Nate Nelson: Obama's Declaration of Dependence

By the  Left Coast Rebel

I was recently contacted by a young liberty-minded individual named Nate Nelson. Nate had some nice things to say about the site and we have gone back and forth a bit via. email. He lives in West Virginia and is a liberty activist with a very sharp mind and pen (bio here).

He blogs at The Daily Radical and is a regular contributor at United Liberty.

Nate just emailed me one of his recent pieces at United Liberty, "Obama's Declaration of Dependence" in which he highlights Obama's recent prime-time full-throated embrace of dependency (a.k.a. the State of the Union).

Dear Leader's twisted, Orwellian, upside-down Declaration of Dependence for the United States:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has been under fire since last week’s South Carolina GOP primary debate for calling President Obama a “food stamp president.” Progressive critics have accused Gingrich of pushing hatred and racism to turn voters against Obama. But as a CNNMoney article makes clear, more Americans have been added to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under Obama than under his recent predecessors and Obama’s stimulus package made it easier to qualify for SNAP. Approximately 14% of Americans — 1 in 7 — were on food stamps last year. We spent $75 billion on food stamps in 2011, an increase of about $40 billion in just three years, and according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector overall spending on our 70 welfare programs has increased by one-third under Obama. These are facts and they would still be equally true if President Obama were white.

Since the State of the Union address on Tuesday, it has become clear if it wasn’t already that President Obama would like to see Americans become wholly dependent on government. Need a job? Government will provide it. Need food? Government will buy it. Obama even perversely implied during his address that a free market cannot exist without government intervention. The president’s address served as a stunning indictment of the state of our union in 2012. Some 236 years after Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the American president delivered a Declaration of Dependence that might have shocked even Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. On Tuesday, Obama proposed an unlimited government that would meet every need and fix every problem the American people may encounter...

Continue reading at United Liberty.


  1. As the tide continues to wash out (or ebb) on liberty...

  2. .

    LCR - As you endorse such bilge ...,

    "... it has become clear if it wasn’t already that President Obama would like to see Americans become wholly dependent on government."

    One finds it amazing that "some people" (Murdoch Media/Fox audiences) do not understand, in USA, 'we the people' are government. Our government is made up of us, the people. The person behind the government counter at the post office, drivers' license office, park ranger, and police are our neighbors/family/us. We each carry government with us as a part of us. Government is not a foreign entity. The more 'we the people's' government solves people’s problems, the more they turn to our government for solutions.

    "... has encouraged economically disadvantaged and middle class Americans to resent the wealthy and support government seizure of their earnings, ..."

    Really? When did this happen? About the only ones working this 'seizure/theft' gibberish are Murdoch Media/Fox. By the way, do you like paying Paris Hilton's taxes for her?

    Please address:

    "... low earnings, the need for and cost of higher education, etc. — are often the fault of government rather than those greedy rich people."

    The fault of government?!? Do you mean like when the government ordered MayTag to close its manufacturing plants in USA and moved the jobs overseas, the government ordered software firms to move to India, or the government ordered steel mills to move their plants to China? Right.

    "... if fewer people were able to attend college employers would be forced to consider applicants without college degrees because there would be too few who have them."

    Would you like to explain again the “the soft bigotry of low expectations,”?

    Ema Nymton


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.