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!

I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler