Bask in The Light of the Incredible

Obama May 2011 on “60 Minutes”: It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence. As a propaganda tool. You know, that’s not who we are. You know, we don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. You know, the fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received.

In addition to suggesting “we don’t need to spike the football” with any further celebration, Obama encouraged America and the world not to doubt the legitimacy of Bin Laden’s death.

2012:

My what a difference a  RE-ELECTION year  and a 14,000 mile taxpayer paid for spike the-the-football in Afghanistan makes.

I wonder if the Bin Laden Death Photos will reappear as an “October Surprise”. Maybe with a Photoshopped Obama as Rambo collage.

After all, if you have no morals or ethics and the end justifies the means what do you care. It’s all about YOU.

Then there’s:

Now a Little levity:“Let me just say, that if George Bush would have done that he would have put on that aviator suit, would have made six banners [of] ‘Mission Accomplished’ and he would have flown all over the country. From, the east to the west, from north to south and I would’ve applauded,” Sen. Boxer hypothesized.

Yeah, right, Barbara…my how the liberal mind rewrites history in a flash to make themselves look good (in their minds) and feel good. The hought Police are proud of you Barbara.

It’s pathological. They are coming to get you Barbara…

“A Zombie isn’t a dead person who’s come back to life. It’s someone who ‘s been infected with the plague of the 21st century – a terrible disease that leaves its victims irrationally violent and hateful, some insist evil.” (Stephen Weir)

Sounds like Democrats to me.

“He has done so much and I hope that he just keeps on telling the truth to the people. That’s what this election is about: ‘Do you want to trust this man again?’ and I say the answer is ‘yes.’”-Sen. Boxer

Zombie Alert!

A Young Chris Matthews?

Then there’s good old fashioned Bribery:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House pledged on Wednesday to help lower-income youth find summer jobs in a move likely to appeal to younger voters crucial to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

The initiative is in partnership with the cities of Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco and is meant to add 110,000 jobs, internships and mentorships to the 180,000 summer work opportunities for 16-24 year olds that Obama has promised to create for 2012.

And when you don’t have that job come November 7th and he’s re-elected that will be someone else’s fault, ya sucker!

The Ministry of Truth not satisfied with crucifying stay-at-home moms via Ann Romney now they are feigning outrage at Ann Romney fashion.

Emily Friedman of ABC News did the legwork and uncovered the shocking truth: Romney’s shirt cost $1000!

Yeah, Mrs. Obama just jets off to Spain to shop. Nothing to see here.

Yikes…

My favourite Leftist Loon, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

“I think the agenda of the Republican Party and of Mitt Romney has clearly been–and can be interpreted as–an attack on the issues that matter to women,” Wasserman-Schultz said during a conference call.

“From the very beginning of this Congress,” she said, “the first priorities in the first bills the Republicans introduced repealing the Affordable Care Act which would dramatically impact women in a negative way [by] making sure that insurance companies could drop us or deny us coverage for preexisting conditions, making sure that we could once again be charged more simply because of our gender for insurance coverage, making sure that we would redefine rape as only being forcible rape–that was H.R. 3.”

According to CNSNews, DWS was referring to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, legislation that would permanently ban the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.

“You know, what Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been doing to themselves every single day is showing women in this country day after day that they are callously indifferent to women’s health, to the priorities of women,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC on Thursday night. Really as evidenced by their obsession with cultural issues, their obsession with making sure that women can’t have affordable access to birth control, the dismissive way that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today chalked up women being concerned about making sure that we could have affordable access to preventive screenings like mammograms as fictional as a war on caterpillars. You know, if they’re still wondering why there’s an 18-point gender gap and President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney by that many points, then they really — they really must believe these things that they’re saying.” (RCP)

Say anything. The end (re-election) justifies any means.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” — John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. So, we have a man with the morals of Joseph Mengele advising the President on science. It also shouldn’t be lost on anyone that while Obama is yammering on about a “war on women,” he has someone on his staff who has come out in favor of FORCED ABORTIONS. (townhall)

But you aren’t suppose to peek at the man behind the curtain… It’s do as I say not as I do.

“Barack knows what it means when a family struggles. He knows what it means when someone doesn’t have the chance to fulfill their potential. And today as a father, he knows what it means to want something better for your kids.–Michelle Obama

Isn’t that much saccharine illegal? It just makes me all touchy-feely and squishy inside…

Sorry, I have to go to bathroom….

<<Intermission>>

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” — Joe Biden, Vice President.

Ah, the wise man speaks…:)

WHEN IN DEBT SPEND EVEN MORE! That’s the ticket!

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” — Eric Holder, Attorney General.

And truer words about him have never been spoken.

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” — Steven Chu, Energy Secretary.

Well, it ain’t for a lack of trying…

It has been reported that the Obama campaign this year, as in 2008, has disabled or chosen not to use AVS in screening contributions made by credit card.

That doesn’t sound very important. But it’s evidence of a modus operandi that strikes me as thuggish.

AVS stands for Address Verification System. It’s the software that checks whether the name of the cardholder matches his or her address.

If a campaign doesn’t use AVS, it can wind up accepting contributions from phony names or accepting contributions from foreigners, both of which are illegal.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

The 2008 Obama campaign pocketed money from “John Galt, 1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch CO 99999″ and $174,000 from a woman in Missouri who told reporters she had given nothing and had never been billed. Presumably she would have noticed an extra charge of $174,000.

The Obama campaign is evidently happy to pocket the money. After all, this is the president who, according to political scientist Brendan Doherty, has appeared at more fundraisers in three and a half years than his six predecessors did in 35 years. (Michael Barone)

Well, all that campaigning to get the Illegal Alien Vote has to pay off somehow…

That’s how he raised $750 Million Dollars (more than any Candidate in history) last time. The Unions and the other wealthy donors,lobbyists, had nothing to do with it.

Ignore the PACs behind the Curtain.

And that’s why he doesn’t care about verifying this time. But it’s all so “moral” and so “ethical” and he’s just so wonderful.. He’s squeaky clean and perfect.

Barf Bag Overload!

Obama also indulges often in reckless political rhetoric. He likes to say that Republicans want no regulations at all on financial institutions and businesses.

It would be more politically astute, I think, and would certainly look less thuggish to draw intellectually defensible distinctions between his own regulatory policies and those of the opposition. Attacks like this sound like debates late at night in the dorm.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said during the 2008 cycle. That sounds like something you might hear from a community organizer. Or a Chicago pol.

Chicago, Obama’s chosen political venue, helps to explain this behavior. The mayor of Chicago — the job he once aspired to before greater opportunity beckoned — is an utterly dominant figure.

Chicago pols assume they can endlessly plunder the local private sector without penalty. And business leaders quickly catch on that it’s a good thing to be known as a personal friend of the mayor. Campaign money flows accordingly.

The local rule is “don’t back no losers.” Those who do are well advised to do business somewhere else. You never know when the assessor is going to raise your assessment. And don’t appeal in court unless you hire the lawyer with the right connections.

The mayor is also the one who gets all the credit for all good things that happen on his watch, as Obama is attempting to do on the killing of Osama bin Laden. Even though he opposed the interrogation methods that produced the information that led our special forces to Abbottabad.

Other campaigns have not disabled their AVS systems. But then their candidates are not from Chicago. Obama likes to talk about the need for civility. He just doesn’t like to practice it. (Michael Barone)

And who is Mayor Chicago right now, why it’s Raul “Never let a Crisis go to Waste” Emmanuel. imagine that!!

