"Having a garden at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. isn't a new or radical idea, of course. Several presidents were farmers, and horticulturists and flower gardens have a long history there. And though it hasn't been as fully documented, many first families “probably had vegetable, herb or kitchen gardens,” according to historian Rose Hayden-Smith, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, whose dissertation topic is national war-garden programs during World War I. “Early presidents were responsible for providing for their own households and feeding dignitaries,” Hayden-Smith says. “But in general, the history of vegetable gardening at the White House got lost because it's so ordinary.”
Wartime gardens were the exception. They got a lot of attention, starting with “liberty gardens” during Woodrow Wilson's administration.
“Most people don't realize that the victory garden program is a World War I program,” Hayden-Smith says, mainly because the country's most famous victory gardener was first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who inspired millions to grow their own food during World War II.
“Her victory garden was a visible symbol that the family was pitching in, doing their bit and making a sacrifice,” says Hayden-Smith.....


John Adams, a Massachusetts farmer's son who never lost his love for the land, was the first president to live in the presidential mansion, not yet known as the White House. He and Abigail moved in in the fall of 1800, as Adams was running for re-election.
According to “The White House Garden” by historian William Seale, Adams had a vegetable garden readied for planting the following spring. By then, however, there was a new president, farmer and horticulturist Thomas Jefferson.
Presidents since have planted ornamental flowers, shrubs and trees, fruit trees, vegetables and herbs. They've built orangeries and greenhouses, kitchen and “colonial” gardens. Woodrow and Edith Wilson grazed sheep on the White House lawn, auctioning off the wool to raise money for the Red Cross during World War I.
And Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt ripped out part of the lawn for a victory garden. “It was a real garden, very large, very visible,” says historian Rose Hayden-Smith, an expert on war-garden programs.
“It really engaged American citizens,” she adds. “Thousands and thousands of people wrote Mrs. Roosevelt personally, describing their gardening experience or asking for seeds or tools.”
So a President McCain or President Obama will have plenty of precedent for planting veggies. if they decide to “eat the view.”



Complete article at:
'Eat the View' wants a vegetable garden on White house lawn | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Thank you for posting this. I believe someone on another post seemed to think that the Obamas are the first to have a garden at the White House. LOL!

Ahhh! This explains why there was budget money left over for that $100/lb Japanese steak! The veggies were FREE!

*sigh* Nooooo, I didn't think the Obama's were the first to have a vegetable garden. I am well aware of history, and "Victory" Gardens. My point was and still is: I refuse to focus on whether or not Michelle Obama employs a stylist or not(negative aspect). I would much rather focus on some positive aspect of the current administration--like the garden.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Oh my. What a true conspiracy of the liberal media. It didn't mention that John Adams had a garden in 1800, or Woodrow Wilson did during WWI, or that FDR did during WWII.

Yeppers, there is a true bias when the media talks about the Obama's organic garden and doesn't point out the gardens of presidents past, such as those 200 years ago.

Of course, one could say that there is a bias from people who try to compare the family garden or the victory garden of WWII to this garden to the organic garden of today.

To be blunt, I think this is one of the most idiotic comparisons ever. Why don't we talk about how the first families in 1800 or 1914 or 1945 didn't drive as much and wasted less gas? The comparison makes as much sense.

The situations aren't the same. If you want to pretend they are, go ahead. I'm just going to sit here feeling bad because my recycling efforts are worse than then those of John Adams, because he used no plastics.

Of course, John Adams didn't have them available, but what the hell. Politics apparently all about drawing irrelevant comparisons to make your point.

So, point to you. You have made an irrelevant point. Go for it.

Well I think that this whole garden crap and the personal make-up artist nonsense are just diversions from the things that are really important. . .uh. . like the fact that the Obama administration is defending and plans to expand on the Bush spying policies, or that they are trying to push through this ridiculous Cybersecurity act. . .or how about if you are put on the no-fly list. . .without any due process they want to take away your second amendment rights!? Or even better. . Homeland Security has now put out a list of "possible extremists" . . uh not just hate groups, but anyone that supports state's rights over federal rights. If you start putting the pieces together you will "get it".

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

So, this is all a diversion by the conservative media to cover up the fact that Obama isn't as liberal as people might have thought? And the people posting here about hair and clothes and gardens are either complicit in this conspiracy or dupes?

Good point, hamburg.

I think the whole gardening/make-up things are interesting because, IMHO, they are a bit of a window into the type of people they are. I realize that with all politicians (except maybe Abe Lincoln) there is a public facade of an image that is created and asserted so that we will perceive them to be something that they may - or may not - quite be.

Take the garden thing. If they didn't garden while living in Chicago, I'm not buying that they are really into the whole 'green thumb' thing. It makes me roll my eyes and think, "C'mon - you really think we can't see through this being a PR stunt?"

OTOH, I think it is highly commendable that they have grandma living with them. I assume she will provide continuity for the girls and that she has always been an important fixture in their lives. Nothing about *that* decision seems like "show" to me.

*Who* they are as people actually *is* important. If in the little things they opt to behave in a certain way, that's probably telling about how they will be with the "big things". That story about the guy who the lifted extra sugar packets at a job interview probably isn't true, but it's a good example of what I'm trying to describe. The potential boss thought, "If he is flippant about whether *those* are really his to take, can I trust him with my company's bank account?"

I'm not saying that the Obama's choice to PR themselves through gardening is an indication that they are big fat liars or anything. I'm just saying that for all the oooo-ing and ahhhh-ing the masses did about how they felt so 'connected' to the Obamas because "they are just like us", they really aren't all that much like us. I garden. I make salsa. I don't need anyone singing my praises for it on the national news.

Maybe the White House permanent staffers told her that everybody's gotta have a schtick, and this is what she chose. I really don't know. I *do* know that I much prefer M.O. playing gardener to the former first lady Clinton playing Health Care Czar and riding around the U.S. in a big bus with Al Gore. <shiver> I'll take M.O. and her make-up lady over that any day! lol

Conservative. . liberal. . it's ALL the SAME. . .FEDERAL!

And yes. . .dupes.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Really? It didn't seem to matter much that GWB was AWOL during his tour of duty, or that he had a less than stellar flight history, or that he had a very recognized alcohol problem, or that he had a reputed coke problem. Or that he had a career with the Texas Rangers handed to him out of pure patronage.

But that never seemed to matter to supporters.

But it matters whether the Obamas had a garden in Chicago?

I question your priorities.

Question away.

I wouldn't fault Obama for behaviors he committed during his college years and then by all accounts turned from as an adult. I'm all about second chances and letting bygones be bygones. Sorry to see that you are not.

No doubt, it was his connections that got him the Rangers job. Your point?

So, tell me, what is the cut off for you? When is it "bygones be bygones" and when is it hypocrisy?

Just want to know your parameters. You are suggesting that it is hypocritical for Obama to be encouraging organic gardens if he didn't have one at home. Yet, it seems it isn't hypocritical for Bush to paint himself as a veteran despite his very sketchy military history. Oh, and let's all forget Bush's Ranger history.

The point, by the way, is that the guy got ahead on connections and not on merit. It seemed more relevant to me than did the fact that the Obamas may not have had a garden in urban Chicago.

So, just flat out. When do you think that someone's past history is youthful exuberance?

danny, danny.

This is supposed to be a post about your man Obama and his green thumb. Let's not get sidetracked by something I'll never be able to answer to your satisfaction. Bush wasn't a perfect man; Obama is not a perfect man. It's certainly acceptable to question how one got the positions they acquired through the years. I think it's a little wild 'n crazy that just a few short years ago Obama was just a "community organizer" and suddenly, 'cause he met the right people and they thought he had charisma, he was suddenly given the national stage and BOOM, next thing we know he's in the White House. That's pretty impressive... and I have to think he had quite a bit of help along the way. Read about Lincoln. It took a lot of tenacity for him to the White House. Obama... not so much. It was like... magic!

