The video that the late Andrew Breitbart released 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 of weeks ago that I believe is far more incriminating for 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 were under 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 legislation, czars, presidential orders, Chicago-style politics, etc., and he has the uncanny ability to make most people believe he's doing none of them.
The Heritage Foundation has reported that the president has not only greatly expanded welfare but also "eliminated a program that aims to reduce the prevalence of single motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States."
Heritage 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 over the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion.
Worst of all is that rather than wean generations off government aid and create independent hardworking citizens, President Obama and his administration are further enabling and expanding the already mammoth movement of government-dependent citizens.
The infamous Judge Judy Sheindlin agrees. And 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 female 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 and $22,000 a year of federal money for college tuition (though after watching this segment, even the biggest skeptic would question whether he even attended his classes).
When Judge Judy confronted the defendant for using taxpayers' hard-earned money 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.)