What a coincidence!

FASCINATING HOW THAT HAPPENED.

But don’t you feel better now. Able to go out into world and sing a happy song and whistle and just bask in the greatness that is Barack Hussein Obama.

Fainting is optional but appreciated.

 

A 2011 Perspective

Indeed, the GOP hopefuls have been thoroughly queried on a laundry list of issues ranging from immigration problems to the faltering economy, Iran’s nuclear program to trade deficits with China, the intricacies of climate change to strategies to combat terrorism, exploding government regulations to skyrocketing public debt, plus some uncomfortable questions about their pasts and their personal lives.Yet, during all that time, the man they hope to defeat next November has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of these issues. Since August, President Obama has held only one formal White House news conference. That came on Oct. 6, nearly three months ago. It lasted 74 minutes, shorter than any single Republican debate, and the president was asked 17 questions, most of them softballs on the economy and his latest legislative proposals to create jobs.

No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or North Korea — global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover, he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.

Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, abetted by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time.

Just over the last couple of weeks, several major world events cried out for presidential comment, but little was forthcoming other than a few statements, some of which were attributed not to the president but to administration officials, named and unnamed. Among these events were:

- The Russian elections. It was left to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to publicly question whether they were fraudulent. And while she was clearly speaking for the president, it was Clinton, not Obama, who drew fire from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who accused her of encouraging protesters. So as it appears in the news media, Russia is Clinton’s problem, not Obama’s.

- Iran’s recent threat to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. No word, so far, from the vacationing president. However, an unnamed administration official did accuse Iran of “saber-rattling.”

- The rash of bombings in Iraq, in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawal there, has not produced a statement from Obama, nor have reporters been able to ask him if he now feels the full draw-down might have been a bit premature. No chance, either, to question the president on recent unrest in Syria.

- The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and what it might mean for U.S. relations with that troubled country has not drawn presidential comment. Clinton, speaking for the administration, said, “We reiterate our hope for improved relations with the people of North Korea.” And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. has “no new concerns” about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

In sum, the news we get from the White House is the news that administration press handlers want to give us, much of which provides the president with comfortable distance from foreign policy hot spots. From Hawaii this week, we get nice reports about presidential golf and snorkeling, the release of green sea turtles by the First Family, a visit with U.S. Marines and a baby putting her fingers in the president’s mouth.

No wonder the GOP candidates look so bad. It’s time for reporters to start smoking the president out and call for him, not his surrogates, to answer questions on a regular basis. (RCP)

Not going to happen. The Ministry of Truth (The “Mainstream Media”) is very firmly against it.

The Ministry of Truth in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the newspeak sense of the word.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel (1984) Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And as 2012 proceeds it will only get worse. Much, Much worse.

After all, as AG Holder said, Lting is “complicated” and their will be no one more “complicated” than Obama and His Ministry of Truth.

Speaking from her paradisical $4 million Hawaii vacation, Mrs. Obama wants to know: Do any of President Obama’s supporters have $3 to spare for his reelection?

Michelle’s request was part of an email sent to the Obama 2012 list today.

Over the next 11 months we’ve got an organization to grow, voters to register, and people to get fired up.

I hope you’ll close out this year by donating $3 or more now to help make sure we’re ready for the next one . . .

Thank you so much, and happy new year,

Michelle

The obscene juxtaposition of the first lady on a $4 million vacation while asking what would have to be middle to low income earners for three bucks – who else would they be targeting with such an appeal? – is yet another example of lack of perspective the Obamas seem to be gaining while in power.

Mrs. Obama takes extravagant vacations to Spain and southern Africa. The president golfs obsessively and is currently dining at Honolulu’s ritziest restaurants. All while asking their fellow Americans to “sacrifice” during this time of not plenty.

And they blow $4 million – mostly taxpayers’ money – on a vacation, while wondering if the small people can come up with $3.

What about renting a beach house next year at the Jersey shore? I mean, if we’re all going to sacrifice.(whitehousedossier.com)

But it’s good to be the King and Queen. And if the peasants want to give tithe to their Lord & Master so much the better.

And make sure the “Royal Messengers” (aka The Media) stay on point.

The Liberal view of the political spectrum:
Our view of the political spectrum

OBAMA 2012

BIG Brother is Watching you!

He’ll know if you’ve been naughty or nice. And Make sure Big Sis and her VIPR teams know as well.

Sleep tight. Don’t let the Fed Bugs Bite!

The Media Machine

More words of wisdom from Ms. Food Police Herself, Michelle Obama:

American children need to “get their palates adjusted” so they will begin eating properly.

And she’s just the Government Mommy to do it!

Mrs. Obama also said that children in “underserved communities” become obese because they “aren’t growing up with vegetables because there are no grocery stores.”

Has this hit the stupidly condescending level yet?

First Lady Michelle Obama said that “arugula and steak” was her “favorite” meal.

Four years ago, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning shows celebrated the “rock star” Democrats running to replace George W. Bush, and no candidate set journalists’ pulses racing faster than Barack Obama. Now, after three years of high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits and an onerous new health care law, how are those newscasts covering Obama’s re-election campaign and the candidates vying to replace him?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts examined all 723 campaign segments which aired on the three broadcast network weekday morning programs from January 1 to October 31, 2011, using the same methodology we employed to study campaign coverage on those same programs for the same time period in 2007.

Four years ago, the network coverage promoted the Democratic candidates and cast their strong liberal views as mainstream. This year, our study finds the networks are disparaging the Republican candidates and casting them as ideological extremists:
Labeling:

- This year, network reporters have employed 49 “conservative” labels to describe the Republican candidates, compared with only one “liberal” label for President Obama.

- Four years ago, when Obama was a relatively unknown candidate, the morning shows also provided just a single “liberal” label to describe his ideology, and never once labeled Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or the other Democrats as “liberal.”   
Agenda:

- By a 4-to-1 margin, ABC, CBS and NBC morning show hosts have employed an adversarial liberal agenda when questioning this year’s Republican candidates. But those same hosts’ questions for President Obama leaned in his direction, with mostly liberal-themed questions.

And the Republicans do themselves no favors having liberals like these “journalists” moderating their debates so they can throw “gotcha” questions and condescending lobs.

- Four years ago, questions for the Democratic candidates tilted by more than two-to-one to the left, a friendly agenda.

Tone:

- In 2007, Democratic candidates were regularly tossed softball questions. This year’s interviews with Republicans have been much more caustic, with few chances for the candidates to project a warm and fuzzy image.

- Despite the poor economy and low approval ratings, the morning shows continue to treat Barack Obama as more of a celebrity than a politician, airing positive feature stories about the President and his family — a gift not bestowed on the conservative Republican candidates.

During the 2008 campaign, the network morning shows acted as cheerleaders for the Democratic field. This time around, they are providing far more hostile coverage of the various Republicans who are running, while treating Obama’s re-election campaign to the same personality-driven coverage that was so helpful to the then-Illinois Senator four years ago.

If the real decisions in our democracy are to be in the hands of voters, then the news media owe viewers a fair and unbiased look at the candidates in both parties. That means asking the candidates questions that reflect the concerns of both sides — liberals and conservatives alike. And the syrupy coverage awarded year after year to the Democrats’ celebrity candidates in no way matches the pretense of journalists holding both sides equally accountable, without fear or favor.