Still... none of that matters, and it's not the topic of this thread. The topic is gardening.

Have you planted yours yet?

I just want to know if Michelle is going to have her eyebrows and face done before or after she pulls weeds. I like to have mine done before.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

"Have you planted yours yet?"

Me, me, me, Ok, really hubby set out 2 tomatoe plants today!

The purpose of Michelle's garden is similar to that of the Victory Gardens. She has planted this garden along with a class of 5th. graders from an inner city school. It is to encourage people to plant their own vegetables. For inner city residents, this means getting permission to use vacant lots from the city in order to cultivate their vegetable plots. In the inner city, the plots will be a neighborhood effort.

The reason that she is doing this is that nutrition for the poor is terrible. Moreover, there are very few, if any, grocery stores in poor neighborhoods.

I have to disagree that there is no difference between the parties. The direction in which we are going is vastly different than that of the past 8 years.

I have no ideaa where Obama is coming from with his state secrets stance and think that we deserve an explanation.

Corporations have far too much influence on our elected officials.

On these things we can agree.

For your first point, there are so many factors to consider (which Pres. had to deal with 9/11, which had to deal with a scary economy... there are different positives and negatives facing each of them and it can't be an apples to apples, 'in a vacuum' comparison. Personally, I'm not thrilled with the gazillions of dollars we are doling out willy-nilly without a lot of forethought and planning under this administration. No doubt, you felt the same way about war-related spending under the last administration.

Actually there is an awful lot of thought that went into the stimulus. If you didn't hear Obama's speech yesterday where he outlined the rhyme and reason behind what he's doing, you should. Here's a link to the speech:
msnbc.com Video Player

Sorry - the idea that a lot of thought went into the stimulus made me LOL. Congress hadn't even read it before they voted on it.

Actually, obviously somebody *thought* a lot about it in order for there to have been twenty hundred thousand million gazillion pages to it. I just question whether those thoughts were based in reality, or if the authors just felt like Santa would feel giving away the toy factory with no obligation to the elves down the road.

Here is a video of a response to Obama's speech by Peter Schiff
YouTube - Peter Schiff Responds to Obama's Speech 4/14/09

Schiff does give Obama some credit but thinks the government is going in the wrong direction. Still comes down to Keyenism economics verus Austria school of economics.

The Austrian school has very few fans. The most famous exception is Ron Paul.

If I understood her correctly, she was saying that Obama put a lot of thought into it.

The fact that some members of Congress chose not to read it before voting isn't Obama's fault.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

You mean in a few short weeks Obama personally wrote everything in that loooooong bill?

Guess I haven't been giving that dude enough credit!

There were projects that have been on the table for years. Those are the types of projects that were included. along with some of the green initiatives that Obama wanted.

I rather doubt that he personally wrote a word of that bill.

I'm sorry about your reading difficulties. You must have terrible problems, since no one said that.

But it's true -- you don't give the dude enough credit. Nor do I think you ever will.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Probably not!

You don't need to answer it to my satisfaction. Just a direct answer would be nice. Since my post responded to your post about letting "bygones be bygones," it would seem as on-point an inquiry in this thread as your subsequent post about the stimulus package.

And yes, I have a garden. I haven't planted it yet this year because I live too far north. I will come Mother's Day, which is the traditional first day of planting a garden here.

Well. .. I'll speak to that a little bit. How do you feel about Obama campaigning against the "states secret" stuff, but now wishes to continue it and expand on it. I'm not trying to be a pain. . .just really want to know what you think about this. On another board I post on the some of the Obama supporters are pretty ticked off by this. Does it matter to you? Honestly, I think this Homeland Security list. . trying to label people as extremists and terrorists. . .possibly qualifying them for the "no-fly" list without any type of proof or due process, and all the "no-fly" list people should have their second amendment rights revoked. . .kinda scary. What do you think?

