Think Like a Leftist: Holiday Edition

First off, the very mention of Christmas is exclusionary so I can’t say “Christmas Edition” without being politically incorrect to start with. But I’m sure I will finish strong. 🙂

1. Christmas IS exclusionary and discriminatory. Isn’t everything about a Leftist just want to scream “discriminatory” at the drop of any hat (actually you don’t even need a hat). Christmas discriminates against any one who isn’t a Christian, you evil bastards. So like every -ism that a Leftist can come up with this is just another way that right wing Christians have an unfair advantage and we all know that Leftists are all about “fairness”. 🙂

And they hate “intolerance” and “discrimination” of any kind, under any pretense. 🙂

2. Redistribution Fairness. Redistribution of Wealth and making every mediocre poor is a Leftist Utopia  (look at Cuba). Everyone his the same. Everyone is Equal. Everything is Fair. So, when it comes to Christmas it is n’t fair that some kids get presents and some don’t. Screw the fact that there are charities for this kind of thing, they still don’t get the job done for EVERY child so we should mandate that at least 1 present per child should be given to the Government to be redistributed to those in need (and who vote for Democrats or who will vote for Democrats in the future) just to be “fair”. White people should give 2, just as reperations for slavery. It’s social justice, you now.

We can even open a new branch of The Government, The Bureau of Fairness. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

Or here’s an even better solution…

3. But the quandary for The Leftist is that Christmas, as configured today, is fundamentally a Capitalist Consumer Fest. A virtual gorging of consumerism. And Leftist hate capitalism! It’s Greedy, it’s dirty, it’s unfair. So they have a problem.

Solution: Let the Government run it! That’s the Leftist solution for everything isn’t it?

You will barred from buying your own gifts and the Government will do it based on that grand and glorious Leftist principle:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Peace and Happiness shall reign on Earth! Fairness to All and to All a Good Night!!

Thus Christmas can finally be fair. It’s just that the poor, the illegal, and Democrat will get everything and those dirty, nasty, greedy right wingers will finally be on the perpetual naughty list and we’ll find a more socially acceptable use for coal– they’ll get it for Christmas presents but be barred from using it for energy production!!

4. And we’ll do away with that Old, Fat, White Christian symbol of Christmas, St. Nick, aka Santa Claus. I mean really, we’re celebrating White People! and The Morbidly Obese! Are you kidding me!

The Morbidly Obese are not “jolly”. They are a health hazard to everyone and should not be held up as a symbol of anything good.

Christmas Candy has to be replaced with Broccoli (because George W. Bush hated broccoli, of course!) 🙂

5. And cutting down a perfectly good tree just to stuff it in your Living room for a few nights, then throw it away! Are you kidding me!

Think of the harm to Global Warming. Think of the fire Hazard. It’s unsafe for all mankind and should be banned immediately!

Deforestation is not a joke!

As for artificial trees, well they use up valuable electricity and are also a waste of energy.

Christmas Ornament are exclusionary, I mean a Christmas Star or Angel at the top, I mean really? Think of all the other religions you’re excluding by that act you hateful person.

6.Santa’s Workshop. Some old fat white guy who enslaves elves to manufacture his toys for him so he reap the benefits of the profits and the adulation of the public. How evil is that. At the very least the Elves need a Union to represent them and they need a more diverse work environment. The racial balance is all wrong. The EEOC needs to do a thorough review of the conditions and then we need to get Unions in their to get the elves some fair working conditions.  Are they even getting $15/hr??

7. We need to move Santa’s Workshop because the North Pole is threatened by Global Warming and we have to think about The Polar Bears so this an environmentally sensitive area. Plus, being at the North Pole also affords him to much privacy and he needs much more oversight. Someone call Green Peace.

8. Reindeer. Really? That’s animal cruelty making them pull a sleigh for an old, fat, white guy. What do you think they are Black Slaves! No, we have to get PeTA in there to save the Reindeer.

9. Bah humbug! Scrooge was a nasty old capitalist slave driver anyhow.

Just about every year at this time, “A Christmas Carol’ shows up somewhere on TV, as do headlines about how one Republican or another is the modern equivalent of the tale’s greedy miser, Ebenezer Scrooge.

“The GOP’s sad Scrooge agenda.” “GOP Protecting Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Maher Likens Republicans to Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Republicans play the role of the stingy Scrooge.”

You have to wonder if these folks have actually read “A Christmas Carol” or spent any time pondering what Scrooge actually says and does. Because if you do, you come to realize that Scrooge more closely resembles a modern liberal than a conservative.

A major clue comes early in the story, when two men collecting for charity arrive at Scrooge’s office. After asking Scrooge for a donation to help the poor and needy, Scrooge responds: “Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor?”

He goes on to say, “I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

Modern translation: I pay taxes to support the welfare state, why should I give money to you?

Turns out, that’s a decidedly liberal viewpoint.

Studies have consistently shown that big-government liberals donate far less money to private charities than conservatives. In his book “Who Really Cares,” Arthur Brooks notes that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals. Another study found that even poor conservatives donate more than rich liberals .

There are other facets to Scrooge’s character that line up better with modern liberals.

During that same conversation, Scrooge says it might be better for the poor who are unwilling to go on welfare to die “and decrease the surplus population.”

Cold and heartless, yes. But which side is always bemoaning overpopulation? From Paul Ehrlich in the late 1960s to environmentalists today, it’s been a fixation of the left, not the right.

Al Gore, for example, once urged making “fertility management ubiquitously available” to fight the scourge of carbon-producing people.

Also like most liberals today, Scrooge was clearly a religious skeptic and not a churchgoer. In fact, Dickens points out that one of the first things Scrooge does on the Christmas morning after his visits by the spirits is get on his knees and pray, and then go to church.

A 2012 study in Social Psychological and Personality Science concluded that “religious individuals tend to be more conservative.” A Gallup survey found that 55% of conservatives, but just 27% of liberals, are “frequent” churchgoers. And a Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey found that religious conservatives outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one.

Scrooge was also unhappy, a mood found more frequently on the left. Pew Research, for example, found that conservative were 68% more likely to say they were “very happy” than liberals, and that this “happiness gap” has existed since 1972.

Want more?

The fact that Scrooge was single and childless puts him on the left side of today’s political spectrum.

Writing in the New York Times, Brooks notes that 53% of conservatives are married, vs. 33% of liberals, “and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger.” Conservatives also have more kids than liberals.

Finally, lest you think Scrooge was intolerant — the one sin the left still abhors — consider how he instructs his nephew on the virtues of tolerance.

“Keep Christmas in your own way,” he tells Fred, “and let me keep it in mine.”

QED. (IBD)

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 

 

No They Can’t! And More

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85637905/No-They-Can-t-by-John-Stossel

Politicians say “Yes, we can!” and claim they solve our problems.

When the mortgage market crashed, the President said their new law, Dodd-Frank, would create a “new financial system” so such things would never happen again.

After 9/11, Senator Tom Daschle declared “you can’t professionalize if you don’t federalize!” The Senate voted 100-0 to create the TSA to run airport security.

Politicians’ promises are endless. They say they’ll: create jobs, “make college affordable for all,” protect the disabled, give disadvantaged kids a head start, and invest in “cutting edge innovation.”

But they can’t achieve what they promise.

•Billionaire Mark Cuban and other job-creators explain why government’s rules now prevent the job creation that was once America’s hallmark.

•Dodd-Frank, instead of stopping fraud, added layers to already incomprehensible banking laws. Stossel shows how simple rules in the Cayman Islands not only stop fraud, but they also create prosperity.

•While the TSA creates long lines, misses actual terrorists, and angers passengers, screeners working for a private company at one big airport work faster, more cheerfully, and find more contraband. We show how the private company does it.

Namely, San Francisco’s Airport (the mecca of Liberalism) has Private Security and it works vastly better than the TSA.

I know the most scrutiny I got from my last Trip to Wales was actually from my stop over in Amsterdam.

Did you know that the U of Missouri is proud to have a “leisure resort” on campus? Naomi Riley, author of The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For, explains how government aid led to massive tuition hikes.

•Since the Americans with Disabilities Act took effect, fewer disabled people have been able to work.

•Lisa Snell from the Reason Foundation explains how the government’s own research found that Head Start did not help poor kids. Government’s response? Spend even more.

Government grows, despite its repeated failure.

Politicians are wrong when they say “Yes, we can”, but the fact that government can’t doesn’t mean that we can’t. Free people accomplish wonderful things. While government wastes billions on boondoggles like Solyndra, X-prize founder Peter Diamandis explains how private investors have created cars that get 100mpg, space ships, and much faster ways to clean up oil spills, all without charging taxpayers a penny.

Without big government, life can be great.

AN EXAMPLE

Everyone loves the Head Start program. Politicians across the ideological spectrum-from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to President George W. Bush-have praised the program and called it a success.

They should read the government’s own research.

The ‘Head Start Impact Study‘ was a report conducted by the federal government. It followed and compared underprivileged kids who went to Head Start, and underprivileged kids who didn’t. The study found no difference between the two groups.

Zero.

The kids who went to Head Start did better while they were in Head Start, but one year later the benefits were all gone. Not by 5th grade. Not by 3rd grade. By 1st grade, the benefits were “largely absent”.

Since President Obama has pledged over and over to “eliminate programs that don’t work”, it seems like Head Start would be a natural to get cut.

Nope.

That’s not how big government works. Even after the report came out, the Obama administration has continued to massively increase spending on Head Start by more than a billion dollars.

In my Fox News special “No They Can’t”, I talk to Congressman Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, who in spite of the evidence insists Head Start works. When I confront him on the data, he falls back on a familiar argument: we need to spend more.

Give me a break. We’ve spent 180 billion dollars already, with nothing to show for it.

The government just can’t do it.

EXAMPLE 2

That’s how much you’ll need to buy the Energy Department’s prize-winning light bulb. (You know because Thomas Edison’s Incandescent Light Bulb was deemed politically correct by the Whacko Environmentalist Left).

Last year the government announced a $10 million prize “designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.” The winner? A light bulb that costs $50 each.

Only in the government would they think it was “progress” worth celebrating to replace something you can buy on Amazon.com for a little more than $1 with something that costs $50.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,”Home Depot worker Brad Paulsen told the Washington Post. (Fox Business)

EXAMPLE 3 FOOD POLICE:

Public health: The toxic truth about sugar

This was headline in a Nature Magazine article that basically said sugar was bad a tobacco and alcohol and need to be sold behind the counter . Anti-obesity Meme Roth says yes, to protect the interests of kids.

Ah, it’s “for the children” so you can’t possibly object now can you?

Coke is the New Cocaine. Wait, in the 19th Century it was made with cocaine…)

🙂

And It’s Government to the Rescue!!!

WANT MORE

Kids who open lemonade stands are now shutdown by police. I tried to open a lemonade stand legally in NYC. That was quite an adventure. It takes 65 days to get permission from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

With government adding 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year, it’s no surprise that regular people break laws without even trying.

A family in Idaho can’t build a home on their land because the EPA says it’s a wetland-but it only resembles a wetland because a government drain malfunctioned and flooded it.

Ever hear of a real wetland in Idaho??

Want to start a taxi business? Too bad – it’s illegal. Illegal, that is, unless you buy a government-issued “taxi medallion” that can cost as much as a million dollars. One city has a free market for cabs – Washington, DC – but lobbyists there are pushing to regulate.
Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

“It’s your money or your life,” he said a press conference. “We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.” (RCP)

NEVER LET A TRAGEDY GO BY WITHOUT PUSHING THE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA!
Now that’s “compassion” at it’s finest.
But some good news: A San Francisco judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that sought to stop McDonald’s Corp. from using toys to market its meals to children in the Golden State. The suit had been filed in late 2010 by Monet Parham, a California mother of two, and The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
After all, McDonald’s was and is just a Capitalist Predator out to ensnare your children in crack-addicted life of junk food and obesity!!!
<<Maniacal Laugh>>
And Finally, the ever reliable whacko, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
“You know, what Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been doing to themselves every single day is showing women in this country day after day that they are callously indifferent to women’s health, to the priorities of women,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC on Thursday night. Really as evidenced by their obsession with cultural issues, their obsession with making sure that women can’t have affordable access to birth control, the dismissive way that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today chalked up women being concerned about making sure that we could have affordable access to preventive screenings like mammograms as fictional as a war on caterpillars. You know, if they’re still wondering why there’s an 18-point gender gap and President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney by that many points, then they really — they really must believe these things that they’re saying.

“Shocking,” Wasserman Schultz added.

Wasserman Schultz also says Mitt Romney is trying to “out-right-wing” his fellow Republicans. Here’s what she had to say at

“I think Mitt Romney has been so focused on trying to out-right-wing and embrace extremism that he is really beholden and has tied himself to his support for personhood amendments, his belief that Roe versus Wade was one of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, his support for the Blunt-Rubio amendment which says that bosses get to decide for their female employees what kind of access to health care they can have. And so every day there’s another example of how out of touch the Republicans are,” Wasserman Schultz said later in the interview conducted by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.  (Who also ripped Romney for being…<dramatic shock sting> A MORMON! Lord have Mercy we can’t elect a nutcase from a fringe religion now would you!!!) Except an Alinsky cultist called Barack Hussein Obama that is.

“Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States, yet he fails to recognize what’s important to women. We just want to make sure that the guy in the White House is focused on creating jobs, getting the economy turned around, and making sure that as members of the middle class and working families that we have an opportunity to be successful to not just focusing on people who already are,” she said.

So when is Obama going to do that? He’s been there since 2009… 🙂
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.” –President Ronald Reagan.
And God know these Liberals Never Let A Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Brian Farrington

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Is That Cooked Gander I Smell?

More than three months of your hard-earned wages are going straight to your tax bill this year.

Americans will spend an average of 29% of their income on federal, state and local taxes in 2012, the Tax Foundation announced Monday. That’s more than the average family spends on food, clothing and housing combined, the organization said.

And it means that most Americans are going to need to work 107 days just to be able to earn enough money to pay their taxes.

“Tax Freedom Day,” as the Tax Foundation calls the date that the average American is finally free of its tax burdens, arrives on April 17 this year, coincidentally the same day taxes are due . That’s four days later than last year.

Reminder though, 47% of Americans are paying no income taxes anyways (yes I know the liberal attack this by saying everyone pays “taxes” so the fact that they don’t pay “income taxes” is ok with them because it doesn’t fit their class warfare otherwise).

Thus all this tax burden falls on the other 53%.

Those paying making $112,000 or more paid 70% of all taxes in 2009. Hardly the $250,000 “rich”.

Now that’s “fair” . 🙂

The Wonders of Government Run Health Care

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is currently working towards delivering a private health insurance plan to its employees and wants to opt out of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP.)

“If provided the authority to do so, we believe that we can provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health coverage for significantly less cost, ” said Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe during his testimony to the House Oversight Committee.

“In response to this fiscal crisis, the US Postal Service recently presented its five year business plan to profitability…the centerpiece of this plan involves shifting USPS employees and their retirees from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) to a new USPS run health plan.”

Donahoe claimed a private health plan for the USPS will result in annual savings of approximately $7 billion and will function like any other health insurance plan in the private sector.

‘Health Care expert’ Walton Francis (Center for Public Program Evaluation):“A lot of those people are elderly—don’t want any change. They’re going to be faced with massive change,” he added.

“There are tens of thousands of 80-year-old widows, postal service widows … The premium cost for one of those widows to join [Medicare] parts A and B right now under current law in the Social Security Act is over $8,000 a year – that’s what it would cost to mandate that that widow leave the postal plan she’s now in and sign up for [Medicare] A and B,” said Francis.(CNS)

But Mandating that everyone MUST buy health care or else is ok. 🙂

The Liberal meme lives!

Swimming with the Fishes

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Has he never heard of the confirmation process? Oh that’s right he likes RECESS appointments where there is no oversight of any kind. Now, that’s “unelected”.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Yeah, a 100% partisan vote and 15 month of political maneuvering and backroom deals by a The Democrats is “democratically elected” and that had nothing do with the Democrats worst electoral defeat in 70 years in 2010 and the fact that Obama has never ever had a majority of Americans in favor it even to this day.