As might be expected, given the lack of a contest for the Democratic nomination, most of the segments were about the Republican nomination process. Yet of the approximately 60 percent of items that mainly focused on just one candidate, there were more than three times as many segments about President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign (129) than about any individual Republican candidates. (This tally only includes stories that discuss Obama as a candidate, excluding items that dealt with him strictly as President.)

Bill Maher: “You’ve got to feel very bad for Mitt Romney,” Maher observed. “I mean, he has been led so far by Trump, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain.” “He hangs in there!” exclaimed Stephanopoulos. “He’s everyone’s second choice.” “I’m rooting for him. Look, because in a country with two political parties, the Republican can always win. I mean — at least he eats with a knife and fork! I mean — he is all that stands between us and the rise of the apes.”

Republicans are apes.

“He’s today the political equivalent of a rock star,” then-CBS correspondent Gloria Borger trumpeted on the January 17, 2007 Early Show. The next day, NBC’s Matt Lauer agreed: “He’s got rock star buzz around him.”

On Oct 31st the Herman Cain “scandal” broke so Herman has gotten much more talk, all of it bad. The piling on has been non-stop.

Hitting Republicans With a Liberal Agenda: As might be expected, most of the questions posed to the Republican candidates had to do with campaign strategy and personal controversies. But our analysts counted 104 “ideological questions” — policy-based questions that incorporated either a liberal or conservative premise.

    Of those, the vast majority (85, or 82%) reflected a liberal policy agenda, vs. just 19 (18%) that highlighted the concerns of conservative voters. Thus, instead of functioning as a surrogate for the Republican rank-and-file voter who probably won’t get a chance to question a candidate, TV journalists used their time with the candidates to push a standard liberal agenda.
    A central policy issue for many of these interviews was the economy and the growing national debt, and network hosts consistently pressed the candidates for their reluctance to agree on the need for a tax increase. On the April 13 Today, for example, co-host Matt Lauer hit Bachmann: “Is raising taxes on the table?” before employing liberal rhetoric: “Why shouldn’t the burden be equally shared? Why shouldn’t we put some of that burden on the wealthy and corporations?”

  And in September, Hill hit Newt Gingrich for backing the Tea Party: “There’s a feeling by some folks that this very small group of people is starting to control the conversation. Do there need to be more voices at the table, in general, at this point?”

    A month later, she went after the ex-Speaker again, this time for criticizing the left-wing “Occupy Wall Street” protests: “You have had some pretty outspoken words, though, for the folks behind Occupy Wall Street, that you don’t think this is a great move, that you don’t really see what their point is. Yet, a number of Americans say they’re behind it.”

They are earnestly Liberal aren’t they.

So next time you hear that the Liberal media isn’t biased, you can laugh cynically just like I do.

 

The Liberal Score

Well, The Thought Police Left have scored AOL.

But first, best quote in a long time: Former Senator Alan Simpson:

Alan Simpson, the former Wyoming member of Congress who served as co-chair of Mr. Obama’s debt commission, mocked politicians who are unwilling confront the nation’s debt by making deep cuts to entitlement programs. “If you have a career politician get up and say, ‘I know we can get this done; we’re going to get rid of all earmarks, all waste, fraud, and abuse, all foreign aid, Air Force One, all congressional pensions,’ that’s a sparrow’s belch in the midst of a typhoon,” he said. “I’m waiting for the politician to get up and say, there’s only one way to do this, you dig into the big four, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. And anybody giving you anything different than that, you want to walk out the door, stick your finger down your throat and give them the green weenie.” (NYT)

BRAVO!!

ENCORE!

ENCORE!

AOL just bought news site Huffington Post for $315 million—$300 million in cash. HuffPo founder Arianna Huffington will become editor of all AOL “content properties.” That sound you just heard was the whole internet going “Whaaaaat?”

So  that means the Huffington-Puffington Post took over AOL. So leftist “journalism” has a new place to take over and proclaim they have saved it.

Not that AOL matters anymore. Another case of good timing by the liberal media.

Just remember 1+1=11

******************************************************************

BIG MOM Should start at home!

The rest of the menu for the 100 or so guests at the White House bash is tailgate-friendly even if served inside the Executive Mansion: bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings with sides of German potato salad, twice-baked potatoes and assorted chips and dips. (Yahoo.com)

Considering Big Mom (Michelle Obama) is in “talks” (aka mafia leg-breaker style) with the Food Industry to crush your ability to eat anything else other than what is good for you and what is approved by her personally she should be fixing her husband first.

But there is no liberal control freak satisfaction in that.

***********************************************************************

NAACP SILENT ON RACIST RALLY

In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”

“Last summer, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a civil political discourse,” Shelton said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We continue to call on all Americans to abandon vitriolic language. It serves as a distraction from the real issues our society need to address and distorts the challenges we as Americans have to confront to make our nation greater still.”

Shelton would not, however, address the content of the video directly.

Now that’s “civility” folks.  After all, they are Uncle Tom’s so they aren’t really black so they don’t need to justify anything.

I wonder if this will be tracked by their “racist” monitor sites they set up during the health care debate to monitor tea party racism.

Oh, right, they don’t monitor THEIR OWN. Just you. Isn’t that special!

I’m sure they were just “misquoted”.

******************************************************************

YOUR GROCERY BAGS ARE EVIL!! So We Must TAX THEM!

Oregon’s state Senate will be conducting a hearing on Tuesday to determine whether the state should be the first in the union to ban non-reusable shopping bags in all retail outlets. The proposed ban would include both paper and plastic bags, with the exception of paper bags containing at least 40 percent recyclable materials. For those bags, shoppers would have to pay 5 cents per sack.

Liberals do understand that “grocery bagger” is  a JOB!  But solving non-problems in the name of Mother Gaia is much more important than that entry-level JOB.

And then they want to tax you for your evil ways. Tax aversion therapy, liberal style.

“People buy less goods when there’s a tax on the bags, and they’ll avoid the tax,” Patrick Gleason (Americans for Tax Reform) said in a phone interview. “They force people to use reusable bags and force people to purchase reusable bags.”

In a recent “bag tax” study, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University found that a year-old tax on “single-use” grocery bags in Washington, D.C., was ineffective and actually eliminated approximately 100 jobs at retailers throughout the nation’s capitol. By extension, they found that all retail workers will make $18 less on average per year, which doesn’t seem like much at first glance, but adds up over time, affecting the local economy measurably over the period of a decade or more.

But it makes the tree-hugging Liberals FEEL GOOD!!!!

And if it makes a Liberal FEEL GOOD it must be morally and politically perfection!

Wynn said there are two Republicans in Oregon’s state legislature who are supporting this legislation, state Sen. Jason Atkinson and state Rep. Vic Gilliam. Neither returned TheDC’s requests for comment, but Wynn and Jason Williams of the Oregon Taxpayers Association said they think Gilliam and Atkinson are on board with this proposal for the positive press and publicity – without considering the fact that they’re effectively issuing a tax.

A Couple of RINOs are looking at the polls and running for re-election and don’t care what they have to do or say to win.

Gee, Barack will be calling them soon.

Remind again why anyone who has a brain would be in Oregon? Or should it just be renamed Pandora (after “Avatar”) with man as the oppressors who come into harm Mother Gaia so they should all just leave?

Sigh….

Recipe for Control

I took up cooking, one, because I found I really enjoy it, but also because it’s better for me to control my own food rather than trust it to a heart attack in a box (have you read the fat & sodium contents on some of those pre-prepared meals!).

