You have been Gore-d Again!

Saturday Nigh Live skewers the TSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Om2Evyubc

Be Sexually molested for Freedom and Security! Hurrah! 🙂

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Former Vice President Al Gore admitted Monday that his pivotal 1994 Senate vote for ethanol subsidies was bad policy but good politics. That says a lot about the reality of environmentalism in government.

As the ethanol tax credit comes up for renewal in Congress on Dec. 31, it’s worth noting it only came about because the vice president cast the decisive 51st vote in favor of it in 1994.

At the time, he packaged it as a big move to preserve the environment in a market-friendly, sustainable manner, and for years defended his vote because it was supposedly good for us.

“The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be,” he recounted in 1998.

Now the real story emerges. On Monday he matter-of-factly told a bankers group in Greece it was actually about helping himself.

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.

One is tempted to praise a man who admits mistakes, but the magnitude of what Gore actually did through his cynically cast vote as an elected leader in a position of trust suggests sorry isn’t enough.

Gore’s vote drove food prices higher, trashed the environment, and drew American capital into inefficient energy sources over efficient ones. This should be an object lesson in the importance of not trusting politicians on the environment.

Start with what it is — a tax credit for special interests that has cost U.S. taxpayers $16 billion. And costs are rising. The centrally planned ethanol mandate has risen from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 35 billion by 2022. In the last year alone, it’s cost $7 billion.

From the tax credit, refiners make a profit on blended ethanol even when it costs more than gasoline, an unfair price distortion.

No wonder refiners told farmers they could buy all the corn they could grow — Uncle Sam was picking up the tab. Today, 41% of all corn grown in America goes to ethanol — not to the dinner table.

As corn exports fell, inflation soared abroad. In Mexico, riots broke out over rising tortilla prices. Inflation hurts the poor most.

Then there was the product itself, ethanol, a fuel that’s been around since the days of Henry Ford. It burns 30% less efficiently than other forms of energy, such as oil, clean coal, shale and natural gas. As IBD wrote earlier this month, ethanol “has never made much sense economically or environmentally.” Gore confirms this.

Still, ethanol mandates did wonders for Gore’s political life, bringing him everything from a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for environmentalism to big bucks to speak in places like Athens, Greece.

By his own admission, Gore’s mistake came at our expense and for that he deserves scorn. More importantly, the feel-good era of environmentalism by government diktat must end.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism to satisfy one man’s ambitions.

Among the unintended consequences, farmland that had been efficiently planted with multiple crops ended up as monolithic cornfields, using 1,700 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. Food prices surged as the government’s ethanol monster got fed. (Ibd)

So does this whole sorry mess of enviromentalist whackos come down to one man’s ambitions unrealized. Is that why liberals are STILL mad about the 2000 election and have gone off the rails ever since?

And just think of all the food shortages and hunger (and there was in other countries) because 1 man decided that his presidential ambition out weighed the nation or the world.

Gee, sounds like Obama  now. 😦

But it’s hardly over. “Green” has gone GREEN. As in Money!

A high-ranking member of the U.N.’s Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth.

Money, they say, is the root of all evil. It’s also the motivating force behind what is left of the climate change movement after the devastating Climate-gate and IPCC scandals that saw the deliberate manipulation of scientific data to spur the world into taking draconian regulatory action.

Left for dead, global warm-mongers are busy planning their next move, which should occur at a climate conference in relatively balmy Cancun at month’s end. Certainly it should provide a more appropriate venue for discussing global warming than the site of the last failed climate conference — chilly Copenhagen.

Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.

Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

In his IPCC post, Edenhofer was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Based on anecdotal evidence, it contained unsubstantiated claims that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear and Bangladesh would be totally submerged.

Edenhofer claims “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community” and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes, the postage stamp countries of the world. He admits this “has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

It has everything to do with a different kind of green. U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket.