Oh, and Mr. president, many of the laws-like about slaves and blacks and abortion and the like were “democratically” passed too. But never let the truth get in the way of a sound bite for your base and the liberal lapdog slobbering media.

But then again, we are talking about self-obsessed Liberals.

If you don’t want this person who was nominated for the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan) then you have oppose them. If you don’t oppose them, then they are “elected” by the process and that’s too bad (Bork anyone?).

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the “unelected” Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

“I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Yeah, the Conservatives have been complaining about LIBERAL ACTIVIST Judges (like Susan Bolton and others) in the courts. Nice try.

The fact that the individual mandate is unconstitutional on it’s face matters not to politics.

So instead he goes for the touchy-feely, aren’t conservatives so “mean” throw-grandma-off-a-cliff approach:

Obama also argued there was a “human element” to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

Do it for the Children! The Elderly! The Sick!

Don’t be “mean”, “heartless” etc.

Where’s my barf bag….

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Only problem there is, in the arguments before the court the Obama Administration went nowhere near the commerce argument. They expressly stayed away from it!

“I think it’s important… to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,” Obama said.

“The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

“There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.” (yahoo)

The fact that you’d be giving government can control anything dictator-wanna be’s the power to decided not only life and death but exactly what the government can mandate that you do to control your life in general is not an issue.

If they can mandate you buy health insurance what’s next?

Obesity affects Health Care, so we need to mandate what you can and cannot eat so as to “prevent” and/or “cure” obesity for the good of all.

That car you’re driving is a gas guzzling nightmare, you must replace it with a Chevy Volt. 🙂

You can’t say that on the internet, that’s “insensitive”.

If the government can mandate you must buy a service and if you don’t have the IRS fine you, what can’t they do?

But I’m just a “mean”, “nasty”, “insensitive” lout who wants to take the candy from babies, kick grandma out on the street and throw her off a cliff after all!

Who needs personal liberty and personal responsibility when you have the government to tell you want you can and can’t do, can and can’t say, and how to live your life the politically correct way.

Big Brother Cares about you. Rejoice and bask in the glow of righteousness Citizen.

“I am very disappointed by our President,” Rep. Lamar Smith told FOX News Radio. “That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate,” he added.

But it is the Chicago Way! 🙂

Oh, and Vote For Me, The Supreme Court is fully of Radical Right Wing Nutjobs! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

 

 

It’s All Politics Folks!

The Obama campaign sent out an email today asking supporters to urge Congress to at least vote on the president’s jobs bill almost immediately after Democratic majority leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the bill in the Senate.

On the Senate floor today, Republican leader Mitch McConnell asked for unanimous consent to proceed on voting on the bill. Reid, who has struggled to find enough votes for the bill in the Democratic caucus, objected to the motion and killed the opportunity for a vote. 

About ten minutes later, Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, emailed this message to supporters:

President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already.

Though it’s been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven’t acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won’t even put the jobs package up for a vote — ever.

It’s not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They’re willing to block the American Jobs Act — and they think you won’t do anything about it.

But here’s something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill.

So will the Obama campaign be asking its supporters to “call out” Harry Reid and “demand” he and Senate Democrats pass the bill?

So they want the bill passed now, they just don’t want the bill passed NOW!. Hilarious!

It just proves that the bill was not designed to be passed by Congress but to blame the Republicans for NOT passing it. A purely partisan political maneuver rather than an actual plan.

Fascinating. And very typical of the Left and Obama. Cheap political points and childish “gotcha” moments over anything that’s actually serious.

The legislative gambit will not bar a Senate vote on the bill later this month, but it blunts a Democratic effort to maneuver the GOP into accepting sole responsibility for blocking the package that includes provisions that are popular with voters.

McConnell noted that Obama has asked Congress for an immediate vote on the measure at least 12 separate times.

“I want to disabuse [Obama] of the notion that we are somehow unwilling to vote” on the bill, McConnell said.

Reid objected to McConnell’s request. He used a procedural tactic to block amendments to the bill. “To tack this on to the China currency manipulation legislation is nothing more than a political stunt,” he said. (Weekly Standard)

So was the “pass the bill” crap. But that was their stunt and wasn’t a stunt because they were doing it. 🙂

But it’s nice to see the Republicans doing something other than rolling over and “compromising”.

Oh, and by the way–Eric Holder was warned about Fast & Furious over a year ago. Just thought you’d like to know that “justice” and truth is alive and well in the Obama Administration. 🙂

New documents obtained by news organizations show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

Internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

In Fast and Furious, ATF agents allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to cross the border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

It’s called letting guns “walk,” and it remained secret to the public until Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered last December. Two guns from Fast and Furious were found at the scene, and ATF agent John Dodson blew the whistle on the operation.

Ever since, the Justice Department has publicly tried to distance itself. But the new documents leave no doubt that high level Justice officials knew guns were being “walked.”

Oh, and President Obama knew about Solyndra’s potential financial problems BEFORE he even endorsed them but did it anyways for politics and his agenda.

New e-mails released Monday show the White House was warned about Solyndra’s potential problems even before President Obama visited the company’s Fremont, Calif., headquarters and used it as a backdrop for his push for renewable energy investment and green jobs.

“A number of us are concerned that the president is visiting Solyndra,” Steve Westly, managing partner of Westly Group, wrote in an e-mail to Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett on May 24, 2010, a day before the president’s well publicized trip to Solyndra. “[T]here is an increasing concern about the company because their auditors, Coopers and Lybrand, have issued a ‘going concern’ letter … Many of us believe the company’s cost structure will make it difficult for them to survive long term.”

“I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press,” Westly wrote. “If it’s too late to change/postpone the meeting, the president should be careful about unrealistic/optimistic forecasts that could haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall, files for bankruptcy, etc.”

“DOE … has one loan guarantee to monitor and they seem completely oblivious to this issue,” one OMB analyst said to another in an April 2, 2010, email.

“What’s terrifying is that after looking at some of the ones that came next, this one [Solyndra] started to look better,” another OMB e-mail exchange said of Solyndra. “Bad days are coming.” (National Journal)

President Barack Obama’s “green jobs” initiatives suffered another major blow late Monday, as the nonprofit National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, announced a plan to lay off roughly 10 percent of its staff through a voluntary buy-out plan.

According to the Denver Post, the lab plans to eliminate between 100 and 150 of its 1,350 jobs. The Obama administration supported the NREL in 2009 with roughly $200 million in stimulus grants. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu visited Golden in May 2009 to promote the NREL as a beneficiary of those funds. (DC)

Amy Oliver of Colorado’s conservative Independence Institute said one way to look at these potential “green jobs” shortcomings is that the NREL is exaggerating its claims. Oliver told The Daily Caller that the government-funded lab has seen a surge in government funding in recent years.

“Their funding for 2008 was $328 million,” Oliver said in a phone interview. “In 2010 it was $536.5 million. They’ve had a 64 percent increase in their funding during the Obama administration.”

And it’s doing so well! Lots of money down a rat hole and more people get laid off. The perfect Obama plan. 🙂

Candidate Obama pledged in 2008 that he would add 5 million green jobs to the economy, but Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C. now say the White House has stretched what it defines as a “green job” in order to pad its numbers.

At one recent House oversight committee hearing, Republicans prodded Obama’s Labor secretary Hilda Solis to explain why a bus driver who happens to drive a vehicle powered by “green” or “renewable” energy is classified by Obama administration officials as holding a “green job.” Solis struggled with the answer, instead arguing with Florida GOP Rep. Connie Mack, who asked her the question.

Oliver told TheDC that ordinary jobs with peripheral connections to  “renewable energy” are frequently misclassified as “green jobs” in Colorado. With Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter in charge, a strong environmental lobby using local, state and federal government to protect its interests, and news media unwilling to push for answers, Oliver said progressive causes have abused taxpayer dollars at institutions like NREL for years.

The Agenda is The Agenda and reality be damned!
And we have a new class of “saved or created”  ‘green’ Jobs to fudge up the number and puff up the Administration.
Gee, that’s never happened before!!! 🙂
And if you think they don’t want to cover up their skeletons:

In an obvious effort to protect President Barack Obama, a group of congressional Democrats has introduced legislation to create an official process that will allow the commander-in-chief to keep presidential records secret after he leaves office.

Ironically, Obama revoked <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords> a similar George W. Bush order in one of his first official acts as president.

That’s far more important than Obama’s “jobs Bill”. 🙂
Isn’t politics, especially on the left, fun. 🙂

The political left has turned obesity among low-income individuals into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food, and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like, which are more fattening and less healthful. But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax collapses like a house of cards when you stop and think about it.

Burgers, pizzas and the like cost more than food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself. If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food. An article in the New York Times of September 25th by Mark Bittman showed that you can cook a meal for four at half the cost of a meal from a burger restaurant. So far, so good. But then Mr. Bittman says that the problem is “to get people to see cooking as a joy.” For this, he says, “we need action both cultural and political.” In other words, the nanny state to the rescue!

It’s very true that the boxed meals are more expensive than doing it yourself. Fast Food and convenience foods are more expensive in the long run. But making your own food is more time consuming and requires more labor and some skill. Now, does that sound like something a Liberal wants to do when they can just mandate that the government force everyone else to do it for them? 🙂

An arrogant elite’s condescension toward the people — treating them as children who have to be jollied along — is one of the poisonous problems of our time. It is at the heart of the nanny state and the promotion of a debilitating dependency that wins votes for politicians while weakening a society.

Those who see social problems as requiring high-minded people like themselves to come down from their Olympian heights to impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us, down in the valley, are behind such things as the hunger hoax, which is part of the larger poverty hoax.

We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air-conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and own either a car or a truck.

Why are such people called “poor”? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality.

Those who believe in an expansive, nanny state government need a large number of people in “poverty” to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.

Politicians, welfare state bureaucrats and others have incentives to create or perpetuate hoaxes, whether about poverty in general or hunger in particular. The high cost to taxpayers is exceeded by the even higher cost of lost opportunities for fulfillment in their lives by those who succumb to the lure of a stagnant life of dependency. (thomas sowell)

But it’s “fair” that the not-poor pay for the poor. That the rich be taken down to benefit the rest of us, right? 🙂

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)–Karl Marx

And it’s not “fair” that others get more than me. So what if they work harder, longer and are smarter than me. That’s just not “fair”.

It’s all THEIR fault! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Political Cartoons by Bob GorrellPolitical Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
And he’s black! Now that will REALLY annoy the Left! 🙂


Put Down that Burger, Fatso!

FOOD POLICE UPDATE

The federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The reason is money, because three-quarters of medical-spending is driven by chronic diseases, such as obesity and tobacco-related diseases, she said.

Sebelius’ comments came at the tail-end of Tuesday’s White House press conference where officials showcased nine new photos that must be carried on cigarette packs. Officials used a survey of 18,000 people to find the images that would have the most distressing impact on groups of smokers, including young smokers and mothers of young kids.

“We want teenagers to understand smoking is gross, not cool,” said the HHS chief. If the public becomes desensitized to the distressing pictures, they’ll be replaced by new pictures, she said.

The regulations are justified, she said, because tobacco causes 443,000 premature deaths, and creates “$200 billion a year in health costs that we clearly could spend better elsewhere,” she said.

But the press questions shifted to food labels when a reporter pressed officials about new food-labeling standards being promoted by the government.

The standards are part of a much larger push by medical professionals to regulate the food sector. The medical professionals, led by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have allied with professional advocacy groups, such as Center for Science in the Public Interest, and with leading Democratic politicians, to blame the food-sector for increasing obesity rates in the American population, and especially among African-Americans.

People like to eat the increasing amount of cheap food produced by the food industry, and the rate of obesity has climbed steadily. In turn, obesity has spiked government and private health-care costs, because fat people are more prone to expensive diseases such as heart-failure and diabetes.

Federal health-care bills have risen in step, partly because of obesity’s costs, but also because many medical-professionals and Democrats want the federal government to fund a growing portion of the nation’s health-care spending.

These political interests reinforce each other. Health-care professionals say their expertise can reduce the federal government’s health-care costs, and politicians say they need professional expertise to curb the growing cost of expanding federal health-care programs.

First Lady Michelle Obama, for example, has accelerated the process by simultaneously supporting the Obamacare expansion of government spending, while also establishing her ‘Let’s Move’ anti-obesity campaign. The professional campaign is aimed chiefly at African-Americans, and urges parents and children to exercise more and to eat carefully.

In April, the FDA published a new set of rules requiring restaurants to show the calories in each menu item, and the Federal Trade Commission released a set of guidelines for food that is marketed to children. These steps were mandated by the 2009 Obamacare health-sector law.

When asked if the government would extend tobacco-style regulations to food deemed fattening, Sebelius told the reporters that the federal guidelines are only voluntary.

In the same press conference, Margaret Hamburg, the FDA’s chief, added that “we need to work with industry to provide consumers … with the best possible information about nutrition and health so that we can all make good choices in terms of promoting and protecting health.”

“The food industry recognizes there are ways they can improve,” said Hamburg. “We certainly have a vested interest in that as a public health agency, and we want to work with them on that.”

“When the combined voice of the four most important regulatory agencies for [your industry] speak, it is hard for companies to ignore those guidelines, even if you feel they are unwarranted or unfounded,” said McBride. “Industry shares Ms. Obama’s goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation, and we will continue to work with government stakeholders towards that goal,” he said.

Sebelius deflected questions about whether food officials would mandate distressing pictures on food they consider unhealthy.  (For Now)

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, again, I think tobacco is unique. It is a product that is the number one cause of preventable death. We know that there are strategies that can be very effective, because they’ve been in place. We also know that we’ve been stalled in this country. So I think this effort about tobacco regulation, efforts around tobacco cessation, has been decades-old and is something that is a unique situation.

Having said that, I do think that there are going to be ongoing discussions — as you look at the underlying health care costs, where we spend 75 cents of every health care dollar treating chronic disease — what are the areas, if you want to lower health costs and have a healthier country, that you can focus on? Certainly, tobacco and obesity become two of the major underlying causes. So the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise will continue to be I think an ongoing focus.

I think this is some space that is going to continue to have a robust conversation, because, again, it has a lot to do with underlying health costs and overall health of our nation. (Aka ObamaCare) 🙂

But as she stepped off the podium, Sebelius finally threw an answer back to the reporter who had asked if distressing images would be mandated for fattening foods. “Just lots of celery stalks and broccoli,” she said. (Townhall.com)

So put down that cookie Fatso!!

And that Microwave Dinner, EVIL!

The Food Police are Coming For you Tubby!

Mama Government does not approve.

The government knows better.

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear:  Do it, or else.

“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.  “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”

It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted.  Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including “American Idol” will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.

That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.

“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.

“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles.  Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

The foods most heavily marketed directly to children and adolescents fall into 10 categories: “breakfast cereals, snack foods, candy, dairy products, baked goods, carbonated beverages, fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages, prepared foods and meals, frozen and chilled desserts, and restaurant foods.”

Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said.  “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity.  These are decisions I want to make for my kids.  These should not be government decisions.” (Human Events)

But it will make a bunch of Liberals “feel good” that they have “done something” to save kids from evil capitalists trying to make them fat! 🙂

Rejoice!  The Government is here to save you and your Kids from YOU!

They’rrre Grrrreattt! 🙂

Cartoon

Cartoon

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 Politics of Food

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

But not like our President and his Food Nazis.

And no, I don’t mean “Seinfeld”.

This is not a comedy.

This is your usual socialist tragedy.

Busy bodies with a moral superiority complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the Liberal Media just easts it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brothers from a different mother? 🙂

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

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

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

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

Big Brother smiles upon you Citizen. Rejoice. 🙂

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

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

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

The Left

Who are the Food Police?

The Left.

Funny how that worked out. 😦

And with Comedy comes Tragedy.

And her it is folks.

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

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

So we can’t have that.

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

It’s for your own good, after all.

Rejoice. 🙂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How far off is that?

Not far enough for my tastes.

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

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

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

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

Just you wait and see.

Big Momma Michelle is watching you…