ETA- Forgot to mention the whole Cybersecurity Act stuff. . .it just feels like things are being lined up to go terribly wrong if that is the possible intent. Not necessarily saying that it is. . .just that we are setting up a system that could be horribly abused. . .maybe not this administration. . .but anybody that comes later.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

hambirg, that is a good question. I tend to be one who thinks a new administration needs to be given a little bit of time for things to gel before I'd hold them fully responsible for things that happen under their watch. Government is huge and changes in policies and personnel from the top down need more than a week or two to be put in place and become effective, kwim?

Still, it is interesting that the things Bush was chastised for by liberals are happening at an increased rate, if news reports are to be believed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=1
Is it okay if it's the "Right Wing Radicals" that they're tapping, just not okay if it's left-wingers? It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

It will also be interesting to see if we hear a lot about the gardening over the next 3 1/2 years, or if weedin' and pickin' will just become part of SOP at the WH, and people will lose interest... (just stayin' on topic here! )

Well, first a qualification. I don't know enough to make a definitive, drop dead statement on the current position of the Obama administration about using the state's secrets privilege as a basis to dismiss lawsuits. Most of what I have read about it has been on conservative blogs, which assert that Obama's administration is taking the same position as Bush's administration. It also seems based on the Justice Department's arguments in one lawsuit, which I will concede is important, but I'd really want to have more information regarding whether this is a long-range policy of the administration or a hang-over argument from the past administration. And I really don't know enough about the circumstances in which the privilege was invoked to make a judgment about the legitimacy of the assertion of privilege.

For purposes of your question, though, I'm going to assume your conclusion -- Obama's administration is using the state secret's privilege in the same way and for the same reasons that Bush's administration did. And if that is true, it does bother me. A lot. I don't have a problem with an administration using the privilege in the way it was intended: selectively and with checks and balances. I do have a problem with it being asserted as a preemptive strike to shut down challenges and lawsuits without any oversight. I think that it is a recipe for abuse.

When Nixon was president, he asserted the executive privilege broadly and preemptively. He said that he wasn't doing it for himself, he was doing it for future presidents. He might have been telling the truth. He might have been motivated by concerns for future presidents if the privilege was eroded. The thing is that a privilege, broadly asserted, can hide abuses as well as legitimate secrets. So, if we see Obama's administration asserting the state's secrets privilege broadly and arguing that the court shouldn't even be able to judge whether the privilege is legitimately invoked, I will have problems with that.

As far as any effort to bootstrap being on a No-Fly List to depriving someone of other privileges, I also think that this would be wrong. I don't know that is true, since this is the first that I have ever heard about it, but I would oppose it.

I think that we have three branches of government for a reason. It is all about checks and balances. I understand that somethings are too sensitive to be probed into by the public, and sometimes there are legitimate reasons to prevent public disclosure, but I don't believe in unchecked power resting in the executive. And I personally don't think that it matters who the executive is. I may trust Obama to make the right decision more than I trusted Bush, but I still think that his decisions should be subjected to appropriate oversight.

I'd really welcome any articles that you want to cite on this issue. I haven't paid enough attention to it in the last few months, and it is certainly a more important issue than whether John Adam should be credited with having the first organic garden.

The torture memos have been released. They have been very lightly redacted.

Do we prosecute?

Yes, we should be prosecuting. Obama is dead wrong on this one.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I agree with you on this one. We cannot go after the CIA agents since they have already been told that they will not be prosecuted, but, we can certainly hold the authors accountable. I was glad to hear that the FBI refused to participate.

Why we prosecuted the soldiers at Abu Ghraib, who actually were following orders, is beyond me.