We’ve seen such plans before. Just before Copenhagen, a group of “chicken littles” along with some gullible corporations ran an ad campaign titled “Hopenhagen.” It pushed a global wealth redistribution scheme based on the theory that Western nations, particularly the U.S., owe a “climate debt” for having initiated the Industrial Revolution and plundered the world’s fossil fuel resources in the name of unbridled capitalism.

According to a Hopenhagen pocket guide, there will be a “Green New Deal” that “will be based on the polluter-pays principle, on the historically high emissions of developed nations and on the capacity of the rich nations to help the poor.”

This sounds like the Marxist principle: to each according to his need from each according to his ability — with a guilty conscience thrown in for good measure. As President Obama might put it, U.N. officials are seeking a “fundamental transformation” of the globe.

Given this administration’s willingness to compromise American sovereignty, we could soon see Americans taxed to fund a global scam — the ultimate form of taxation without representation. (IBD)

The only cure for this is flush every Democrat out of the system. Otherwise, this cancer will just keep coming back and keep growing. It will kill the patient eventually.

The patient being US.

Political Cartoon by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert

Your Safety is Our Primary Concern

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” — attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

Political Cartoon by Gary McCoy

You knew the Department of Homeland Security was broken under Janet Napolitano. She won’t secure the border. She can’t bring herself to name the religion that breeds an incessant flow of suicidal extremists. And now she may allow Muslim women wearing hijabs (full body coverings) to pass through security without the intrusive scanning process that the rest of the citizenry must endure.

CAIR, the islamic pressure group link to the terrorist group HAMAS says “jump” and she and most liberals say “how high?”.

When asked, Janet said “Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made,” Napolitano responded. “With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come…”

So no need to recruit westerners to be radicals anymore. Just get CAIR to cry foul and Janet and the Liberals will jump and do as they say. So the terrorist can just come as they are.

Meanwhile, grandma and  screaming 3 year olds will get felt up like they were at a strip club.

And heaven forbid a bomber hides something up their ass, we’ll all have mandatory enemas!

http://townhall.com/video/oreilly-ann-coulter-debate-tsa-security-measures

Yeah, that’s effective. 😦

It’s okay for the TSA to grope nuns, but Muslim women are exempt (nothing beyond the head and neck). We cannot profile potential terrorists, but it’s okay to molest three-year olds (except we won’t call it molest because it’s the government doing it). Muslim men won’t go through body imaging machines, but it’s okay to grope non-Muslims’ genitals.

And, just to be clear, when one guy expresses his displeasure about his “junk” being touched, the TSA wants to make an example out of him by retaliating and launching an investigation into the guy who resisted the TSA’s overtures.

The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.

[snip]

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”

So what we need is everyone dress in Muslim grab and pretend to be a Muslim. That will overload Janet’s brain to the point where we may actually cause her brain to crash and we can get someone competent in there (but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though).

If Liberals jump at whatever Muslim pressure groups say, then obviously we need to all be Muslims.

Because the TSA assumes you are a terrorist right from the get-go, unless you’re a muslim that is.

So what if virtually every terrorist attack in the 45 years has been committed by Muslims. Who cares.

Certainly not the TSA.

We don’t want to PROFILE!

Everyone is guilty until proven innocent, except Muslims.

Sigh…And it doesn’t end there.

Just being normal Americans also who voted to crush the Democrats in the last election didn’t even phase the ideologically mind locked nutters.

The Democrats, and the predicted Lame Duck Poison has arrived.

Facing the largest Tax Increase (there are no “cuts”) in American History, something that is guaranteed to crush a bad economy the Democrats are all fired up about Illegal Immigration, Net Neutrality, and Treaties to hand over military superiority to the Russians.

They learned nothing on Nov 2. As predicted. They are far to full of their own hubris to understand. The Agenda is The Agenda!

And they still are. They are, after all, vastly superior to us mere mortals.

After the election, it seemed like the White House might have gotten the message. Obama said “the overwhelming message that I hear from the voters is that we…want you to work harder to arrive at consensus. We want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy…” White House officials were reported to be “deeply concerned about winning back political independents”. The FCC also seemed to get it. Chairman Genachowski said “At the FCC, our primary focus is simple: the economy and jobs.”

Message received, right?

Apparently not.

Now, in an astounding act of political and economic deafness, FCC Chairman Genachowski has apparently “touted net-neutrality regulations as one of the most important policies the country can adopt to improve its broadband deployment efforts”, and The Politico reports that they are “putting together a net neutrality proposal” which would apply net neutrality rules to wireless. And they may may try to jam it through in December.

Why now? “Lawmakers will already be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving the FCC a small window to release a controversial order without immediate harsh reactions from Capitol Hill Republicans.”

I’m not sure why the administration thinks Congressional Republicans will let this happen. There may not be an Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman yet, but there isn’t much daylight between the candidates on this issue. If the FCC goes too far on this issue, they can expect a Congressional examination that would make the TSA blush.

Regulations that decrease investment and will lead to a loss of investment are no laughing matter in this bad economy. Americans will look to Congress to ask some tough questions on why the FCC and White House didn’t get the message after the midterms.

The question now is whether it was the FCC or the White House itself that didn’t get the message in the midterms. If they want to jam through these regulations, there is plenty more where the mid-terms came from. (Redstate.com)

The Senate has voted to take up consideration of S.510, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act, which would grant the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) more control over our diets. The supposed intention behind the legislation is to protect consumers from food-borne illnesses. But will it really?

If passed, the misnamed Food Safety and Modernization Act would authorize the FDA to tell farmers how to grow their crops. Federal bureaucrats who likely know little to nothing about farming will set the guidelines on appropriate temperatures, what soil to use, how much water to use and what animals are allowed to be on certain fields.

A study by Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) office states “on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer)”

President John Tate states: “Don’t fall for their rhetoric about a few provisions that supposedly address concerns of small-scale farmers; the FDA still has all the power it needs to shut down family farms on a whim. In other words, it will be up to bureaucrats to decide whether or not local food production is decimated by federal regulations or shut down.”

The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that this overreaching bill would cost $1.4 billion between 2011 and 2015. To carry out these new rules, the federal government will hire over 17,000 new bureaucrats. Food producers will likely spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually complying with these unnecessary government regulations. This cost will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher food prices. Big agriculture is one of the largest proponents of the bill since it will likely destroy their competitors who cannot afford the high cost of these regulations.(red state.com)

But you’ll be “safer”. 🙂

Now doesn’t that make you feel better…

And the Democrats have listened to the the people cry on the economy, by not doing anything so far about the tax increases, but they do want give amnesty to illegals and crush the internet and farmers under their boots.

Message received loud and clear.

But did you listen?

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

 

Big Brother & Big Sis are Watching You!

If you don’t want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process,” says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.

“All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy,” the ACLU said in a statement. “Tell DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to put in place security measures that respect passengers’ privacy rights. You shouldn’t have to check your rights when you check your luggage.”

Holy Outrage Batman! Even the American Communist Liberals Union (ACLU) is mad at Big Sis!!

Whodathunkit! 🙂

“We have to ensure that each person getting on every flight is secure,” Pistole said.

Asked by U.S. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) about groups that objected to all forms of bodily search on religious grounds, Pistole didn’t waiver: “While we respect that person’s beliefs, that person’s not going to get on an airplane.” (sun sentinel)

Mind you, how do the most terrorized people in the world, the Israelis manage to do it?

Wait for it…PROFILING!

Yes, folks, profiling. That evil politically incorrect word.

And here’s Rafi Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority:

A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.”I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

The security boss of Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport is calling for an end to endless investment in new technology to improve airline security.

Marijn Ornstein said: “If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening … If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant.”

“All these machines require you to guess the plot correctly. If you don’t, then they are completely worthless,” said Bruce Schneier, a security expert.

Mr. Schneier and some other experts argue that assembling better intelligence on fliers is the key to making travel safer.

