABC's George Stephanopoulos confronted Barack Obama on this very point, asking whether the large penalty in ObamaCare constituted a new tax. Obama adamantly denied it was a tax. If it is a tax, then he is violating his pledge not to raise taxes on middle class families – a political disaster. As Stephanopoulos pressed the point, Obama became increasingly agitated and eventually said, "I absolutely reject that notion."

This is more than just a potential political disaster for the White House. It has repeatedly defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate in court based on Congress' power to levy -- you guessed it -- TAXES!

When Judge Roger Vinson struck down ObamaCare in 2010, he blasted the administration's misleading defense, writing: "Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an 'Alice-in-Wonderland' tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely…"

In other words, Obama, Pelosi and Reid lied to the American people when they said that the individual mandate was not a new tax, and administration officials are still lying about it today!

My friends, you won't hear about this on the evening news tonight because the liberal media are in the tank for Obama. And unless you are reading this daily report or listening to Rush Limbaugh (and most Americans are not), you probably would never know that top administration officials are deliberately misleading members of Congress and the American people about ObamaCare.

Gutting Our Nuclear Deterrent

Evidently the White House is taking an "Alice-in-Wonderland" approach to national security issues too. As Iran marches toward the development of its own nuclear arsenal, there are reports today that Obama is considering massive cuts -- up to 80% -- in America's nuclear arsenal. Such cuts could give China nuclear superiority over the United States.

This makes no sense at all. There are a lot of misconceptions about nuclear weapons, but here is the basic point to keep in mind: We don't test them. As one defense expert put it, they are not like rifles where we can take them out and test fire a thousand rounds. In order to maintain an effective deterrent, our nuclear arsenal requires a tremendous amount of redundancy.

And speaking of Iran, each day the headlines demonstrate the idiocy of Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy. After assassination attempts and terrorist attacks in India, Thailand and Georgia aimed at Israeli diplomats, Mitchell Silber, director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, is warning that New York City could also become a target because of its significant Jewish population.

Paul contends that if only we withdrew from the Middle East, the radical Islamists would stop hating us. Should we withdraw from New York City too? The question is as absurd as Paul's foreign policy. The Islamists call us the "Great Satan." And they won't stop hating Jews no matter where they live.

 

Share this