I think it's great that she is planting a garden on the White House grounds. I think it will also be even greater if the she and the girls actually TEND to it on occasion. Otherwise, it's like me going to the corner farmer's market, and saying "I have a garden....." and someone else manages it.

JMO, of course.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Those were classified documents. Obama shouldn't have released them AT ALL!!!

I'd put that issue way above the Valerie Plame thing in terms of severity and risk to others.

Well. . .I don't really know what stance they are going to take with this either. I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure I fully understand this issue. . .but it seems from what I've read that they are continuing the policy and trying to carry it further. Here's a link to a piece that was on the KOS. Maybe it explains it a little better.

Daily Kos: More Immunity Claims on Wiretapping from Obama DOJ

It's difficult to read the administration's brief in any other way than a reinforcement--even an inflation of--the unitary executive, or to attribute it to Bush holdovers. This is first of the cases in which the DOJ attorneys aren't carrying over arguments from the previous administration--they are initiating this case. And it appears that the promises of last summer and fall when FISAAA was being argued were pretty damned empty.

As far as the no-fly list and gun ban. . .I haven't seen too much about it, so who knows if that will ever come to pass. Apparently, the uproar is about something Rahm Emanuel said. Here's the link to that. It's at the 1:59 mark:

YouTube - Rahm Emanuel Speaks at the Brady Center's Stand Up For a Safe America (DC)

If you are on that no-fly list your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled because you are not part of the American family. You don't deserve that right. There are no rights for you if you are on that terrorist list. That should be number one in what we do.

-Rahm Emanuel, OBAMA's Chief of Staff

I'm sorry. . .I don't own a gun, nor do I want to. . .BUT that is just a crazy thing to say. How do you even get on the no-fly list? I don't think there is any due process involved in that at all, so how can they just revoke your constitutional right??? I heard Ted Kennedy was on the list at one time. LOL!

And now there is this "potential terrorist" list from Homeland Security. Do you see how this can all tie together? It really bothers me! The government gets to unlawfully spy on you. . .without recourse, then puts you on some bogus "no-fly" list because maybe you . . uh. . .believe in the 10th amendment. Then they want to be able to disarm you??? Scary stuff no matter who is in office!

And yeah. . .so I think the garden stuff is fluff. . .lol! It always reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of Oz. . . Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the Great and powerful Oz!

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Fascinating stuff, ham, and the only thing I could think about was how it was asserted that the detainees in Gitmo were claimed (by this same camp) to have the right to a fair trial in an American court.

So... we're going to worry our little heads over the 'rights' of non-American terrorist suspects but systematically strip some American citizens of a handful of their basic ones without due process?

That's the Bush/Cheney preference.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

The Obama administration is going far and above anything that the Bush administration did. Have you read this Homeland Security document? If you liberals didn't like the spying that President Bush did, then you certainly won't like what Obama is having done and what is being proposed.

It amazes me how Obama can do no wrong. He just flashes that cocky smile and liberals melt.

If you're talking about the Homeland Security advisory cautioning on veterans being recruited by hate groups (which is similar to a document put out under Bush), the sad fact is is that most skinhead groups are headed by veterans. Have you ever heard of Timothy McVeigh? How about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Frankly, with the recent murder of 3 police officers in Pennsylvania which was attributed to a false rumor that Obama planned to take guns away from everyone and the murders at the Unitarian Church last fall where the killer just wanted to kill liberals and was inspired by Bernie Goldberg's book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, I think that Homeland Security is undrerstating the risk. Michelle Bachmann is urging her constituents towards "armed resistance" on Fox News. Glenn Beck agress with this crazy woman. Gov. Perry of Texas speaks of secession along with Chuck Norris. Anti abortionist have committed acts of terror and crashed cars into clinics and murdered doctors.

The right is going off the deep end.

Just "going"??? I think it's long, long gone.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Bush/Cheney aren't running things anymore. So apparently, it's the Obama preference too.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Updates....

Originally...

But now.... She is sorry...


The point is. . .there are and have been "left-wing" terrorists for years. Are they a part of this list? And why not?

As far as the veterans and extremist groups go. . .it is well known that members of these groups have been enlisting in the armed services for several years to learn how to train like soldiers and take these practices back to their groups so they can all train like soldiers. . .not that regular veterans are just joining these groups. And for that to be implied by Ms HLS is offensive. Well. . .of course now she's sorry about that.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

"Situational awareness"? Is that like....uh.... profiling?

Ted Kaczynski....Bill Ayers....

Nah, not terrorists. Not violent. It has always been those kooky right-wingers that ya need to watch out for!

Going back 40 years for Bill Ayers is a bit of stretch. Ted Kaczynski isn't a leftist.

I maintain that when icons of the right preach armed resistance and promote lies which result in deaths, yes, it's something that Homeland Security needs to keep an eye on.

As always, you think whatever makes you happy.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

Kaczynski was an anarchist. . .usually that definition falls under leftist.

What about groups like ALF and ELF?

This was a very good read. (written in 2001)
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf

Although the threat from leftist extremists has decreased in the past decade, it should not be ignored. From 1980 to 1985, a five-year period when leftist domestic terrorists were most active in the United States, 173 terrorist incidents were recorded by the FBI(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). During the next 10 years, when right-wing extremists were most active, only 83 incidents were recorded (Federal Bureau of investigation, 1995). Because leftist extremists are better educated than members of right-wing groups, they have the ability to organize more effectively, and once committed to a militant revolution, they are more of a threat. . . .

THE THREAT

Extremism runs in cycles. Leftist extremists are very active for a decade or more, and as they fade, right-wing extremists become active. During the late 1960s to the middle 1980s, leftist extremism was the greatest threat in the United States. From the mid-1980s to the present, the major threat of domestic terrorism has been primarily from right-wing extremists. If the cycle theory is correct, then left-wing terrorism will increase within the next few years.

Leftist extremism presents two threats. The first threat is terrorism. Left-wing terrorists have been responsible for bombings, assassinations, robberies, and planned attacks on infrastructure targets. The second threat is their potential support of espionage conducted against the United States by supporting countries such as Cuba. While it is important to counter the current domestic threat from right-wing groups, it would be a mistake to ignore the leftist threat. If the threat from left-wing extremism does increase, responding to it early will help to prevent similar problems the United States experienced during the 1970s and 1980s.

ETA-It's not that they shouldn't be keeping an eye on extremist right wing groups. . .BUT it's WHO they want to classify as right wing extremists that is the problem.

So apparently, if you are worried about the erosion of civil liberties and things like the possible abuse of this sovereign immunity stuff . . .you might be a "right wing extremist".

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Did I miss something? Are Bush/Cheney still in office??

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

I have friends who assisted in arresting Ted. I've even seen where the cabin once was.....The people of Lincoln, MT never suspected Ted of being the Unabomber. He was strange, but quiet and nice enough.

Ok....back to the bickering.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

There's no mention of left-wing extremists -- obviously they don't exist in the Obama administration mind. Oh, wait, that's right--- they ARE his administration!!

When the title of a classified document is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", there is definitely a problem -- a problem with the Obama administration. Further in the document it calls veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war prime targets, calling them "Disgruntled Military Veterans." Shame on the Obama administration for calling them such.

Reading this document carefully will show you just how the Obama administration feels about Christians, our military, anti-immigration, people who own guns, people who do not want a government that takes over corporations, people who are anti-abortion, conservatives, and basically people who actually have a mind of their own and refuse to have the government make them into little robots. This is what this document is about.

Guess Obama really meant it during the campaign when he said 'people cling to guns and religion.'

If this is what is going on with this administration in only the first few months, what does the future hold?

Hopefully a Republican administration in 4 years!!!