Personally, I think Big Sis Janet just gets off on the power to grope you legally where if it was done outside an airport would be either sexual assault or cost you $100 for a hooker.

And that Nude photo of you in the scanner, well, “We are confident that full-body X-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health,” officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the TSA wrote in a letter last month to White House science adviser John Holdren (Mr. Global Warming).

The FDA says the science does establish the machines’ safety. 🙂 (sun sentinel)

Isn’t that Special. It’s safe, but we don’t have any real science to back that up and don’t care to either.

And that 18-40 year old guy who’s acting all nervous and weird. No problem, we are too busy frisking grandma in a wheelchair! Or the guy with the ostomy bag.

“She put her full hand on my breast and said, ‘What is this?’.  And I said, ‘It’s my prosthesis because I’ve had breast cancer.’ And she said, ‘Well, you’ll need to show me that’.”

Cathy was asked to show her prosthetic breast, removing it from her bra.

After all, the Flight Attendant might have a bomb in that boob! 😦

Do you think the TSA just gets off on the power of humiliation??

A T.S.A. representative says agents aren’t supposed to remove any prosthetics, but are allowed to ask to see and touch any passenger’s prosthetic.(Charlotte NC Channel 3)

Oh really?

Business traveler, Penny Moroney, was flying home from St. Louis to Chicago. Like all other airline passengers, she had to go through security first. When the metal in her artificial knees set off the detectors, she had to undergo more screening. When Moroney asked if she could go through a body scanner, she was told none were available.
A pat down was the only alternative.
Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts…went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin… then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.”
“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says.  “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.” (KMOV)
Yes, but this Big Sis, she can sexually assault you for your own good.
Aren’t you grateful that the government is here to protect you?

I can’t wait until a Muslim publicly objects, then the Liberals will really be in a pickle!

And that nervous kid in the line who doesn’t set off the technology, but if you had proper training in say, microexpressions and PROFILING, you might want to grope him. But no, that would be politically incorrect!

Or that trained sniffer dog? Sorry, it’s groping or nude pictures or bust!

And one must always fight a war politically correct after all.

And that’s not all the Holiday Cheer from Big Brother:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Christmas gift in store for the phone and cable industry: it may move ahead on its controversial net-neutrality regulations three days before Christmas.

An FCC source confirmed on Friday that the commission plans to push its December meeting back by a week, meaning it will fall on the 22nd of the month. That’s the same meeting in which analysts say the agency may move forward on its controversial net-neutrality proposal.

Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will.

The timing of the meeting is already raising eyebrows. Some see it as a way to move the matter along before the GOP assumes the majority and while Congress is not in session to criticize the effort.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the telecom subcommittee, questioned the schedule on Friday.

He said “it appears that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices.”

Industry sources also suggested that political calculus is involved with the change of date for the meeting.

“While many Americans will be enjoying their eggnog on that day, I’m sure the broadband providers won’t be pleased to find this piece of coal in their stockings,” an industry source jibed. (The Hill)

And The FCC’s response? Oh, we are trying to stop regulation of the internet by regulating the internet.

Happy Holidays!

Big Brother is Watching you!

Jim Morin

Big Brother Eric Wants You!

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year.

Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and pirate-party.us or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.

In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites.

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.”  The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.”  Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.”  Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.”

Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”

The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States.

To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored.  But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.”

“Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.”

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.”

Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Wired)

Why stop there?

There are plenty of other things to censor. Like bloggers… 🙂

Once you have tasted the power to control, what’s next?

After all, Eric Holder has done such a fine job already… He’s fair and impartial….

And this is surely one of the most pressing problems in America today, after all.

<<Barf Bag overload!>>

Personal Responsibility Government Style

You’re a wreck.

You can’t do things right.

Common sense has been leeched out of you.

You’re too stupid for your own good.

Or at least the government thinks so. So in your best interest they want to act for you.

