Dissatisfaction with Obama doesn’t include skin color

With all due respect to Bonnie Zeak, I think she’s lost her mind after reading her recent admission titled “Too much static on the radio” in a letter to the editor published Sept. 26.

First off, she claims she’s a fan of “both sides,” yet slams the right because they oppose Obama, she says, because he’s black. An obvious left-wing talking point.

I oppose Obama because he’s destroying my child’s future via outrageous debt, not because he’s black, but she might not have children.

She goes on an apples to oranges comparison to our soldiers in Vietnam getting care vs. the Syrian people being denied American intervention after getting gassed. Really, Bonnie?

Zeak should honestly wonder why the United States takes care of its own soldiers first instead of intervening in a Syrian civil war, which most of America is against?

Why not say we should have helped Vietcong recover from the napalm first before helping our wounded Americans in Vietnam – which your hero, Lyndon B. Johnson (D) started, in case Zeak forgot.

Remember when you leftists were against Iraq and Afghanistan, after they slammed planes into the towers killing more than 3,000 Americans? No?

Anyway, you go on to complain about banks, wages and corporatism on the rise but your leader in chief has had five-plus years and counting to solve this problem but hasn’t.

It might be time to ask what side Obama is on.

You go on a rant about the “man.” Is this 1968? Is Bob Dylan on the radio singing about rolling stones? Is Woodstock raging in the distance? Is Janis Joplin screeching over the airwaves?

Or is this post-civil rights era America where a black man has been elected president twice?

How is this president somehow the scourge of a country who currently has a white majority, but yet elected twice to office in a country that Zeak implies hates black people? Bonnie Zeak should put down the Kool-Aid and drink some tea. She might like it.

David Winters