Granola Politics

The far Left loves to control people. It loves to push it’s agenda, that always ends in them running your life for you. And if you resist them, they swarm you like angry bees.

They get a buzz off lawsuits.

And Ground Zero for this is California, the Granola State– What isn’t fruit and nuts is flakes! 🙂

Prop 65 originally had its voter-approved heart in the right place, identifying hazardous chemicals in drinking water. But “mission creep” is practically a sacrament among government bureaucrats, and “drinking water” has been expanded to just about everything containing an element on the Periodic Table.

Prop 65 requires warning labels on products containing chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Violations are enforceable by private citizens who can reap a hefty bounty for successfully suing (or even for negotiating settlements).

And this the “pro-business” “pro-Job growth” agenda that liberal pursue. I want to hire more people when I have crazed leftist bounty hunters looking for an ridiculous off the wall reason to sue me.

And then the government thinks I’m “rich” and wants to tax me to death so they can spend more on entitlements for people who aren’t working or paying taxes anyhow.

This just increases the price of products, you know.

This sounds like a “good business environment” doesn’t it??

A former California Department of Consumer Affairs director recently noted how “bounty hunter shakedowns of businesses have become the norm.” This spring a snack vending company received a $60,000 legal shakedown warning over the potato chips it sells.

The whole idea of “known … to cause cancer” has become vague and watered-down. For the overzealous (who stand to make just as much money as a principled lawyer), “known” could be as wishy-washy as a single poorly designed study showing a vague link.

A chemical called acrylamide, for example, has long been in Prop 65’s crosshairs. Regulators added it to the law’s initial hit list in 1986 because it sometimes turned up in drinking water. Twenty years later, scientists identified it in cooked vegetables, French fries, potato chips, and even roasted coffee beans.

It’s present in incredibly small amounts, of course. A person of average weight would have to eat 62 pounds of chips every day, for an entire lifetime, to reach the acrylamide dose that causes cancer in lab rats. Still, warning labels are warning labels.

Sadly, Prop 65 is not an anomaly. California is quickly becoming the home of laughingstock initiatives that threaten more than just grocery shoppers’ peace of mind.

In 2008, animal rights activists passed Proposition 2. When it takes effect in a few years, this initiative will ban the keeping of egg-laying hens in conventional cages.

Moneyed interests like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, which doesn’t run a single pet shelter) ran slick ads making Prop 2 sound good—who doesn’t want to help chickens?—while concealing their real agenda. In an unguarded moment, a former vice president of HSUS has confessed that her group’s ultimate goal is to “get rid of the [poultry] industry.” One strategy is apparently to force cash-strapped egg farmers to shell out millions for a costly new infrastructure.

Human nature being what it is, much of California’s egg production may eventually move south to Mexico, where food safety and animal welfare standards are anybody’s guess. (How is that “humane”?)

Jobs anyone?

It gets loonier: Organic-only food activists are gearing up for a 2012 California ballot question that would require labels on foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

Most modern agricultural technology is taboo in the organic utopia. By raising the specter of (non-existent) risks, activists constantly attack biotech techniques that have been used safely for decades. Even Whole Foods now stocks some GM groceries. If they’re not “pure” enough, somebody’s standards are out of whack.

The general principle of a citizen-driven ballot initiative is a good one. But today radical groups are throwing millions into campaigns whose basic premises are deceptive, and whose arguments kick nuance to the curb.

Some state legislatures can amend ballot initiatives after they pass. Missouri is one. In April a bipartisan majority of Show-Me State lawmakers told the animal rights activists at HSUS to take a hike, repealing the more unsavory parts of an HSUS-funded initiative that eked out a slim victory last fall.

In response, the ultra-liberal HSUS is now working with conservative groups to set a “supermajority” standard for Missouri legislators who want to override future ballot initiatives. With all the strange-bedfellows special-interest money already flooding state legislatures and bankrolling carefully manicured ballot questions, it’s hard to imagine that the result will reflect the sentiment of the electorate.

If you vote against a Liberal you just make them madder.

Ultimately, the right remedy for legislative interference with ballot questions may not lie in merely raising the bar. How about a series of state laws requiring ballot initiatives to essentially stand for re-election every ten years? When public mores change, laws should follow suit. Even activist-written laws.

We could start in California. Potato chip lovers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your warning labels. (Rick Berman)

But won’t you “feel” better and “feel” safer sticking it to “the man”! 🙂

And put down that evil Potato Chip!

And forget about cooking with that Mexican Egg Fatso!

Freeloading America

This was just marvelous watching some elitist get skewered by Sen. Ran Paul over low-flow toilets, mercury-filled light bulbs and free choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAn1FWInBi0&feature=player_embedded

John Stossel: Some Americans actually make a living … begging for money. Professional panhandlers, they’re called, sometimes making more than $100 in a day. I tried it in Manhattan, and made over $11 in one hour—that would be $23,000 a year—tax free!

It’s a small example of why some said that  the USA is turning into a nation of freeloaders. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald says that beggars she’s encountered “have the most deep-seated sense of entitlement that I’ve ever come across.”

From those defaulting on their home mortgages, to those who see lawsuits as a lottery ticket, many Americans live off the hard work of others.

Which is why I am a “heartless” right-winger when I ignore them on the streets.

Then there are Million and Billion Dollar Liberals or Government Apparatchiks. Like “Job Creation Czar” Jeffrey Immelt.

General Electric CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt is super-close to President Obama. The president named Immelt chairman of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Before that, Immelt was on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He’s a regular companion when Obama travels abroad to hawk American exports.

GE, run by Immelt, just made Billion Dollars in the US, tax free. Why?

They paid no taxes at all!

2010 was the second year in a row that GE recorded billions in profits and paid no taxes.

The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefits.

In a statement, General Electric said that it “pays what it owes under the law and is scrupulous about its compliance with tax obligations in all jurisdictions.” The company claims that its zero-dollar tax bill is largely a result of losses at its financial arm, GE Capital, due to the Wall Street meltdown. (ABCNews)

“So for GE, in many ways the environmental movement has turned out to be profitable for our investors,” Immelt said Thursday night at a fundraiser at the College of Charleston. (P&C)

But I guarantee very little ire towards an ally from the Press and the Class Warfare Liberals.

They gamed the system and freeloaded. Just like the begger on the corner.

After all, they are “entitled”.

But the class warfare liberal will rail against “corporate” america and CEO’s and  how evil “rich” people are.

They’ll rail endlessly about Exxon, but not GE.

Exxon is EVIL! 😡

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president is “bothered” by the idea that a U.S. company could pay no taxes, but he wouldn’t talk about GE specifically. Carney was also quick to say that Immelt’s council advises the president on job growth and not on tax policy.

“It is part of the problem of the corporate tax structure that companies hire, you know, armies of tax lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that exist, that are legal in order to reduce their tax burden,” Carney said.

When President Obama announced his decision to appoint Immelt to the unpaid advisory role on job creation in January, some critics wondered whether the move was appropriate. Under his leadership, GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009. More than half of GE’s workforce is now outside the United States. (ABC News)

Overall, the Times notes, the share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has fallen from 30 percent of federal revenue in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009. (CBS)

And guess who has to make up for it? 🙂

But he’s a Buds with the Prez ( Lobbyist!), and they will cover for him.

“Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries,” he said. “Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense. It has to change.”–President Obama in yet another I said it but I sure as hell never actually meant it or believed it, but damn it sounded good moment last January.

Carney was asked why, if the president wants corporate tax reform, he appointed “to the head of the Competitiveness and Jobs Council a person who is now the poster child for abusing the system to get out of paying taxes.”

“The jobs and competitiveness council is designed for just that,” Carney responded. “And he has brought together a lot of voices on that. And he wants to hear the opinions of every member of that council. And we have said, with regard to questions about other members who have been appointed, that the president obviously doesn’t want a council of people who agree with him on every issue; he wants to hear diversity of opinion.” (CBSNews)

Blah, blah,blah,blah,blah…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Face it. He’s buds with the Prez. They both have a “Green” agenda. Immelt’s is just greenbacks!

The Prez gives Billions for Brazil to drill for oil to benefit Billionaire Socialist George Soros but has a virtual moratorium in this country.

George Soros is likely the #1 Democrat $$$ contributor.

Money Leads to Power and more Power leads to More Money.

Just look at the Public Sector Unions!

Illegal Immigrants!

But don’t worry, THEY ARE ENTITLED. 🙂

Everyone is entitled (except “racist” white male Europeans that is).

It’s just matter of much entitlement you feel and how much you can grab. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Your New Friend, Big Brother!

Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students’ lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed by Washington special-interest groups to be harassment of some students.

There has only been muted opposition to this far-reaching policy among the professionals and advocates in the education sector, most of whom are heavily reliant on funding and support from top-level education officials. The normally government-averse tech-sector is also playing along, and on Mar. 11, Facebook declared that it was “thrilled” to work with White House officials to foster government oversight of teens’ online activities.

The only formal opposition has come from the National School Board Association, which declined to be interviewed by The DC.

The agency’s threats, which are delivered in a so-called “Dear Colleague” letter,” have the support of White House officials, including President Barack Obama, who held a Mar. 10 White House meeting to promote the initiative as a federal “anti-bullying” policy.

The letter says federal officials have reinterpreted the civil-rights laws that require school principals to curb physical bullying, as well as racist and sexist speech, that take place within school boundaries. Under the new interpretation, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb “harassment” of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation among a few youths.

“Harassing conduct may take many forms, including verbal acts and name-calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cell phones or the Internet… it does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents [but] creates a hostile environment … [which can] limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school,” according to the far-reaching letter, which was completed Oct. 26 by Russlynn Ali, who heads the agency’s civil rights office.

School officials will face lawsuits even when they are ignorant about students’ statements, if a court later decides they “reasonably should have known” about their students’ conduct, said the statement.

Following the discovery of “harassment,” officials may have to require mandatory training of students and their families, according to the Ali letter. “The school may need to provide training or other interventions not only for the perpetrators, but also for the larger school community, to ensure that all students, their families, and school staff can recognize harassment if it recurs and know how to respond… [and] provide additional services to the student who was harassed in order to address the effects of the harassment,” said the letter.

Facebook is developing new features that will make it harder for principals to miss episodes of online “harassment,” and so will increase the likelihood of government action against the teenage users of Facebook and other social-media. “We’re adding a unique feature, developed with safety experts, that lets people also report content to someone in their support system (like a parent or teacher) who may be able to address the issue more directly,’ Facebook declared Mar. 11. “It is our hope that features like this will help not only remove the offensive content but also help people get to the root of the problem,” the company statement declared.

Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, will introduce a bill that would require schools to report incidents of bullying against children diagnosed with conditions like Down syndrome and Aspergers to the federal government. It would also mandate that any federal dollars that promote anti-bullying programs focus partially on that group.

“There is [currently] no requirement that as part of the anti-bullying curriculum, that there be made specific reference to children with special needs. That’s particularly dumb,” Speier said during a briefing on school bullying on Capitol Hill Wednesday. “What I want to do is create an environment where there is zero tolerance. I think that starts first with education and awareness. Then, when behavior is egregious, then people have to be called out on that.”

We are from the Government and we are here to save you! 😦

Who cares if little Johnny can read. He will be safe from bullies, competition, low-esteem,guns, pregnancy and sex!

We’ll teach him the history of Unions so he can stand and protest his teacher’s need for his parent’s taxpayer money and how “Greed is Good” if you’re in a Union!

Isn’t Education today wonderful! 😦

The Deficit Perspective

The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

TSA

“This technology is safe,” said Robin Kane, a TSA assistant administrator for technology. Kane emphasized that the machines are necessary to protect the public from terrorists and that they have been thoroughly tested by independent experts.

Well, if the Government says it’s “safe” it must be… 🙂

It appears Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is on board with the idea of using military-grade radar along the northern border.

But on the southern border you get to fire bean bags at Mexican Drug Cartel members!

Oh and it was the agents fault, by the way.

Border Patrol agents decided on their own to fire beanbags at a group of armed illegal immigrants in a confrontation late last year near Nogales in which an agent was killed, the agency’s commissioner said Friday.

Alan Bersin, Customs and Border Protection commissioner, said the agents’ initial use of the beanbags was not mandated by agency policy, which allows agents to determine whether to use deadly or non-deadly force based on the threat.

Agent Brian Terry died after being shot in the back in a shootout between agents and suspected border bandits Dec. 14 near Peck Canyon, outside Nogales.

Why did they have bean-bag guns to begin with? 😦

But don’t worry, the Border is more secure than ever according to Big Sis!

700 Trillion Dollars!

New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world’s gross production, to drop the earth’s temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA’s own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration’s plan “absurd.”

Numbers-crunchers estimate that would amount to roughly 700 warehouses filled with $100 bills, or a stack of the bills nearly 70 miles high.

The EPA’s new regulations, which began earlier this year, are part of a “tailoring” plan that begins with requiring some of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide – such as power plants, refineries and large industrial plants – to obtain operating permits based on their greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this year, and continuing through 2016, the emissions standards will be scaled down, requiring more and more emissions sources to obtain operating permits. (WND)

Streaming Big Brother

The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making “illegal streaming” of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

After all, the oh-so outraged Democrats re-passed the Patriot Act.

Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Is she a “Czar”??

No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.

And Unions give 98% of their money to Democrats.

Gee, I wonder whose in whose pocket!!

But don’t worry, the government will save little junior from those evil bullies and all other liberal identified “social problems”  by spying on them and everyone else.

Gee, now don’t you feel better!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Civility=Shut up! So we Can continue SPENDING!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Democrats are now the Civility Police. The Liberal Media will run you down if you’re “uncivil”.

Mind you, being “uncivil” is disagreeing with a Liberal.

“The GOP’s War Against the Poor and Sick.”  This is a story by Andrew Leonard, Salon.com, Republicans want the poor to die on the street like they used to.

“I’m sure there are plenty of conservatives who want to get rid of Medicaid altogether. If poor old people can’t pay for nursing home care then let them die in the street, like they used to.The Tea Party version of government apparently just doesn’t believe in helping people who can’t help themselves. For the modern Republican Party, it’s far far more important to ensure that those who will never need Medicaid — the richest 1 percent of Americans, the people who are already doing quite fine as their market portfolios swell — get their big fat tax cuts, adding up to $700 billion over the next 10 years, than that the poorest Americans get another $15 billion a year so that they can die in a manner that befits a nation that dares considers itself civilized.” (salon.com)

Another Leftist blogger said before the State of Union speech it was Obama’s audition piece to be a REPUBLICAN!

And if you point out that Obama’s speech was more about spending and his leftist Agenda you’re “uncivil”.

But saying people are going to die in the streets is ok, as long as your a liberal.

It’s ok to talk about “investments” (aka spending) on high-speed rail and alternative energy (“green”).

But not where the F*CK is the money going to come from!!

Political Cartoon

“We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” Mr. Obama said in tones that resembled a halftime pep talk. “We have to make America the best place on earth to do business.”

Then you look at the last few years of anti-business rhetoric, Class and race Warfare , regulations (EPA, FCC,FTC, etc) and tax nightmares and you wonder what has this guy been smoking or is he just high on his own  happy juice!

And you F*cking kidding me!

Among other proposals, Mr. Obama called on the nation to prepare 100,000 new math, science and engineering teachers.

Yeah, that’s what we need, more Union members to teach Socialism in the classroom and collect massive over-the-top pensions and benefits we can’t pay for now!

“We’re going to have to out-educate other countries,” President Obama urged this week. How? By out-spending them, of course! It’s the same old quack cure for America’s fat and failing government-run schools monopoly. The one-trick ponies at the White House call their academic improvement agenda “targeted investing” for “winning the future.” Truth in advertising: Get ready to fork over more Cash for Education Clunkers. (michelle malkin)

And where the F*ck is the money going to come from??

But that was “uncivil” wasn’t it? 🙂

And he laid down a series of goals: By 2035, he said 80% of America’s electricity should come from clean energy sources. Within 25 years, 80% of Americans should have access to high-speed rail. Within five years, communications businesses should be able to deploy high-speed wireless to 98% of all Americans. He did little to explain how those goals would be reached beyond pledges to boost federal spending on infrastructure and basic research.

Sounds like SPENDING to me! And the liberal “green” agenda. Screw the fact that technology isn’t viable yet. It FELLS GOOD.

And he wants you out of your Oil guzzing  environmentally-unfriendly Car!

And let’s not even talk about evil Coal. <shutter>

It’s all solar panels, wind farms , biofuels, and algae.

Political CartoonSo Where is the Money coming from? China??

“Our nation is approaching a tipping point,” said Mr. Ryan. “We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.)

Screw the hammock, the Left wants a f*cking Sleep Number Bed set on 1!!!

But a liberal on MSNBC (shocking!) got it:

By the time you finish reading this column, the United States government will be $10 million deeper in debt.

In the time it takes the president to deliver his State of the Union address, America will be $120 million deeper in debt.

When you wake up tomorrow morning, Washington’s reckless ways will have put us an additional $1 billion in the hole.

Before you know it, America will add another $1 trillion to its $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt.

And yet neither party has the guts to tell voters the truth about just how bad things have become and what sacrifice is required to avoid disaster.

So the next time you wonder whether a Republican or a Democrat is lying when he says he’s serious about tackling America’s debt, just ask that politician whether he is ready to cut Pentagon spending, along with Social Security and Medicare benefits to future recipients. If not, then that politician is either a coward or a fool. (Joe Scarborough)

OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate. (Reuters)

The “party of no” anyone? And the Trial Lawyers will be visiting him today to remind him that he’s their bitch, not the other way around.

But all this is very uncivil. 🙂

THE NEW FIFTH ORWELLIAN PRECEPT

Political Cartoon

We should all be familiar with the 3 classic slogans of Orwell’s 1984. If not, you’re missing a big chunk of what I say.

“War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.”

The Fourth being my own: “FEAR IS HOPE”

(see https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

Now we have the Fifth:

“Spending is Investment.”

But it’s still spending. And where in the $14 Trillion debt are we going to get all this money, pre tell?

Orwell pointed out that “political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

The “investment” the president touted Tuesday night is the opposite of true investment. It is Uncle Sam maxing out all of his unborn nieces’ and nephews’ credit cards in exchange for a one-way ticket to the poorhouse, a destination that is getting closer. (IBD)

But that’s just being uncivil so I better just sing Kumbuya and just accept it.

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Yeah, right… 🙂

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.”

Cartoon

The Lawsuit Lottery

__________________

Overlawyered: Fearing lawsuits over injuries, a West Virginia county is removing swing sets from elementary schools. A minor, local issue? No. America’s litigious society has changed the way kids play.

Roughly a year after a child broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman and his parents are settling a lawsuit for $20,000, Cabell County, W.V., schools are yanking swing sets from school playgrounds. The lawsuit was one of two filed in the last year against Cabell County schools over swing set injuries, the West Virginia Record reported Thursday. School safety manager Tim Stewart, who is overseeing the removal, said he sees “a high potential when it comes to swings and lawsuits.”

What’s happening in Cabell County is not an isolated case. Local governments, fearful of lawsuits, have been for years closing pools, stripping playgrounds of equipment and banning outdoor games.

A Massachusetts elementary school has told students they can’t play tag. One Boston school forbids handstands while another in Needham, Mass., doesn’t allow students to hang upside down from the monkey bars. A pool in Hazleton, Pa., closed some years ago after a swimmer sued for $100,000 because he cut his foot running and jumping into the pool, though he’d been warned not to.

“There is nothing left in playgrounds that would attract the interest of a child over the age of four,” Philip K. Howard, lawyer and author, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2008.

“Exercise in schools is carefully programmed, when it exists at all. … Broward County, Fla., banned running at recess. .. . Little Leagues forbid sliding into base. Some towns ban sledding. High diving boards are history, and it’s only a matter of time before all diving boards disappear.”

Olga Jarrett, a Georgia State University professor who prepares students to teach, told the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: “Many schools don’t have playgrounds at all, they don’t have recess. They’ve been built without playgrounds with the idea that this is not something we do at school.”

She blames “a fear of lawsuits that makes some school systems and cities design playgrounds that are completely uninteresting to kids.”

Howard, who wrote “The Death Of Common Sense” and “Life Without Lawyers,” has been warning the country for years that our fear of litigation is changing American culture.

He has preached the importance of placing reasonable limits on lawsuits and restoring reliability and justice to our legal system.

While we’ve seen enough progress to be hopeful, we don’t expect civil law reform to move as fast as it should as long as so many of our policymakers are owned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys lobby.(IBD)

Then consider all the Lawyer adds on TV. You can’t have a commercial break without one…or two…or three…

Or the whacko who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was too hot!

Or the fact that Tort Reform (aka Trial Lawyers) were explicitly ignored by ObamaCare. Why, Trial Lawyers are one of the Democrats main source of cash!!

You have 43 warnings on a Step ladder, like do not stand on top of this ladder!

Duh!

For example, does a Superman costume really need a warning label to tell people that it doesn’t cause super-strength or the ability to fly?

Really? No Kidding. Does that mean I sell my kryptonite on E-Bay then? 🙂

A teenage boy was hit by a runaway bat . His family sued the maker of the bat and got $850,000 in a products liability suit because the company failed to adequately warn about the dangers that the product can pose.

So now, baseball bats are required to post warning labels? What should the labels say?

“Caution: Getting hit in the head by this product might cause death.” (findlaw.com)

The family of Brandon Patch argued that aluminum baseball bats are dangerous because they cause the baseball to travel at a greater speed. They contended that their 18-year-old son did not have enough time to react to the ball being struck before it hit him in the head while he was pitching in an American Legion baseball game in Helena in 2003. (USA Today)

There was a mother who wants to sue Sea World because her precious 10 year old was at the performance where the whale drowned the trainer. That was Sea World’s fault! And she wants the cash!!

I see one more “Mesothelioma” ad I think I will chuck something at my TV!!

And the Congress is made up predominately of Lawyers. The President is a Lawyer.

See: http://overlawyered.com/

I want also shed some light on the state of California’s up-to-$4,000-a-violation bounty system for freelancers who identify ADA violations in Main Street businesses, and the case for at least requiring complainants to give business owners notice and an opportunity to fix an ADA violation before suing. (The disabled-rights lobby has managed to stifle that proposal in Congress for years.)

So it’s the adult version of I-Spy, only you get $4,000 for hunting them down and killing them. Sounds more lucative than my day job.

Become a Professional ADA Violation Spotter and become rich! 😦

You own a business, maybe a restaurant. You’ve got a lot to worry about. You have to make sure the food is safe and tastes good, that the place is clean and appealing, that workers are friendly and paid according to a hundred Labor Department and IRS rules. (and soon ObamaCare, Cap & Trade,and Tax Increases!)

On top of that, there are rules you might have no idea about.

The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren’t right — say, if your mirror is just one inch too high — you could be sued for thousands of dollars.

And be careful. If you fail to let a customer bring a large snake, which he calls his “service animal,” into your restaurant, you could be in trouble.

The ADA was supposed to help more disabled people find jobs. But did it?

Strangely, no. An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39.

How could employment among the disabled have declined?

Because the law turns “protected” people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.

Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the blog, Overlawyered.com, says that the law was unnecessary. Many “hire the handicapped” programs existed before the ADA passed. Sadly, now most have been quietly discontinued, probably because of the threat of legal consequences if an employee doesn’t work out.

Under the ADA, Olson notes, fairness does not mean treating disabled people the same as non-disabled people. Rather it means accommodating them. In other words, the law requires that people be treated unequally.

The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by “professional litigants” who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money from the businesses.

Some disabled people have benefited from changes effected by the ADA, but the costs are rarely accounted for. If a small business has to lay off an employee to afford the added expense of accommodating the disabled, is that a good thing — especially if, say, customers in wheelchairs are rare? Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA. And since ADA modification requirements are triggered by renovation, the law could actually discourage businesses from making needed renovations as a way of avoiding the expense.

A few disabled people speak up against the law. Greg Perry, author of “Disabling America: The Unintended Consequences of the Government’s Protection of the Handicapped,” says that because the disabled now represent an added expense to businesses, many resent them.

Finally, the ADA has led to some truly bizarre results. Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab.

Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it — employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their “right” to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

More money for the parasites. (John Stossel)

Stossel: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/

Lawyers do have their place, but how much of this is too much and how much of this is the cart before the horse (trough)??

Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

By John Stossel

Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We’d be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that’s a myth. It’s easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious — but just as real — are the things we’d all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

Monsanto once developed a substitute for asbestos — a new fire-resistant form of insulation that might save thousands of lives. But Monsanto decided not to sell it for fear of liability. Richard F. Mahoney, the CEO at the time, said, “There may well have been a safe, effective asbestos replacement on the market, and now there isn’t.”

//

Why do we have to worry about shortages of flu vaccine? Because only a handful of companies still make it. And why is that? Because when you vaccinate millions of people, some get sick and sue. Between 1980 and 1986, personal-injury lawyers demanded billions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers. That scared many American drug companies out of the business.

In 1986, Congress stepped in. To help curb the lawsuits that discouraged vaccine production, the government established a fund called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It would pay victims’ families directly so they wouldn’t have to hire lawyers and suffer the delays of litigation. This was supposed to entice vaccine makers back into production, but drug companies were still leery, fearing that plaintiffs’ lawyers would sue them anyway.

They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children’s vaccines. Plaintiffs’ lawyers jumped on scaremongers’ claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Even when new vaccines are discovered, drug companies are sometimes afraid to sell them. The FDA has approved a vaccine against Lyme disease. Want some? Forget about it. No company wants to take the risk.

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

After scientifically groundless lawsuits against breast-implant makers bankrupted Dow Corning, Japanese silicone makers stopped producing a pain-reducing silicone coating for hypodermic needles. A company director said, “We’re sure our product is safe, but we don’t want to risk a lawsuit.”

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won’t sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can’t buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, “Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged.”

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America’s peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion — like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

You can’t even look cross-eyed at a kid if you’re a teacher and you can never ever be alone with one under any circumstance whatsoever.

Why?

Because if you are, you could be on the sex-offender registry and working at McDonald’s being sued for your coffee being to hot in a nanosecond.

Thanks to Lawyers and the Lawsuit Lottery.

This lottery is similar to the regular one, you gamble that your ticket (the lawsuit) will pay you mega-millions and set you up for life. And the nice Lawyer who gets as much as 40% of it is right there to cheer you on. For there own benefit, of course.

Everyone wins, Everybody else loses. 😦

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/29/safety-caution-product-liability-entrepreneurs-law-warning-labels_slide.html

http://www.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560

The author of the above book: “Predatory lawyers know they can file ridiculous lawsuits against innocent product makers and blackmail them into cash settlements — even in cases in which a user has ignored common sense,” said Dorigo Jones. “The real issue is not the obvious warning labels, but the billions of dollars in litigation costs passed on to consumers — a kind of a “lawsuit tax” we all pay. That is why M-LAW (http://www.mlaw.org/index.html) urges judges and policy makers to support civil justice reform.”

But don’t you feel better. You’ve taken responsibilities for the risks of being alive secure in the knowledge that if you do something stupid there’s always a lawyer there to make you the potential millionaire “victim”. Meanwhile, actual cases that are very legitimate could be overlooked because there isn’t enough will or money for anyone to care.

Sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite! 🙂

And if they do, I’m sure we can find someone to sue! 🙂

Reality is a Dish Best Served Cold

Optimists think that if we manage to turn a few things around, their kids may have it . . . almost as good. The country they inherit may be . . . almost as good. And it’s kind of a shock to think like this; pessimism isn’t in our DNA. But it isn’t pessimism, really, it’s a kind of tough knowingness, combined, in most cases, with a daily, personal commitment to keep plugging.

But do our political leaders have any sense of what people are feeling deep down? They don’t act as if they do. I think their detachment from how normal people think is more dangerous and disturbing than it has been in the past. I started noticing in the 1980s the growing gulf between the country’s thought leaders, as they’re called—the political and media class, the universities—and those living what for lack of a better word we’ll call normal lives on the ground in America. The two groups were agitated by different things, concerned about different things, had different focuses, different world views.

But I’ve never seen the gap wider than it is now. I think it is a chasm. In Washington they don’t seem to be looking around and thinking, Hmmm, this nation is in trouble, it needs help. They’re thinking something else. I’m not sure they understand the American Dream itself needs a boost, needs encouragement and protection. They don’t seem to know or have a sense of the mood of the country.

And so they make their moves, manipulate this issue and that, and keep things at a high boil. And this at a time when people are already in about as much hot water as they can take.

To take just one example from the past 10 days, the federal government continues its standoff with the state of Arizona over how to handle illegal immigration. The point of view of our thought leaders is, in general, that borders that are essentially open are good, or not so bad. The point of view of those on the ground who are anxious about our nation’s future, however, is different, more like: “We live in a welfare state and we’ve just expanded health care. Unemployment’s up. Could we sort of calm down, stop illegal immigration, and absorb what we’ve got?” No is, in essence, the answer.

An irony here is that if we stopped the illegal flow and removed the sense of emergency it generates, comprehensive reform would, in time, follow. Because we’re not going to send the estimated 10 million to 15 million illegals already here back. We’re not going to put sobbing children on a million buses. That would not be in our nature. (Do our leaders even know what’s in our nature?) As years passed, those here would be absorbed, and everyone in the country would come to see the benefit of integrating them fully into the tax system. So it’s ironic that our leaders don’t do what in the end would get them what they say they want, which is comprehensive reform.

When the adults of a great nation feel long-term pessimism, it only makes matters worse when those in authority take actions that reveal their detachment from the concerns—even from the essential nature—of their fellow citizens. And it makes those citizens feel powerless.

Inner pessimism and powerlessness: That is a dangerous combination. (Peggy Noonan)

And as one who was not abundant, and still isn’t, when I see what I see and the complete disconnect from reality that is the Twilight Zone at the Beltway around D.C. I do wonder about this.

I have no kids, I probably never will.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t look at the kids I see on the street and wonder what life is going to be like for them when they are my age.

And I don’t think it will be that good, certainly not like their childhood.

And that is a sad legacy.

But to pick up on Mrs. Noonan’s point about Arizona. (as an aside, where is the lawsuit against Missouri for slapping the government in the face? Are there not enough Latinos in the state to warrant it?).

IBD: In federal lawsuits, defendants may answer litigation filed against them with a counterclaim against the plaintiff for damages or other relief.

The Constitution of the United States mandates at Article 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government … that the United States shall protect each of them (the states) against invasion and … against domestic violence.”

“Republican form of government” is defined as a republic that is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives to exercise that power.

To “guarantee” means to warrant or undertake that something has happened or will happen. The term “invasion” is (regarding a country or territory ) a hostile incursion.

The term “shall” used in the third person singular denotes an imperative, without discretion or choice. Thus, the phrase “shall guarantee” leaves no wiggle room.

Remedies for breach of guarantee are damages (expenses incurred in repairing guaranteed product) or rescission (return of product for refund of purchase price — i.e., “money back” guarantee).

Recently, the federal government — the present regime in particular — has not only violated the guarantee of republican form of government and the pledge to protect Arizona from invasion and domestic violence, but has actively worked to achieve the exact opposite result.

By the federal government’s determined resistance to enforcing existing federal law against illegal immigration and attempting to penalize Arizona for attempting to cope with illegal immigration on its own, the federal government has crassly flouted its obligation to guarantee a republican form of government for the state of Arizona.

One of the most effective means for destroying a republic is to bankrupt it and beggar its people.

It’s the only thing Obama & Co ARE good at.

This is what befell Rome, which went from a republic to what would now be called a dictatorship as a result of the financial drain on the country resulting from the empire.

In the case of Arizona, recent figures disclose that illegal immigration costs the state $2.5 billion annually. This amounts to approximately $400 for every man, woman and child in the state, which has a population of less than 7 million.

The federal government has not only filed litigation against Arizona, but informed an association of Arizona sheriffs that it intends to prosecute as an example at least one deputy for enforcing Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration legislation (SB 1070).

There are reports the administration is seeking ways to cease doing business with Arizona and is encouraging other states to do the same, to exercise economic coercion on the state.
The administration has praised the efforts of states such as California for economically boycotting Arizona. The sanctions the administration has imposed on Arizona are hardly less draconian than those that the same administration has imposed on Iran to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. All this for Arizona’s daring to exercise its republican form of government and passing widely popular legislation in a manner completely consistent with Arizona’s Constitution.

The Obama administration has thus tried to take control of Arizona and abridge/suppress its republican government in substance and in process.

Also violated by the federal government is the pledge to protect Arizona from invasion. The enormous influx of illegal immigrants into Arizona—uninvited, demanding and belligerent—clearly constitutes a hostile incursion.

The surge in illegal immigration has brought with it crime and violence. Phoenix is now the kidnap capital of America as a result of the Mexican gangs that have invaded Arizona using kidnapping as a form of turf acquisition and protection.

Notably, on the Independence Day weekend this year a Mexican drug gang announced that the border with Mexico and Arizona was “moved” several miles into Arizona whereby Interstate Highway 8 would now be the border. There was no response to this by the Obama administration.

I feel I should point out that Insterstate 8 is not “several miles from the border. It is a LOT of miles from the border!!

Interstate 8 starts/ends at  Interstate 10 just south of  Casa Grande, AZ. THAT IS 40 Miles from My house in South Phoenix!!!!

That is 134 miles from the Nogales, AZ on the border!!!

What we do have at the border are signs warning Americans to stay away from the gangs and cartels!!


It is undeniable that the federal government has shamelessly and willfully violated its guarantee and pledges under Article 4, constituting suitable grounds for counterclaims by Arizona against the federal government.

The question is whether the remedy for such violation should be rescission or damages. If the latter, a figure of $2.5 billion annually could be employed per the latest studies projected backward as well as forward. As to the rescission alternative (the “money back” guarantee, whereby the contract is undone or rescinded), this would constitute rescission of the breached agreement whereby Arizona entered the union in 1912.

Gaspers in disbelief regarding rescission/secession should know that there is nothing sacrosanct about the federal government; only the Constitution is inviolable. When the federal government willfully refuses to comply with a constitutional mandate, the Constitution can be upheld only by implementing its provisions, in this case the “money back” guarantee.

An independent Arizona can contract with the federal government for defense, as do small cities with the counties in which they are located, for police/fire protection. The outsourcing of defense by an independent Arizona might be expensive, but with the money saved from illegal immigration, Arizona could afford it.

The federal government might even make money on the deal and, for the first time, turn a profit on something.

To those who would label this “draconian,” the answer is this is a race to a precipice with a sheer drop greater than that of Arizona’s crown jewel, the Grand Canyon.

Personally, we’d go for damages. What’s 10 or 20 billion nowadays anyway? If the verdict came down in the early-ish morning, the Obama administration could have the money printed up by lunchtime.

After all, after the $4 Trillion Dollars in 19 Months with nothing to so for it,so what if they’d spend what another few billion…

It’s not like it’s real money to them anyhow…

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality. –Martin Luther King, Jr.

The challenge that is already with us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery. —Pope John Paul II