You’re too Fat, so we have the Food Police wanting to ban Salt, fat, and in San Francisco- Happy Meals. And it doesn’t stop there. Oh no, it does not.

Consider this press release:

As a dietitian, I suggest that parents make Halloween candy rules to avoid sugar highs and stomach aches. But even more important, I encourage all Americans to support comprehensive child nutrition reform to improve the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs. Congress will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the school lunch program, and this vote comes not a moment too soon.

Nearly 40 percent of calories consumed by children are from junk food, according to a new study analyzing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Half of these calories come from just six foods: pizza, ice cream, whole milk, cookies and cake, soda, and sugary fruit drinks.

Wait—milk? Milk is a “junk food”?

Oh, and the group behind this release, the “Physicians Committee” for “Responsible Medicine” (PCRM) is neither a physicians group, nor responsible, nor interested in medicine. (They do seem to be a committee.) So while PCRM claims to be a group of good-hearted doctors concerned about nutrition, it’s actually an animal rights front group whose M.O. is to scare everyone toward vegetarianism.

Love the Orwellian name, by the way.

It’s head is the former head of PeTA. And you should know by now how insane those people are.

PCRM founder Neal Barnard has called cheese “dairy crack…the purest form of the [milk] drug.” PCRM has also tried to sue milk companies in Washington, DC, demanding (are you sitting down?) “monetary awards for the pain and suffering” that lactose intolerant Americans have experienced from consuming milk.

Of course, the truth is that milk—whole or otherwise—is a great source of Vitamin A, Vitamin D, and calcium. No serious medical group would suggest otherwise, unless they were more concerned with “saving” cows than promoting human health. Come to think of it, that’s probably PCRM’s real beef in the first place.

New York City Passes the Salt with Another Ad Campaign

And of course, these people just have your Personal Responsibility at heart. 🙂

New York City is also spearheading the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI), a partnership with state health authorities and other national and local health organizations. The group’s goal is “a voluntary reduction of sodium levels with the objective of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant foods by 25 percent over five years.”

There’s just one problem: Very few food companies have signed on with the NSRI. So how can the reduction stay voluntary? (Hint: It won’t.)

Then there’s the FDA which announced earlier this year that they intended to reduce Americans’ salt intake — without providing any specific details at the time. Notorious food nags at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have been petitioning the FDA for years to revoke salt’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status. This would require the FDA to approve the (much lower) salt content of every food in the nation. (consumerfreedom.com)

They only want what’s best for you, regardless. 🙂

They know better. And if you won’t take “personal responsibility” and do as they say then they’ll just have to force you to do it. 🙂

The Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood may be experiencing some repetitive whiplash.

Responding to a couple articles written in The Daily Caller, LaHood took to his blog in order to clarify his position about whether or not he “believed we should employ a specific technology that would block cell phone signals in cars to prevent drivers from talking or texting behind the wheel.”

“I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones,” LaHood had said on MSNBC. “We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

In his blog post on Thursday, the Secretary clarified his statements with another quote taken from his MSNBC appearance:

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. But you have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That’s the bottom line.” [Highlighted for enjoyment]

“The boom line,” LaHood repeated after the excerpt, was “personal responsibility.”

“For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving,” he said. LaHood later added that “No one should need a piece of technology in their car to tell them that talking or texting while driving is incredibly dangerous.”

Sometimes, however, folks do need a little help developing “personal responsibility,” which is why LaHood reminded those reading his blog that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently conducting broad distracted driving research so that we can expand what we know about the problem and look for ways to solve it. As part of that research, NHTSA is also evaluating some kinds of technologies that might one day prove helpful, such as collision avoidance and lane departure warning systems. But we also recognize the limitations of technology.

When Lahood said in the blog post that distracted driving was something the DOT would “tackle on all fronts,” he means on the technological front, too.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s “Driver Distraction Plan” sent to TheDC by the DOT specifically mentions the “emerging technical option in managing distractions.” This option specifically includes software that could be “downloaded to a cell phone, [and] has thresholds past which calls are not sent through to the driver but instead sent to voicemail; text messages are also blocked.”

After conducting a survey of the technology, the DOT said “this information can then be used to assess the overall feasibility of these as a countermeasure for distracted driving,” according to the plan. Currently, the NHTSA is “in the planning stages of this project” with a final report expected next year.

Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA responded to requests made by TheDC for further details on this “emerging technical option.”

On Monday, the Department of Transportation launched its awareness week campaign, “The Faces of Distracted Driving Week.” However, it’s not clear whether the campaign was originally intended to include LaHood himself.

And if they can manage that, what’s next? Hmmm…

Big Brother is watching you. So you better be responsible or else!

Enjoy your Thanksgiving next week, because that Turkey is going to be replaced by Tofu someday if you don’t wise up and take Personal Responsibility. 🙂

Can you imagine a more horrifying sight to a Food Policeman than a holiday based on Food, overeating, and gluttony!

The HORROR!

EVIL!!

It must be stopped!

You heard it here first! 🙂

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerfreedom.com%2Fdownloads%2Fpromotional%2Fdocs%2F041124_thanksgiving.pdf&images=yes

This liability waiver includes an agreement not to haul your host into court on the basis of:

  • Failure to provide nutritional information including calories, fat, carbohydrates, sodium, and trans fat;
  • Failure to warn of potential for overeating because food tastes too good and is provided at no cost;
  • Failure to offer “healthier alternatives” or vegetarian “Tofurky”;
  • Failure to provide information about other venues serving alternative, “healthier” Thanksgiving meals;
  • Failure to warn that dark meat contains more fat than white meat; and
  • Failure to warn that eating too much and not exercising may lead to obesity.

“with this signed form, you can leave the trial lawyers and ‘food police’ out in the cold. That’s something we can all enjoy this Thanksgiving.” (consumerfreedom.com)

Now doesn’t that make you feel better… More personally responsible…:)

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

The Honeymoon

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
With just 43 days to go, it looks like Americans may be hit with the largest tax hike in history. If so, blame it on the Democrats. It’s their ideological rigidity that’s costing the country its economic growth President Obama and congressional Democrats are battling with Republicans over the fate of the one bright spot in our economy over the past six years: Bush’s tax cuts.

Obama and his Democratic allies want a temporary extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush cuts for the middle class (the poor already pay no income taxes), but not for individuals earning more than $200,000 or families earning more than $250,000.

Problem is, even Democrats are split over this. And Republicans are in no mood to let Democrats play class politics with our nation’s economy. They want all the tax cuts extended or nothing.

When asked Wednesday if the Republicans would agree to a deal that would permanently cut rates on the middle class, but for only two years on those with upper incomes, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah replied, “Are you kidding?”

Good answer. With Bush’s cuts set to expire at year-end, Democrats, who control Congress until January, can’t agree among themselves what to do — much less cut a deal with Republicans.

“I don’t even know what the options are at this moment,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. And she’s on the Finance Committee, which will write any new tax law.

By their unwillingness to compromise and inability to even agree among themselves, the Democrats deserve blame if the tax cuts expire. And if you think these tax hikes won’t matter, think again.

Even raising taxes just on the rich, as Democrats propose, would cripple the economy. As American Enterprise Institute economist Alan Viard notes, households with incomes over $200,000 in 2007 took 47% of all taxable interest income, 60% of the dividends and 84% of net capital gains.

These highly productive investors drive the economy and create most of our jobs. Yet they’re the ones the Democrats want to tax. If they do, it will lower income for all groups.

While we support keeping rates low on high incomes, other taxes are also slated to go up sharply at year-end. Republicans shouldn’t forget to keep other Bush tax cuts in place too. They include:

The estate tax. It will jump from the current zero to 55% at the end of the year on estates larger than $1 million. That will force many families to liquidate businesses to pay taxes, killing jobs.