But the difference between my approach and the First Lady’s Food Police cudgel approach is I’m not preaching and I’m not trying to control other people.

She is. Just like her husband.

I often wonder who’s the more elitist, her or her husband.

“Even if we give parents all the information they need and improve school meals and build brand new supermarkets on every corner, none of that matters if when families step into a restaurant, they can’t make a healthy choice,” Mrs. Obama told them.

So we have to control you at every turn so you won’t be tempted!

So, instead of speaking to parents about moderation, the first lady wants to micromanage menus, making french fries a special order item at fast-food outlets and apples the default side order of choice for kids. Butter and cream must be cut, and whole wheat pasta must replace white.

Harmless advocacy? Perhaps. But Mrs. Obama’s speeches at political rallies and conventions suggests it’s probably more. The gears of government seem to be turning to her cause.

The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday announced a $31 million program to combat obesity (and smoking) in eight states. It comes with a plan to go coercive: “Use price to discourage consumption of tobacco and to benefit consumption of healthy food/drinks,” the press release reads. As in price controls?

The coincidences pile up as community organizers tied quite closely to the Obama campaign, including the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP, joined the cause. To aid the effort, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation chipped in a $2 million grant.

Fascinating associates don’t you think? La Raza, a racist hispanic group and the NAACP who calls Tea Partiers racists. Fascinating…

Then there’s the anti-McDonald’s TV ad campaign just launched by the Physicians Committee for Responsibility, another pressure group with a vegetarian and animal-rights agenda. In true Alinsky style, they’ve picked a target, personalized it and laid all the problems of obesity on one fast-food operator.

The advert shows a woman weeping over the body of a man in a morgue, with the man still holding a half-eaten hamburger. Toward the end of the advert, the McDonald’s logo appears along with the tag-line “I was lovin’ it”. The commercial then urges watchers to ““High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks. Tonight, make it vegetarian”.

Then you get Michael Moore who hadn’t been getting any attention lately spouting off that McDonald’s has killed more people than terrorists have.

What’s galling about all this is that Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign — like the policies pushed by her husband — presumes government has all the answers. In reality, it doesn’t.

Bu they think it does, as long as they are in control of it, that is. The Insufferably Superior Left strikes again!

Diets are a personal choice with different impacts on different people. Some children stay fit eating all the fast food they like; others can’t handle a donut. Some effective low-carbohydrate diets don’t restrict cream and butter at all, but minimize fruit. Go figure.

Micromanaging restaurant menus will only drive consumers to the junk food section at the grocery to get the goodies they crave. It won’t end childhood obesity, the causes of which are far more complex and numerous than trips to the Golden Arches.

But then you just drive the junk food purveyors out of business then and TA DA!   Instant Health! And you have Big Brother and Big Mommy to thank for it!

Like any solution imposed by big government, Mrs. Obama’s will harm business, limit choice and politicize the personal — a recipe for failure. (IBD)

You have to assume the Insufferably Superior Left actually cares. I know I don’t.

After all, her husband is frequent photographed (to look less like the elite he is) eating very unhealthy foods and he admits to being…a SMOKER!

Don’t do as I do, do as I say!

But Michelle can’t clean up her husband, oh no, she has to crusade against evil fat and salt to save you all from yourselves!

The Empress has no clothes.

She said it’s also important to change these national eating habits because they end up costing billions in additional healthcare costs.

And they want to take over your Health Care from birth to death. Hmmmm…Fascinating…

“I’m not asking any of you to make drastic changes to every single one of your recipes or to totally change the way you do business,” she said.

Not Yet, at least.

After all, when Liberals start preaching about it “being for the children” watch out!! (since they consider anyone who disagrees with them as “children” anyhow).

So how long before we “recommend” to a private business what they can serve and just force them to serve what we think is best for you?

After all, restaurants that serve crap, close. That’s business. But what if that’s all they are allowed to serve??

While suggestions that eateries serve a side of apples instead of French fries as the default side dish likely won’t go anywhere, there is another way to serve kids fewer calories. Just make the portions smaller.

Smaller portions mean less cost for the restaurant, and can help kids slim down. Charge the same, serve less food. Talk about a win-win! (Entrepeneur.com)

Exactly. The portion sizes today are about 1/3 larger than say 50 years ago.

If you can teach people to eat less, not just control what they eat, then you can lose weight!

After all, you have to burn more calories than you take in to do it.

And I fail but not as often as I used to and I have cleaned up my diet. So a lot of it is   also because of lack of proper regular exercise to on this middle-aged frame. But that’s another story…

But I don’t want to control you.

I trust with proper education and not liberal hysterics and Alinsky scare tactics that you are capable of make reasonable decisions and understand and accept the consequences of your actions.

But I also know that that part is nearly impossible in today’s liberal entitlement and evade responsibility for everything environment.

That’s what has to change. Not the menu.

“The delusion is that we all make free choices,”- Anti-soda crusader Harold Goldstein

* Obesity lawsuit instigator John “Sue the Bastards” Banzhaf lashes out: “All these platitudes about, ‘people should eat less,’ ‘responsibility,’ all this crap!”

* Marion Nestle, queen of the food scolds, thinks that “balance, moderation and exercise” have no practical importance. “I don’t support that,” she says.

* Discussing “The Politics of Food,” Skip Spitzer of the radical Pesticide Action Network maintains that “the idea of personal responsibility is a cultural construct.”

* PETA medical “expert” Neal Barnard tells tales of food addiction, arguing that “it’s high time we stopped blaming ourselves for over-eating.”

* Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell advocates “a more militant attitude about the toxic food environment, like we have about tobacco… [smoking] became so serious that society overlooked the intrusion on individual rights for the greater social good.” He also suggests that human beings have no more control over their food choices than animals in a cage.

* Margo Wootan, one of the top killjoys at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), implores: “We have got to move beyond personal responsibility.” And when the World Health Organization added a single, understated sentence referencing the “exercise of individual responsibility” to its anti-obesity strategy, CSPI raged: “Obesity is not merely a matter of individual responsibility. Such suggestions are naive and simplistic.”

Here’s how noted food critic Robert Shoffner describes their philosophy: “People are children and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful free-market predators … That’s what drives these people — a desire for control of other people’s lives.” (consumerfreedom.com)

So they aren’t the Insufferably Superior are they?

You are just children who must be led to do what is best for you.

Just like the fact that the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally important to get a receipt. (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy)

John Stossel: For what it’s worth, here is some of the research we dug up to prepare my Michelle Obama discussion:

In his article “Egg on their Faces,” Steve Malanga points out that “Government dietary advice often proves disastrous.”

Starting in the 1970s… the American Heart Association advised people to reduce drastically their consumption of eggs as part of a goal to limit total cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day (a single egg can have 250 milligrams). The recommendation, seconded by government and other public-health groups, prompted a sharp drop in the consumption of eggs, a food that nutritionists praise as low in calories and high in nutrients. In 2000, the AHA revised its restrictions on eggs to one a day (from a onetime low of three a week)… To what purpose? A 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition that looked at worldwide studies of egg consumption noted that the current restrictions on eating eggs are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data.”

Furthermore:

As a recent review of the latest research in Scientific American pointed out, ever since the first set of federal guidelines appeared in 1980, Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.

Malanga also notes that new FDA guidelines recommend a maximum of 1500 milligrams of salt daily (down from 2300).  One hypertension expert observed  that the government’s salt war is a giant uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

Here are a few more reasons why government shouldn’t tell us what to eat:

We’re living longer than ever! 80 yrs today vs. 57 yrs  80 yrs ago

A CDC study found that more people die every year from being underweight than overweight!  And that moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight.

Government was once excited about BMI index. (body-mass index) Gov Mike Huckabee had all Arkansas kids tested!  But BMI is a lousy measure of health.  According to BMI: Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger are obese; GWBush and George Clooney are “overweight”

Calorie counts on menu boards don’t work: people STILL don’t take in fewer calories! A study at McDonald’s , Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken found that people ordered MORE calories after the labeling law went into effect.

What’s junk food?  Chicago’s new candy tax defines sweets that contain flour as “food” – w/o flour as “candy.”  (Hershey bar? Candy. But Kit Kats, Twix, Twizzlers –are “food”) O.j. and apple juice? More calories than Coke! (97 v 120/cup)

“Protect the children?”  Children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.

It’s a good sign that America has food nannies – means were so rich that these are the things we’re worried about!

The food police haven’t jailed anyone yet, but who knows 20 years down the road?  MeMe Roth suggests annual obesity screenings at school; serving soft drinks to only those over 18; child abuse laws for parents with obese kids; taxes on soda and sweetened drinks.

If the government is allowed to dictate our diet, what’s next? Do they start deciding who we’ll marry, where we’ll work?

Thomas Jefferson said “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

The Safety Net

“It’s very sad. I think it’s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,” said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Center. “It’s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.”

Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion health care law.

Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.

But House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill.

A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. “That doesn’t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,” the aide said. (The Hill)

In other words, the card shuffling rob Peter-to-Pay-Paul-Wimpy-I’ll Pay you tomorrow for a hamburger (or food stamp)-today economics may be running a bit thin.

The idea that you can pay for massive spending with cuts 3 years from now in the hope that everything will be fine and and you won’t have to cut them in 3 years is some how saving money now is just wrong.

And these were eliminating increases that that they’d already passed!

Sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg!

But when you have The Agenda, and the Agenda must be passed and the end justifies the means, you’ll do and say anything to make it happen.

The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date — in November 2013 — for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year.  A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.

But don’t worry, It will still be George W Bush’s fault if the cuts actually happen. Or evil rich people. Or Class warfare. It certainly won’t be there fault. And it’s just cutting an increase anyhow so no big deal (unless you’re the Bush Tax cuts where not increasing taxes is bad).

The truth is certainly not endangered.

I like this comment made on the article, it was suitably sarcastic:

No big deal. Just put a “cancel” on any payments from the treasury to cover charges for the Obama family’s entertainment amd travel budget. It would onlly take a few months of austerity in the White House to jumpstart the economy, balance the budget, and slash the deficit. If that doesn’t do it, garnish Obama’s salary, eliminate his empire of czars, and fire “Bozo” Gibbs. The first two measures would be sacrifices, and the third would be a sign of at least some intelligent life in the White House.

Now why would they want to interrupt their latest lavish vacation to do that? Gee, they are the elites and they are the ruling family why would they want to show any restraint?

They deserve it. They are better than you.

I guess we could always Eat their words…

Congress’ rationale for eliminating the 2003 Bush tax cuts is deficit reduction. This position would be more credible were congress not teeing-up additional discretionary spending programs in the form of various stimuli packages for union members and favored political allies whom Democrats need to please in order to ensure their re-election in November. The deficit can never be reduced if Congress doesn’t stop non-essential spending. (or this kind of Wimpy-I’ll-pay-tomorrow-for-what-I-spend-today economics).

Currently, it is not clear if the confiscatory tax policies proposed by Democrats are designed to reduce the deficit by increasing the government’s revenue or if they are designed to punish political opponents and those whose don’t share the flawed, Democrat, wealth-redistribution ideology. Increasingly, it’s looking as if the goal is to punish.

Low tax rates incentivize economic growth and investment. This has been proven time after time. But, Democrats prefer to focus, instead, on taxes on the “rich”, using inflammatory rhetoric that plays on our deepest fears and ego, fear that someone might be better than we are, have more than we do, rhetoric that encourages schadenfreude, a smug pleasure that those who have more than we, might be brought low by confiscatory tax policies.

The Democrat leaders in congress advocating against the Bush tax cuts are looking for a bogeyman—the rich—to be blamed for the failed Democrat fiscal and job creation policies. Punishing the “rich” is a campaign strategy that they hope will play well with voters this fall. (Townhall.com)

Let them EAT the “rich”. Meanwhile, the apparatchiks are being porked out of their minds.

And you, get to pay for it either way.

Oh, and just in case you didn’t know, their was another stimulus (aka bribe) recently also:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A check from Uncle Sam gets your attention, even if the money doesn’t help that much with the bills.

More than 750,000 Medicare recipients with high prescription costs each got a $250 government check this summer, and 3 million-plus more checks are going out to people who land in the program’s anxiety-inducing coverage gap.

Democrats, running scared in an election year, are trying to overcome older people’s mistrust of the new health care law, which expands coverage for younger generations by cutting Medicare payments to hospitals and insurers.

Will the ploy work?

“It’s like a teaser,” says Virginia Brant, 65, of Glendale, Ariz. “You go to Vegas and they give you the free spin on the wheel. We have had our teaser — the $250 — for us to say, ‘Gee, look at what we have coming.’”

Brant spent hers to help pay down a credit card she keeps for medications.

The checks arrive with a letter addressed directly to each beneficiary and signed by Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s health secretary.

The money is “to bring you some needed relief on your prescription drug costs … the first step toward closing your coverage gap,” Sebelius says. Then comes the pitch: “Stay tuned for more information … on how this new law will help make Medicare more financially secure and provide you with higher quality and more affordable health care.”

Ooh, $250 bucks! Wow! that makes The Health Care Mandate  and the cuts in Medicare Advantage  (which is used for prescriptions mostly ) so much more palatable and makes me want to vote for a Democrat so they can continue to pork people without regard to the consequences!

I guess they could always cut food stamps again to pay for it….

So The democrats want to demagogue the rich, pay off their apparatchiks with your money and bribe people to vote for them in November.

Well at least some things haven’t changed in the swamp.

Boo-Hoo Economics

Michelle “Antionette” Obama’s husband signed a Union Apparatchiks Bailout bill on Tuesday. It gave $26 Billion to state employees, primarily teachers (4 states of which that don’t even need it because there is no shortage!) and being the political animals in an election year what did they do to “offset” that spending?

They cut Food Stamps.

Or so the bill signed says (wait for the punchline, it’s coming).

Which prompts the liberal Boston Globe to complain:

ON TUESDAY, President Obama signed a $26 billion bill to help state and local governments cover Medicaid payments and avoid having to lay off teachers and other public employees. In what passes for high drama in Washington, the House of Representatives was called back from its summer recess to vote on the package, and the successful outcome was hailed as a major Democratic victory. “We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe,’’ Obama said. “That doesn’t make sense.’’

No, it doesn’t. But only by the occluded standards of contemporary Washington could this aid package be considered a victory. What began three months ago as a $50 billion emergency spending bill limped to the president’s desk at half that size and was largely paid for — “offset’’ in the clinical terminology of the budget — by cutting $12 billion from the food stamp program. In other words, a measure designed to help one group struggling in the recession came at the expense of another that is even worse off — and growing rapidly.

The number of people receiving food stamps stands at a record 41 million, or one out of every eight Americans. Driven by the downturn, that number has risen every month for the past 18 months. Last year alone, it grew by 20 percent. It’s grown by 50 percent since the recession began.

Then they say : The “good news’’ from an economic standpoint is that food stamps are a terrific vehicle for stimulus, because recipients spend them quickly.

Is that related to Nancy Pelosi’s unemployment comment that benefits are actually “Job creating” and that unemployment benefits “Create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

Bad news is Good News and Good News is Good News. Orwell would be proud of them.

But I find this “offset” target very curious. And makes me wonder just how politically motivated it was, as in, they picked something that made it look like they were being “responsible” knowing they’d never really do it.

And it was less than they wanted to begin with, so they were being more “responsible”.

But the truth is, it was in part a Campaign Slush Fund transfer anyhow.

Along with a bailout of his apparatchiks.

It goes like this, they give these Billions to teachers unions and then the teachers unions turn some of that money right back around as PAC contributions to Democrats running for re-elections. So it’s free campaign money.

They have effectively porked their own candidates without actually looking like it.

Now isn’t that just peachy.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based Labor Union Report, the National Education Association in 2009 “raked in a whopping $355,334,165 in ‘dues and agency fees’ from (mostly) teachers around the country.” It spent close to $11 million more than it took in — $50 million of which union leaders poured into “political activities and lobbying” for exclusively left-wing and Democratic partisan causes and candidates.

Its primary mission? No, not educational excellence. Not “the children.” Political self-preservation.

Last July, the National Education Association’s retiring top lawyer, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA’s annual meeting in July, made the union’s true interests transparent: “Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.

“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees . . .

“This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary.

“These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.”

Left-wing radical Saul Alinsky taught his education acolytes well. Teacher organizers, he counseled, must commit to a “singleness of purpose.” No, not serving children’s needs, but serving the “ability to build a power base.” If that isn’t the dictionary definition of “special interest,” what is? (Michelle Malkin)

Back to the Boo-Hoo Globe: The justification offered by proponents was that food prices haven’t risen as much as Congress expected them to, and therefore cutting benefits to hungry kids isn’t really so bad, especially since the cuts won’t take effect until 2014.

Ta Da!  there’s the magic bullet!!

So they are cutting food stamps 4 years from now to pay for a Union Stimulus now!

Kinda sounds like Wimpy from The Popeye cartoons, “I will pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today”.

That’s Liberal economics for ya.

Which leads to….

The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.

Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record. The highest was $180.68 billion in July 2009.

The government usually runs a deficit during July, which is the 10th month of the fiscal year. So far in fiscal 2010, the government spent $1.169 trillion more than it made. That figure is about $98 billion lower than during the comparable period a year earlier.

For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher—the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion.

Wednesday’s monthly Treasury statement said U.S. government revenues in July totaled $155.55 billion, compared with $151.48 billion in July 2009.

Spending was higher, totaling $320.59 billion. July 2009 spending amounted to $332.16 billion.

Year-to-date revenues were $1.75 trillion, compared with $1.74 trillion in the first 10 months of fiscal 2009. Spending so far in this fiscal year is $2.92 trillion, versus $3.01 trillion in the prior period.

Spending for benefits for the unemployed year to date totaled $121.4 billion; for July, the tab was $9.8 billion, the Treasury statement said.

Years of deficit spending by Washington have led to a mounting national debt. Interest payments so far in fiscal 2010 amount to $185.25 billion; by contrast, corporate taxes collected by the government during the same 10 months were $139.71 billion. Interest payments in July alone were $19.9 billion. (WSJ)

But don’t worry, this was all George W. Bush’s Fault! He made them do it!!

Then Boston Globe ends with this sobbing whine: But the idea that they’ve won anything overall is hard to sustain. They sacrificed the most effective form of stimulus and capitulated to the Republican idea that deficits matter above all else. Their decision about who should bear the brunt of the offsets, and the silence that greeted it, suggests a moral capitulation as well. It may be a victory. But it’s nothing to brag about.

They have to be dishonest even to themselves in their Insufferable Perceived Moral Superiority and Outrage.

The cuts aren’t until 2014 ya dirtbags! You know, the same year the Health Care Mandate kicks in!  So they are sobbing about cutting something 4 years from now to pay for pork spending now and they are boo-hooing “it’s so unfair” about it.

Meanwhile the Deficit is climbing towards 15 Billion dollars and they just can’t stop the addiction to spending, especially on their own apparatchiks.

But that’s all George W. Bush’s Fault!

Where’s that Industrial Strength Barf Bag…

The Politics of Food

As an amateur home cook and a junkie for The Food Network and other Food Shows I take food seriously.

But not like our President and his Food Nazis.

And no, I don’t mean “Seinfeld”.

This is not a comedy.

This is your usual socialist tragedy.

Busy bodies with a moral superiority complex.

You may laugh about the White House assistant chef being appointed “Senior Policy Adviser.” You’ll stop laughing when you realize that those in power really do want to tell you what to eat.

You just can’t cook these things up. The 29-year-old Chicago chef that the Obama family for years paid to be their private cook, Sam Kass, was quietly promoted last month from his job as assistant chef at the White House residence and “food initiative coordinator” to the position of “senior policy adviser for healthy food initiatives.”

The long-suffering American people don’t get to know if an increase in salary is involved, because Kass is on the residence staff rather than the West Wing’s.

But we should know how much the taxpayers are paying this “bald, intense young man” who, according to the New York Times, is “part chef and part policy wonk” and is “reinventing the role of official gastronome in the Executive Mansion.”

He plays golf with the president at Martha’s Vineyard, attends the administration’s child-health briefings, and quizzes senior White House staff about policy.

“Do we have a toxicologist who specializes in colony collapse disorder?” Kass once asked in an e-mail to the Agriculture Department, according to the New York Times story.

Add the fact that Kass isn’t even a formally trained chef and you really start to wonder what’s going on here.

The law lets the president appoint anyone he wants as “senior policy adviser.” But if he wants to be the first president to employ a cook/food czar, he should make that plain to the public — and publish the man’s taxpayer-funded salary, as is the case with other White House policy advisers.

Of course, it all begs the question: Why on earth do the American people need a government-paid “food initiative coordinator”? This administration has been attempting to elevate nutrition to the level of a civil rights issue.

How much harassment is enough in regard to food? New York City has opened the door for every local government to ban trans fats. Then there are the ubiquitous nutrition labels on every food item in supermarkets and fast-food restaurants.

The food nannies are everywhere. Now in the White House, too.

If President Obama really wants to appoint a butcher, baker or candlestick maker to a top White House policy job, we humbly propose a better suggestion: Joe the Plumber. (IBD)

Because it’s such a dire situation, she has convinced her husband’s administration to spend $400 million a year to bring “healthy foods” to low-income neighborhoods and $10 billion to revise a decades-old federal measure that already feeds tens of millions of poor children at school for free.

This culinary revolution no doubt requires a trusted senior policy adviser—like Kass—who is an expert in healthy cuisine. The First Lady refers to her cook as a “partner in crime” and says it’s “just pretty powerful” to see what started out as talk in her South Side Chicago kitchen turn into a major initiative that “hopefully will change the way we think as a country.”

Makes you wonder what Kass, who also doubles as a White House chef, has been putting in the Obama’s food all these years. Incidentally, the “most transparent administration” in history doesn’t want Americans to know how much the famous family cook earns. Although he’s an important administration wonk, Kass’s salary is excluded in the Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff because he’s considered “residence staff” and those salaries don’t need to be disclosed. (Judicial Watch)

Even the private chef of the President is a political hack, for god’s sake!

Yet more “czars” from the “I’m not a socialist!” President.

In a statement released on June 22, the liberal Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced it was filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for marketing toys with their signature Happy Meals. The statement’s creepy hyperbole nearly implied that Ronald McDonald should be featured on an episode of “To Catch a Predator:”

“’McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.

And the Liberal Media just easts it up.

“But would children still be happy with their meal without the joy of a new toy? That’ll be up to kids, and possibly a judge,” chided NBC’s Erika Edwards.

“It’s entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property.”–San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom after he “regulated” the sale of non-diet drinks in city vending machines.

“On its own, popcorn is a low-fat, low-cal, whole grain food,” said Good Morning America’s consumer correspondent Elizabeth Leamy, “but the Center (for Science in The Public Interest) says that the way some movie theaters prepare it, it’s more like eating a rack of ribs with a scoop of ice cream on top.”

UK Daily Mail: Teachers have used ‘Big Brother’ tactics to spy on children’s lunchboxes, it has been revealed. They secretly photographed pupils’ packed lunches over six months and analysed the contents.

Staff awarded marks to the food and then showed their findings to outraged parents, offering them advice on how to improve nutrition.

Education bosses have now put a stop to the scheme in Gloucestershire after discovering the extent of the surveillance.

Nineteen primary schools have been using the ‘packed lunch toolkit’, which was devised by Gloucestershire county council and NHS Gloucestershire.

Contents were taken out of a random sample of lunchboxes and then photographs taken.

Staff rated the contents against set nutritional standards. They looked for high fat, salt and sugary foods as well as fruit and vegetables.

NHS= National Health Service. HHS= Health and Human Services.

Brothers from a different mother?

But Yvette Gayle, whose nine-year-old daughter Renee Dougan attends the school, said she didn’t mind.

‘It might encourage parents to pack a healthier lunch for their kids anyway,’ she said.

Cheryl Ridler, an education co-ordinator at the school, said the scheme has led to ‘a definite improvement in the quality of food’ brought in.

‘All the parents were very positive about it and we did it in a very nice and careful way, and in no way demanding and intrusive,’ she added.

Big Brother smiles upon you Citizen. Rejoice.

Maybe we could have a reality show, showing a Nutritional Intervention or maybe an actual Food Police show, showcasing the worst slovenly, offensive offenders against the public good.

Unfortunately, it is their business, because too many of us have insisted on treating healthcare services as an entitlement rather than a commodity. As a result, we’ve implicitly given government the permission to interfere with anything having to do with “public health,” including our food choices. And for the most part, many people support these dumb food bans because they imagine it’s doing some kind of good. I find it hard to believe that could be true. As the failed war on drugs has taught us, government regulation is no match for the forces of supply and demand.(411mania.com)

And where have we heard of Health Care as an entitlement?

The Left

Who are the Food Police?

The Left.

Funny how that worked out.

And with Comedy comes Tragedy.

And her it is folks.

The reason why the Food Police are coming to get you.

You’re too Fat!!!, and that’s a negative impact on ObamaCare.

So we can’t have that.

If the government gets to decide who lives and who dies, they get to decide what you eat as well.

It’s for your own good, after all.

Rejoice.

Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records–that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year–must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

The obesity-rating regulation states that every American’s electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

The law also requires that these electronic health records be available–with appropriate security measures–on a national exchange.

The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law.  Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the “meaningful use” of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers–including doctors and hospitals–must establish “meaningful use” of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing “meaningful use” of EHRs.

Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: “The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.”

Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation–developed by Dr. Blumenthal–that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity.

Michelle Obama has made dealing with the problem of childhood obesity the main theme of her term as First Lady.

According to the CDC,  “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”

A person’s BMI score is used as a tool to screen for obesity or excessive body fat that could lead to other health problems. While it does not actually measure body fat directly, according to CDC, the BMI scores generally correlate with a person’s body fat percentage.

The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies such as HHS and CDC. The CDC, which calls American society “obesogenic” – meaning that American society itself promotes obesity – collects BMI scores from state health agencies every year to monitor obesity nationwide.

“Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies,” the regulations read.

With the spread of electronic health records, the CDC apparently will be able to collect such data more efficiently and with greater accuracy because the electronic record keeping systems can send the data automatically, eliminating the need for government – both state and federal – to keep, send, and process physical records.

So how long until the BMI Tax or mandatory “health education”??

So you want that Big Mac, well, there’s a 20%  surcharge Tax and we have to record how many of them you have and when you have reached your limit you will not be allowed to eat it anymore until such time as the National Coordinator’s guidelines for your better health says so.

How far off is that?

Not far enough for my tastes.

But that’s why I was so vehemently against the whole thing to begin with.

But what do I know, I’m just a “racist” “teabagger” “idiot” who wants what’s bad for you, at least according to the Left and it’s Media pit bulls.

Have that Big Mac now, because in a few years it will be banned or so heavily regulated and taxed it will cost you $20 for just one and it will have to be registered with the HHS.

And if your BMI says you can’t have it, well, the Food Police will coming knocking on your door to “educate” you Citizen.

Just you wait and see.

Big Momma Michelle is watching you…

What is Old is New Again

First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation’s largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically,” according to the proposed resolution.

“We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. “We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.”

Mind you Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of this earlier in the year.

In the environment where practically everything has a video recorder in it, he got bumpkiss.

It’s just fear mongering, inflammatory and more, well, racist on it’s face.

But since the Media is in bed with them, it will not be pointed out. It’s just accepted as fact that Tea Partiers are racists.

Simple.

Disagree with this president, you’re a racist.

Period.

“We see it as a threat to democracy. We see it as a threat to human rights. We certainly see it as a threat to civil rights,” McDowell said, adding that the resolution will likely pass when it’s voted upon Tuesday.

Mind you, the whole thing is baseless racism in of itself. But will the media care, No.

Hell, even the Justice Dept. won’t care, after all they won’t prosecute the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia but will prosecute Arizona and they brought up the specter of “racial profiling” again this week.

And the media is ignoring it.

The resolution reportedly will call on “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and stand against the movement’s attempt to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Reached for the Barf Bag yet?

The NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors,” he added. “This is very much what the liberal agenda is about.” The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas, chapter who is now a leading Tea Party activist said the idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.”

But end justifies the means.

The liberals want to motivate the blacks and hispanics to come out in November and crush the racist whitey.

This is their strategy to stop the expected massive losses in House and possibly the Senate.

Be as racist as possible by preaching that the “other guy” is a racist!

And you’re racism is sanctimonious!!

A Race War against an alleged Race War against the people the raging the Race War.

Orwell would be proud.

“We have to close the enthusiasm gap,” NAACP president Ben Jealous said in an interview with the Associated PressTea Party is that people see them and think about periods in history when groups like them were much more powerful than they are now, and so a lot of what we spend energy doing is explaining to people what reality is, and that the reality is that the majority from 2008 still exists.”

The KKK, maybe??

The “enthusiasm gap”? So ginning up racist hatred and division is “enthusiasm”??

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.

“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is “not about a black or white issue.”

“It’s not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint,” she told The Associated Press. “All of us are taxed too much.”

“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?’” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”

Because it’s politically incorrect!

And your “brothers” will discriminate against you.

That’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, folks!

If you disagree, you’re a racist.

Simple.

Even the ridiculous Lebron James bore-a-thon has been dragged into the racist arena by none other than Race-Baiter extraordinaire the Rev. Jesse Jackson:

Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James as a “runaway slave” and that the owner’s comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger. “His feelings of betrayal personify a slave-master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship — between business partners — and LeBron honored his contract.”

Good Grief…

Nothing is sacred.

Nothing is out of bounds.

When you will do anything, because the end justifies the means.

Even inflame a Race War that isn’t a Race War against an alleged but wholly-created-out-of-nothing Race War against you that doesn’t actually exist but it works for you if  the people think it does…

Greece-ing the Skids

WASHINGTON (AP) – Your parents were right. Money can’t buy you happiness.
That was the message from the Federal Reserve chairman on Saturday to graduates of the University of South Carolina.

Or was it?
“We all know that getting a better-paying job is one of the main reasons to go to college. … But if you are ever tempted to go into a field or take a job only because the pay is high and for no other reason, be careful!” Ben Bernanke said in his commencement address.
“Having a larger income is exciting at first, but as you get used to your new standard of living and as you associate with other people in your new income bracket, the thrill quickly wears off,” he said.

Unless you’re a  Liberal that is…

If you’re rich, you’re above it all. But we will demonize only Republicans.

If you’re not, you are told you’re entitled to other people’s money, so don’t worry about it.

But doesn’t this sound a lot like Michelle Obama’s Zanesville speech that got her in so much hot water that she was removed from the campaign trail.

“The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you’re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,” she says.
“Barack and I were in that position,” she continues. “The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books… It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids.” A former attorney with the white-shoe Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama explains that she and her husband made the choice to give up lucrative jobs in favor of community service. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” Faced with that reality, she adds, “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”

Collectively, according to the IRS, they made $5 Million Dollars last year.

I guess that wasn’t so evil.

The message, don’t strive so hard to succeed.

Lower your expectations.

Because, we already know we are living so far beyond our means as a government that eventually,  in 10 or 20 years or less you’ll be Greece’d.

So better to lower the expectations now so they can lessen the violence when the fecal matter hits the air circulation device.

In Greece:

They are angry because for years they have been encouraged to live beyond their means, taking advantage of the cheap credit on offer since Greece joined the euro in 2001. Now, the rug is being pulled from under their feet. People who have taken out mortgages to buy homes, loans to purchase cars and credit cards to pay for overpriced basic goods are being asked to meet all these commitments with a much lower income than they had budgeted for.

Fannie and Freddie anyone??

UK Guardian: Saddled with burgeoning public sectors (which help sustain muscular trade unions)– SEIU, UAW, NEA anyone?

This is not what angers Greeks most, though. What you will hear time after time, both at the protests and at workplaces and cafes, is that this crisis confirms the failure of the country’s political system. In other words, that for years politicians have been bleeding the country dry, looking after themselves and their friends and failing to build a robust economy and a country equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.

There is anger at the pervasive, high-level corruption for which no politician is ever punished. People are also furious that no government has ever tackled influence-peddling in the public sector. The Greek branch of Transparency International estimated that Greeks paid almost euro800 million ($1 billion) in bribes last year. This is another drain on household budgets but more importantly it creates a sense of injustice, a sense that to get anything done you have to play by the system’s warped rules.

Sound familiar??

This feeling of unfairness is compounded when tax evasion also goes unpunished.

“Turbo Tax” Geithner anyone? Barney Frank? Charlie Rangel??

Salaried professionals and civil servants have their wages taxed at source but many Greeks do not. And, what they declare often bears no resemblance to what they actually earn. The government believes that tax evasion could be worth up to euro30 billion ($38 billion) a year, or 12 percent of the country’s GDP. Allowing one part of the population to consistently get away without paying while Greece’s public finances are propped up by the same people all the time creates incredible resentment. That’s why you hear many Greeks say they will put up with the austerity measures if the government ensures that everybody pays their fair share. If people believe that the usual suspects, who in many cases are wealthy businessmen, doctors and lawyers, are allowed to get away with it, then the level of anger will go up several notches.

47% of all Americans pay NO TAXES whatsover!

Union workers and civil servant can make more in retirement than on the job.

But we aren’t going down that road…oh no…the Nazi, Racist, Violent Tea Baggers are just wrong.

Some of the measures imposed on Greece by the EU in order to bail them out (BBC):

The plans hope to achieve budget cuts of 30bn euros over three years – with the goal of cutting Greece’s public deficit to less than 3% of GDP by 2014. It currently stands at 13.6%.

PAY CUTS

The government is planning a freeze pay for all public sector workers.

Some pay cuts will also be implemented, and public sector contract workers are set to lose their jobs.

This follows several years of continuous increases in pay, with salaries rising by an average of 30% since 2006.

Annual bonus payments – paid as 13th and 14th month salaries – will also be scrapped for high earners and capped for lower earners.

Other bonuses will be scrapped.

In the private sector, the legal maximum number of people companies can lay off each month will be doubled from 2% of personnel to 4%.

PENSIONS

The reforms seek to prevent early retirement. Currently the average age of retirement in Greece is 61, though it is not uncommon for public sector workers to retire in their 50s.

Under the planned changes, the retirement age, which is currently 65 years for men and 60 years for women, will be linked to average life expectancy.

In addition, the minimum number of years someone will have had to have worked to qualify for a full pension will rise to 40 years from 37.

Pensions will also be reduced so that they reflect a worker’s average working pay rather than their final salary.
TAX REFORM

VAT will be increased to 23% from 21% – just the latest in a series of recent increases.

Indirect taxes – including those on alcohol, fuel and cigarettes – will see a 10% rise.

There will also be a clamp-down on tax evasion – widely regarded as a big problem in Greece – and on untaxed illegal construction.

Tax-evasion alone is estimated to cost the Greek government at least 20bn euros a year.
PRIVATISATION

In the longer-term, the government will look to reduce the reliance of the Greek economy on the public sector, reducing the number of people on the public payroll.

This will require growth in the private sector, and possible privatisation of some industries.

Getting eerily uncomfortable I hope.

See our future if  Obama and The Democrats (and Republicans too) are not stopped.

According to a December report from the BLS, state and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked ($26.24 for wages and $13.60 for benefits) for total employee compensation in September 2009. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour ($19.45 for wages and $8.05 for benefits), see chart above. In other words, government employees make 45% more on average than private sector employees.

According to an analysis by USAToday (thanks to Michael Jahr for the pointer), “The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to an analysis of federal salary data.” For example, the number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has increased by 120,595, from 262,163 employees in December 2007 to 382,758 in June 2009, for a 46% increase. The number of federal workers making $150,000 or more has more than doubled since the recession started, from about 30,000 to more than 66,000 (see chart above).

USA Today also reports that “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” That’s a 168,900% increase!!

The Unemployment rate in the public sector is about 3%.

It’s been near 10% for a very long time in the real world.

And do the Democrats look concerned?

Do the Republicans?

Do they?

Josh Barro writes for the Manhattan Institute about the “Two Americas” and the “sharp difference between two classes of employees: those who work in the private sector and those who work for the government. Workers in the public sector have experienced a very different recession from those in the private sector.”

So is this Greece-ing the skids for what the government knows is coming if things don’t change?

I think so.