The corporate tax. Now at a top rate of 39%, it’s way above the 26% average for the OECD. It’s a big reason for outsourcing. It should be cut to the OECD average.

Capital gains. Slated to jump from 15% to 20%, the cap-gains tax will hurt stock investors and capital formation. Fewer businesses plus less investment equals a permanent loss of jobs.

Dividends. Dividend tax rates are set to surge from 15% to a top rate of 39.6% — decimating seniors’ incomes and further hitting investment markets. Dividends should be taxed like cap gains.

These are things that will restore growth — something that the Obama-led Democrats seem to have forgotten.

I would argue that they haven’t forgotten it. Since it’s not in their ideology they don’t believe in it to begin with.

Remember, many a Democrat and Liberal think tax INCREASES are good for you. That making less money is a good thing.

And besides they can’t let evil, satanic, greedy, capitalist pig “rich” off the hook.

The truly loonie left would have a conniption and then stroke out if they did.

So instead they will play chicken.

And were the ones who will have our economic heads lopped off and be running around trying to figure out how deal with it.

Remember, these “tax cuts” are not actually cuts at all. Tax rates would remain the same, but if not kept then Taxes WOULD INCREASE FOR EVERYBODY!

So there are no “cuts”.

But don’t tell the Left this. They hear the phrase “tax cut” and they go into a epileptic fit, turn beet red, and steam comes out their ears!

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts will impose a job-killing, $3 trillion tax increase on a beleaguered economy reeling from near-double-digit unemployment. The necessity of finding a solution is paramount.

So what’s atop President Obama’s agenda? Meeting with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss passing the Dream (development, relief and education for alien minors) Act, a bill that has nothing to do with jobs and taxes, but a great deal to do with rewarding Obama’s political base and ensuring an unending stream of Democratic voters.

And we all know that his 2012 re-election and much more voter fraud and democrat voter slaves to overturn the slapdown they got is FAR MORE IMPORTANT after all.

Obama’s 5 minutes of “laser-like focus” on jobs and the economy are up, time to get back to the Agenda!

A top advocate of the Dream Act is Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. After meeting with the president, he issued a statement saying it would be “a down payment on comprehensive reform, and we will continue working towards comprehensive immigration reform today, tomorrow and until it passes.” “Comprehensive immigration” is liberal-speak for open borders and amnesty.

Gutierrez crowed that three re-elected U.S. senators — Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Michael Bennet — “and many other Democratic candidates in state and federal races, owe their jobs to the support of Latino and immigrant voters” who expect payback. As they say, elections have consequences.

So the honeymoon is over. The abusive relationship resumes.

Jobs and tax cuts may have to wait. Americans and legal immigrants are beginning to wonder what benefits accrue to being an American citizen when illegal aliens and their offspring are treated better than law-abiding citizens. So are we. (IBD)

The Agenda is The Agenda!

All Hail the mighty Progressive Liberal Agenda!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

Your Role

From the man who made “never let a crisis go to waste”, Rahm Emanuel former White House Chief of Staff comes what we all knew in our hearts.

The Democrats claim, even now, that the Republicans obstructed them and that they sought “bi-Partisanship” on Health Care Reform and the President even said he’d listen to ideas from Republicans.

We all knew that was bullhockey (and when he repeated the same lines in his speech right after the election…)

Well, in a book, Rahm has admitted as much.

In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn’t pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton’s failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House’s strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

Rahm makes the claim in interviews with journalist Richard Wolffe, in his new book, “Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House,” which was released today. From page 102:

Unlike his boss, Emanuel wasn’t interested in looking reasonable with Republicans; he wanted to look victorious. He didn’t care much for uniting red and blue America; he wanted blue America to beat its red rival…

Obama was prepared to sacrifice time and political capital to make his policy bipartisan and more ambitious; Emanuel believed Obama did not have that luxury. “Time is your commodity. That answers everything,” Emanuel said. “But a lot of us thought we didn’t have the amount of time that was being dedicated. If you abandon the bipartisan talks you get blamed. He still wanted to try to achieve it that way. But that’s one of a series of things you can look back on and be a genius about.

“My job as chief of staff is to give him 180-degree advice. He hired me, as he asked, to learn from the past, or to use my knowledge from my time in Congress and in the Clinton administration. Watching ’94, watching ’97 when we did kids’ health care, and then studying Medicare, what were the lessons? The lesson about time as a commodity is not mine, it’s Lyndon Johnson’s. You got X amount of time; you gotta use it.”

The decision to waste time chasing bipartisan support for health reform was clearly one of the mistakes that led to health care being such a big political liability for Dems. It extended the whole mess by months and months, which gave opponents more time to demagogue the bill and scare voters and helped turn the public against the process. Rahm seems to be suggesting here that he foresaw something like this happening, and argued against the futile quest for bipartisan support, which is certainly not the view of his legacy in the White House that has endured.(WP)

Gee, I’m shocked….And he was always portrayed as “the Moderate Voice” in the White House.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!

Then Big Sis Janet Napalitano when asked about the government gropes at airports,“It’s all about security,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. “It’s all about everybody recognizing their role.” (Reuters)

Your role as always is to sit down and shut up because the government is better, stronger, more powerful and just plain better than you.

They want to take care of their serfs. And don’t want you little people to be bothered by thinking how you’re being exploited.

Your Lord and Masters have spoken. Shut up, sit down, and know your place.

Oh, and there will be “death panels” despite how the left mocked people for suggesting it and got all frothy and pit bullish crazy ever time someone mentioned it.

Ever notice that when Leftists get really made about a characterization of them it usually ends up being true? 🙂

The left’s favorite economist, who condemned others for saying ObamaCare would require death panels, now admits they are real and necessary. The way to control costs, he says, is death and taxes.

Paul Krugman has long extolled the virtues of Britain’s National Health Service and its National Institute for Clinical Excellence with the Orwellian acronym of NICE. Krugman has been anything but nice to NHS critics and those who’ve said that what have been called its “death panels” would be brought to America via ObamaCare.

In a roundtable discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” the New York Times columnist said of what recently came out of the president’s deficit commission: “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.

“Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for,” Krugman said. “And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, (the deficit commission) should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.”

Krugman went right to his blog Sunday afternoon to “clarify” his comments. He explained, and we are willing to accept, that he was being derisive of the term and sarcastic. “I said something deliberately provocative on This Week,” Krugman wrote, “so I think I’d better clarify what I meant,” which is something he regularly denies to others.

He explained that “health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.”

Whatever his intended use of the phrase “death panels,” what he describes are in fact “death panels.” A group of people will sit on a, er, panel, deciding what treatments are cost-effective and should be available and who should get them. That is called rationing and in cases of the “extreme care” he mentions, a life-and-death decision.

That’s a death panel.

We recall how Krugman savaged Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for warning what Krugman now says should happen might happen. Palin said: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Sharing Krugman’s belief that such a system is just fine is Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s choice to head the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Berwick has said: “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable and — importantly — knowledge-building system.” No, NICE is a system of rationing through a bureaucratic formula defining “cost-effectiveness” that has rushed untold numbers of Britons to an early grave.

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” is what Dr. Berwick told a National Institutes of Health publication when he was just president and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.

The Obama administration’s health care reform is all about cost and little about care. Dr. Berwick has opined: “We can make a sensible social decision and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.’ ” In other words, the government will decide whether treating you and extending your life is worth it.

By any other name, that’s still a death panel. (IBD)

Welcome to Orwell’s…I mean Obama’s America.

Your role: Serf. Their Role: Master

If they want Death panels, they get death panels, you just can’t call them that and you can’t object. That’s not your role.

If you don’t want to be groped at airports like your a side of beef at local Strip Club, too bad! They have to play being serious about security (While ignoring 18-40 year old male Muslims).

That’s their role.

Now do you want some Hope and Change? 🙂

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley