The Politics of Food

In January 2009, there were 31,939,110 Americans receiving food stamps; in November 2012, the number rose to 47,692,896, almost a 50% increase. And it increase again in January 2013.

Not content with having more Americans on food stamps than people in Spain, the Obama administration is ringing the dinner bell for illegal aliens. We’ll feed you and not check your status.

As we wrote last July, just as food stamp use has skyrocketed here under President Obama, so have marketing efforts to Hispanics under a partnership with Mexico.

We dubbed the program “Fat and Furious” after the administration’s gun-running program that also seemingly had worthy goals but had unclear motives and pernicious effects.

“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explained in a paragraph on its “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” Web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

Now the watchdog group Judicial Watch has obtained Spanish-language fliers through a Freedom of Information Act request.

It announced Thursday that the “promotion of the food stamp program, now known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flier provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA.”

The interesting thing about this flier is a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they don’t need to declare their immigration status in order to get aid. Emphasized in bold and underlined, it reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

They get the carrot, we get the stick! Up our “collective” asses!

This is a huge carrot to incentivize illegal immigration at the same time the Obama administration is pushing what is called “comprehensive immigration reform” designed to assimilate those illegal aliens already here.

But don’t worry about the Border Security and the flood of illegals. Just because in 1986 it was 3 million and now it would be at 12 Million it can’t happen again… 🙂

An administration unwilling to secure our borders is ringing the dinner bell for anyone able to sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.

Then with Amnesty they can vote for more Democrats!

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws.”

Indeed it should, for it is contemptible that an administration that has run the U.S. economy into the ground and increased legitimate demand by legal U.S. citizens for food aid to be actively recruiting foreign nationals to further burden American taxpayers who have their own families to feed. (IBD)

But you don’t want children to starve do you? you heartless, mean, cruel, nasty old racist! 🙂

Rep. Tom Marino, R-PA, introduced the SNAP Transparency Act on Friday, which would require the USDA to publicize what food stamps pay for.

“SNAP is a perfect example of how our government spends too much money with too little oversight and accountability,” said Marino in a statement.

A 2012 Yale study estimated Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits, formerly called food stamps, pay for $2 billion in sugary drinks alone every year. A 2010 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that spending was even higher, estimating soda companies reap as much as $4 billion each year in SNAP money. (WE)

So Liberals want to regulate what foods you can get and what you can drink. How about starting here. 🙂

Oh, sorry, these are the Once and Future Democrat Dependent Majority for life, can’t screw with them…No waste, fraud or abuse here! 🙂

Food stamp fraud has more than doubled since Barack Obama took office in 2009. In 2011, according to the USDA, food stamp fraud was approximately $750 million. The type of fraud noted was derived from selling Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to food retailers for cents on the dollar.

The USDA stated, “In 2011, program costs totaled $75.7 billion. Using the most recent data on trafficking available, USDA estimated that trafficking would be 1 percent of $75 billion, or approximately $750 million.” (Breitbart)

But if you propose “cutting” this out, or tightening the rules to save money, you’re just a asshole who wants kids to starve!

Don’t you dare touch The Dependent Democrat Majority For Life! These are there voters. Their power base. How dare you want to touch them in any way.

Think Progress (a far left “think tank”): Rather than looking for cuts in the food stamp program, perhaps lawmakers could instead focus on crop subsidies that fuel the junk food industry.

Narrow minded, partisan ,anti-capitalist attack instead of cutting The Once and Future Dependent Democrats, wow, what a shocker!

The Politics of Food. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon 043013

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

The Petulance of Command

Spend More or the Bunny Gets it!

The memo — which doesn’t actually say the White House is nixing the bunny fest, but just that it might do so at some point during the next couple of weeks — warns ticket-holders that the nation’s financial woes may affect the 135th Easter Egg role slated for April 1. (Note: this is not an April’s Fools Day joke.)

“Finally, by using these tickets, guests are acknowledging that this event is subject to cancellation due to funding uncertainty surrounding the Executive Office of the President and other federal agencies,” it reads. “If cancelled, the event will not be re-scheduled.  We will notify you if there are any modifications to this event.” (WP)

2. Yes, to Salmonella, No to Food Stamps for Illegals!

Salmonella outbreaks. E. coli outbreaks. Millions of dollars in economic losses. 

These are among the scenarios the Obama administration warned about last month as it claimed the sequester would force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to furlough meat inspectors. 

But while the administration prepares to take that step, it continues to pursue a “partnership” with the Mexican government to “raise awareness” about food stamps among immigrants from that country. When a top Senate Republican proposed cutting off funds for that program last week — in the form of an amendment to a budget resolution — Democrats on the Budget Committee shot it down. 

“We have uncovered extensive evidence that federal authorities have — during the Bush and Obama administrations — aggressively undermined a core legal tenet of immigration policy: that those granted admission should be self-sufficient and contribute to the economic health of the nation,” Sessions said. “It is amazing that Budget Committee Democrats would unanimously vote to continue funding these costly promotions, especially when our debt is causing such profound economic harm.”

The initiative is one of several the agency has “to promote awareness of nutrition assistance among those who need benefits and meet all program requirements under current law,” Vilsack told Sessions in the 24-page letter.

However, his letter indicates the number of legal, noncitizens participating in the program — now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has increased from 425,000 to 1.23 million between 2001 and 2010. (Sen Jeff Session & Fox)

3. Q    All right.  I wanted to follow up on this young woman’s question about the high unemployment out in places like Colorado, all around the country, especially in the minority communities — exceptionally high unemployment.  And when there is government workers who may be furloughed, millions of Americans unemployed, and family budgets that have been cut, how does the President justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense?  And does he plan to cut back on his travel?     MR. CARNEY:  I can tell you that this President is focused every day on policies that create economic growth and help advance job creation.  We have presided over the past three years over an economy that’s produced over 6.3 million private sector jobs, and we have more work to do.  And this President’s number-one priority is growth and job creation.  When you come to —

     Q    But it’s not working in the minority communities.

So that’s why the U6 has gone up and the unemployment rate hasn’t been below 7.7% in 4+ years because he’s created jobs!! So get off his back! 🙂

B0y could they get more dishonest….

Yes, But now it’s the Food Police’s Future Turn.

BOSTON (CBS) – We’ve all heard the saying, ‘you are what you eat’, and now some believe food choices may actually contribute to anger and violent behavior. Jeff Resnick believes it; he even knows what sets him off. “I can get irritable, absolutely, when I’ve had too much of the carbs,” he said.

Nutritionist Nicolette Pace says carbs can make you feel good, but it doesn’t last. “They don’t give your body what you need to cope with day-to-day stresses,” she said. Pace agrees that there is a connection between anger and food. “Deficiencies in nutrients, magnesium or manganese, vitamin C, or some B vitamins may make a person hyperactive towards a stressor, a short fuse so to speak,” she explained.

So Next up, Carb Controls, for your own good. We have to relieve the anger of the public. It will prevent shootings too! 🙂

Just wait for it…

Who the hell is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to presume that he has a say in what I or any other American chooses to drink? Of course, the answer for any self-respecting citizen is that he has no such say, and the proper response to him and his legion of petty fascist fan boys is the suggestion that they pucker up – and I will politely decline to identify what they should kiss.

It’s a sad commentary that the once boisterous, independent, take-no-guff New Yorker of the past has been replaced by a gutless, cowardly supplicant eager to obey the commands of whatever pint—sized potentate occupies Gracie Mansion. Back in the day, a real New Yorker would look that tiny troll in the mayor’s office in his beady little eyes and laugh, “Hey Mikey, I got your Big Gulp right here.”

These bossy snobs are getting out of hand, and it’s time to push back – hard. Besides being the American thing to do, resistance to this creeping liberal totalitarianism is a huge opportunity for conservatives.

Obedience to arbitrary authority is counter to everything that America stands for. We didn’t reluctantly cede a tiny bit of our personal sovereignty to the government so a bunch of know-it-all twerps could tell us what to eat, what to smoke, what to do and how to live. We did it to allow them the ability to keep order, which they have manifestly failed to do, and to perform a few basic governmental functions, which they have likewise failed to do.

So, a government that has failed to adequately perform the few discrete tasks which it should be performing now wishes to do a bunch of other things which it has no business doing in the first place, and which it will inevitably do badly and thereby cause even more problems than existed in the first place.

It’s time to say “No,” and our rejection of this obnoxious governmental overreach has the potential to create a new coalition that could up-end the status quo.

Real conservatives detest the idea of a government so big and intrusive that it feels free to interfere with such basic liberties as choosing what to eat. And they also hate the idea of a government so big and intrusive that it feels that it is within its rights to, say, blow up American citizens within the United States because it, well, thinks blowing them up is a good idea.

It’s all part of the same unearned hubris. The notion that some government functionary can tell you what you can drink or not drink based on his notion of what’s good for society is not so far from the notion that he can decide who lives or who dies based on his notion of what’s good for society.

Sadly, the enablers of these uppity functionaries aren’t just the usual liberal nanny-staters. You have putative Republicans conceding that “Well, I guess sugar is really bad…”, as if it matters whether high fructose corn syrup is the devil’s brew or an elixir from the Fountain of Youth. They should never reach the question of whether sugar is good, bad or indifferent; the mere posing of the question is antithetical to everything a real conservative believes. It’s none of their damn business.

Moreover, the appalling argument that “Well, we all have to pay for obesity” itself accepts the flawed premise that “we all” have any business paying for anyone’s health care. I’ve researched the Constitution pretty thoroughly and have been unable to find anything about me shelling out my dough to subsidize some couch-dwelling slacker’s doctor visits.

Maybe the enumerated power to do so is dwelling behind some penumbra or emanation, but it seems like making that argument accepts the idea that government ought to be in the health care business in the first place. And if the fact that the Constitution says nothing about doing so isn’t enough to show why it shouldn’t be, the idea that because the government does so gives it the right to micromanage our lives is itself ample reason to reject that hateful notion.

The specter of pseudo-cons like Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham fussing about Senator Rand Paul making a stink about the fact that the President’s progressive Mini-Me Eric Holder refused to give a straight answer about whether The One could ice folks in the U.S.A. on a whim demonstrates the problem. Too many sort of-cons sort of like the idea of unlimited governmental power.

And you know who else besides real conservatives has some real questions about governmental overreach? Well, a lot of them are folks we conservatives have been simply unable to reach. In fact, we hardly even tried, mostly because we are just as suspicious of them as they are of us.

There is a whole group of potential allies out there – the Millennials who grew up familiar with technology but chafing at their helicopter parents and the politically correct hypocrisy of the education establishment. Many of them think of themselves as “liberal,” but they have little use for bums who want to lay about sponging off producers. Their liberalism is more about affectation and cultural posturing than about political positions – they reject the idea of the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-sex conservative boogeyman they’ve been taught in the media, not conservatism itself.

These young folks have bought into the notion that conservatives are somehow obsessed with other people’s sex lives, which is false – conservatives are obsessed with their own sex lives, as the CPAC meat market demonstrates. But the wacky notion that some conservative is going to climb in their bedroom window to interrupt their trysting by making them pray has convinced this huge demographic to support an ideology that leaves them burdened with student debt and living in their parents’ homes – and thus unlikely to ever have sex to begin with.

The key to defeating this residual cultural affinity is twofold. First, conservatives need to avoid feeding old stereotypes with boneheaded maneuvers like making idiotic pronouncements about rape and writing jerktastic articles about how being a gay conservative is the result of a Marxist conspiracy. Remember, these young people grew up being taught to be tolerant. They’ll be tolerant of anyone – including hardcore Christians – who are themselves tolerant. We don’t have to accept anything we consider immoral – we just have to not be jerks about it.

Second, conservatives need to emphasize the pro-freedom agenda that both demographics share. Millenials have no desire to be dictated to about their snack options or hellfired by some drone either. Nor do they want to get arrested for jailbreaking their iPhone or sued for a $100,000 for downloading the latest terrible Mumford & Sons song. And for the few who have found jobs in the Obama economy, the tax bite on their pay stubs is just as unwelcome.

Call it the Coalition of the Unwilling to Be Bossed Around.

A pro-liberty coalition is a huge threat to the progressive project, as it steals from the progressive base while building on the conservative one. But we need to understand that we may be called on to give in order to get. The young demographic has huge doubts about the drug war and is largely pro-gay rights and gay marriage. Of course, they need to accept the fact that they don’t get to be little dictators either – the Boy Scouts get to choose their membership and doctors who understand the Hippocratic oath as excluding killing their unborn patients get to exercise their conscience.

We need to understand that the freedom sometimes means people make choices we don’t like and, where appropriate, compromise. I’m certainly ready to accept a few stoners bogarting doobs and some gay dudes exchanging vows if it means a smaller government so constrained and neutered that it wouldn’t dare try to tell me how to live out my faith or how many bullets I can keep in my M4, much less how many ounces of Mountain Dew I can pour into my Styrofoam cup.

It’s time to put aside a few policy disagreements to build a new alliance of citizens who believe that government has gotten too big for its britches and needs to be reined in. We may not agree on all the specifics, but we can build a majority of Americans who can stand together for liberty and, as one, offer the proper response to these tin pot dictators of liberalism: “Bite me.” Kurt Schlichter

🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

Rhetorical Reality

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” —  Ben Franklin

Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise” — Ben Franklin.

Then Liberals want to attack him for being a greedy, selfish, SOB. 🙂

A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.“– Ben Franklin

And ignorance is much prized by the Left.

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”— Ben Franklin

USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

The goal, for USDA, is to get rid of what they see as enrollment obstacles and increase access among potentially eligible populations by working with arms of the Mexican government in America. Benefits are not guaranteed or provided under the program — the purpose is outreach and education.

Some of the materials the USDA encourages the Mexican government to use to educate and promote the benefit programs are available free online for order and download. A partial list of materials include English and Spanish brochures titled “Five Easy Steps To Snap Benefits,” “How To Get Food Help — A Consumer’s Guide to FNCS Programs,” “Ending Hunger Improving Nutrition Combating Obesity,” and posters with slogans like “Food Stamps Make America Stronger.”

When asked for details and to elaborate on the program, USDA stressed it was established in 2004 and not meant for illegal immigrants.

Aka, “It’s Bush’s Fault so don’t blame me” and “oh, no, we aren’t targeting Illegal immigrants (at the same time that Obama is wanting to close 9 border crossing stations).
So advertising free food in Mexico is NOT going to encourage more illegals. 🙂

“If you talk to economists, they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do — one’s unemployment insurance, the other’s food stamps, okay?”

“Why is that?” he said. “Because those folks who receive those resources must spend them. And they’ll spend them almost upon receipt. Most economists with whom I talk believe that those with significant discretionary income, that that’s not the case.”–House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

Unemployment and Food Stamps stimulate the economy. So obviously we need even more of it. 🙂

And the persistent 8%+ unemployment and 1/7 of the US population on Food Stamps is good for us. We should be happy.

Government is here for you. 🙂

“USDA does not perform outreach to immigrants that are undocumented, and therefore not eligible for SNAP.” (RELATED: USDA buckles, removes Spanish food stamp soap operas from website)

Tell, me another fairy story, grandma…

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families bill incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency.

In 1996, Republicans forced through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, also known as welfare reform (and embraced by President Clinton for political reasons). It incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency. But states quickly acted to poke holes in that legislation, calling the following activities “work” for purposes of the statute: bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands.

This was idiotic. So in 2005, Congress closed the loophole, over the objections of then-Senator Obama.

Now, Obama has walked back the 2005 legislation, using his Department of Health and Human Services to unilaterally waive those work requirements. “This Administration is unbelievable,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). “Green-lighting new regulations to change bipartisan welfare reform without consultation from Congress is an outright abuse of the federal government’s system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers.”

A high-ranking Republican staffer commented, “Only someone with a religious faith in government would change the rules such that ‘journaling’ now qualifies you for welfare assistance.”

But this is Obama’s new definition of work: anything that allows you to receive government assistance. After all, welfare, unemployment benefits, and all other payouts forward the economy, according to our magnificent president.  (Ben Shapiro)

Being on the Government dole stimulates the economy. And boy is it over-stimulated!

More people go on SSI disability than get hired for jobs. So the “private sector is doing fine” 🙂

Thomas Sowell: There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale.

The perseverance of Thomas Edison, as he tried scores of materials before finally trying tungsten as the filament for the light bulb he was inventing; the dedication of Abraham Lincoln as he studied law on his own while struggling to make a living — these were things young people were taught to admire, even if they had no intention of becoming inventors or lawyers, much less president.

Somewhere along the way, all that changed. Today, the very concept of achievement is de-emphasized and sometimes attacked. Following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard has made the downgrading of high achievers the centerpiece of her campaign against Sen. Scott Brown.

To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate.”

Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them? People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?

At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow being subsidized by “the rest of us,” whether in paying for roads or the educating the young.

Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like free loaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, because it is part of an “underlying social contract.”

Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy on the left — one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled “The Promise of American Life.”

Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a “promise” that American society was supposed to have made — and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of “social contracts” began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the left.

If talking in this mystical way is enough to get you control of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money, why not?

Certainly someone who claimed to be part Indian, as Warren did when applying for academic appointments in an affirmative action environment, is unlikely to be squeamish about using imaginative words in a campaign.

Sadly, this kind of cute use of words is not confined to one political candidate or to this election year. The very concept of achievement is a threat to the vision of the left, and has long been attacked by those on the left.

People who succeed — whether in business or anywhere else — are often said to be “privileged,” even if they started out poor and worked their way up the hard way.

Outcome differences are called “class” differences. Thus when two white women, who came from families in very similar social and economic circumstances, made different decisions and got different results, this was the basis for a front-page story titled “Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do'” in the New York Times.

Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality.

AMEN

Yea, because hearing both sides of a presidential campaign is unnecessary when Obama is running for a second term.

That’s political discourse in AMERICA 2012.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

 

Freedom

The Department of Homeland Security will soon be using a laser at airports that can detect everything about you from over 160-feet away.

A scanner that could read people at the molecular level has been invented. This laser-based scanner – which can be used 164-feet away — could read everything from a person’s adrenaline levels, to traces of gun powder on a person’s clothes, to illegal substances — and it can all be done without a physical search. It also could be used on multiple people at a time, eliminating random searches at airports.

The scanner is called the Picosecond Programmable Laser. The device works by blasting its target with lasers which vibrate molecules that are then read by the machine that determine what substances a person has been exposed to. This could be Semtex explosives to the bacon and egg sandwich they had for breakfast that morning.

The laser-based scanner is expected to be used in airports as soon as 2013.

BIG SIS IS WATCHING YOU! You “terrorist” you!  YEAH, YOU! 🙂

FOOD STAMP NATION

The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HOPE PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.

The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.

“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HOPE PARK.’”(DC)

***********

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 

Presently in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or substantial benefits from the government. Presently in America, nearly half of all adults pay no federal income taxes. Presently in America, the half that pay no income taxes receive the bulk of their income courtesy of the government, but ultimately from the half that do. This money is extracted involuntarily from the paying half by a permanent bureaucracy that extracts and gives away more each year no matter who is running the government. The recipients of these transfer payments rely upon them for subsistence, so they have a vested financial interest in sending to Washington those who will continue to take your money and give it to them.

It is no wonder that we are now saddled with the micromanagement of health care by the same bureaucratic mindset that mismanages the Post Office and everything else the federal government runs. It should not be surprising to know that presently in America, half of the people actually want the government to take care of their needs. The same was the case under Communist regimes, but here those folks vote.

Hence, we have laws that force us to be charitable to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cellphones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.

And as of the last week in June, the government has a vast new power that was brought to us by the Supreme Court’s latest attack on personal freedom. Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases — whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution — and it may punish noncompliance with that command, so long as the punishment is called a tax.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s whimsical query during the Supreme Court oral argument on the health care law about whether Congress could make him eat broccoli suddenly isn’t as funny as it was when he asked it, because the answer is: It can fine him for not eating broccoli, so long as it calls that fine a tax.

Quick: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.

We got here because voters and the government we elected, and even the courts the popular branches appointed and confirmed, have lost sight of first principles. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a part of our humanity, and when we fought and won the Revolution under that premise, and when the first Congress enacted that language as the first federal law, this became the irrevocable recognition of the Natural Law as the basis for our personal freedom and limited government. Since our rights come from our humanity, they don’t come from the government.

But you would never know that from looking at the government. In New York City, where I work at Fox News Channel, we are all embroiled in two disputes this summer over the constitutional role of the government in our lives. The mayor, a self-made billionaire who likes donuts and has bodyguards but wants to tell others how to live in private and in public, is trying to ban soda pop in containers larger than 16 ounces and wants the police to be able to stop and frisk anyone on a whim — and all in the name of health and safety. He is actually banning freedom.

Imagine Jefferson being told what to eat or stopped and frisked on a whim. And then imagine the Supreme Court telling him that he must pay a tax if he fails to comport his personal private behavior as Congress — which doesn’t believe in privacy or personal freedom — commands.

Here is how you can tell that these are bad days for freedom:

Does the government need your permission to violate your rights, or do you need the government’s permission to exercise them?

The answer is painfully obvious.

Presently in America, what are we going to do about it? (Judge Andrew Napolitano)

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Liberal Reality

From the Political Wisdom of Hollywood, Eva Longoria everyone…

“I don’t think it’s a hard choice if you’re a woman,” said Longoria during an Obama campaign event in Colorado over the weekend, according to The Denver Post.  “We have to get out there and tell (others) ‘If you’re a woman, there is no way you can vote Republican.’”

Now that’s hard hitting political analysis and logic for you folks!

Are you suspicious of federal authority? How about really into individual liberty? Well according to a new study funded by the US Department of Homeland Security, you very well might be a terrorist.

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

A report published earlier this year by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland has surfaced, and in their DHS-funded findings, Americans “reverent of individual liberty” and others adamant about protecting their personal freedoms are categorized as extreme right-wing terrorists.

In the paper, Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008, researchers used definitions from another START study, 2011’s Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, to characterize what traits should be considered when describing right-wing terrorists. Both papers were funded with grants from the US Department of Homeland Security provided to START.

In explaining how START’s earlier study categorized terrorists in groups such as religious, ethno-nationalist and extreme left-wing, researchers recall that the organization considers right-wing extremists terrorists as “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group) and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.”

“Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty,” the report adds.

SO YOU MIGHT BE A TERRORIST!

But don’t worry, they aren’t “profiling” you!!  Liberals are against “profiling”:)

THE DOWNSIDE TO OBAMACARE  liberal Style

Someone in the audience asked NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner this question: “Today’s decision is a positive decision for the estimated 50 million uninsured Americans. Who are the losers today?”

After thinking through her answer, she later added that another group of losers might be the citizens of states whose governors opt to not participate in the law’s expansion of Medicaid.

So, Obamacare creates no losers except where it fails to tax people sufficiently and where GOP governors fail to accept the wisdom of the law. In short, the only thing wrong with Obamacare is that it isn’t even more punitive, more mandatory and more intrusive. (townhall)

NOW THAT’S LIBERALISM FOR YOU!

The only downside is that you don’t believe and do everything we say and want 100% of the time without question. After all, we are the smartest and best humans that have ever lived!!

IF YOU AREN’T ON FOOD STAMPS YOU ARE HARMING YOUR COMMUNITY

One in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the government is pushing to enroll more — in many instances working to overcome Americans’ “pride,” self-reliance or failure to see a need.

“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”

The USDA has adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” A 2011 Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits.

The Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10 percent.

“Hearing from the outreach worker that benefits could be used to purchase seeds and plants for their gardens turned out to be a very important strategy in counteracting what they described as ‘mountain pride’ and appealed to those who wished not to rely on others,” the document explains. “Eventually, many accepted assistance from the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary program, and others, in some cases doubling a household’s net income. In 1 year, SNAP participation increased over 10 percent.”

Overcoming “beliefs” is a stated method from the USDA to bring more people to the program.
USDA claims that eligible people who do not participate are actually harming their communities by preventing additional funds from entering their respective economies.

“SNAP is an investment in our future. It offers nutrition benefits to participating clients, supports work, and provides economic benefits to communities,” USDA explains on one of its outreach pages. “However, too many low-income people who are eligible for the program do not participate and thus forgo nutrition assistance that could stretch their food dollars at the grocery store. Their communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars flowing into local economies.”

FOOD STAMPS ARE AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS!!!

Just like Unemployment! 🙂

USDA explains. “SNAP helps families become financially stable and make the transition to self-sufficiency, getting them through the tough times.”

Orwell Lives! If your brain doesn’t hurt after that you might be a liberal…

Wow! Liberal reality really is mentally deranged!

WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU!! 🙂

IT’S A TAX!

The Supreme Court affirmed on Thursday what the White House never wanted to hear: Obamacare constitutes the largest and most regressive tax in American history.

From the start of the health care debate in 2009, the order was given for Democrats to deny that President Obama’s signature piece of legislation would be funded by new taxes. This was a purely political calculation since they knew they would pay a price if the multitrillion-dollar behemoth was called a tax bill. Mr. Obama swore he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, and he wanted to at least appear to be making good on the pledge. He maintained his health care law was “absolutely not a tax increase,” even though millions of Americans would be compelled to pay it and the IRS had to hire 16,000 agents to enforce it.

This left liberal lawmakers the awkward problem of trying to explain the constitutional basis of their power to enforce Obamacare if it wasn’t a tax. Rep. John Conyers, Michigan Democrat, attributed it to a nonexistent “Good and Welfare” clause in the Constitution. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, erroneously claimed it came from the same source as the federal power to regulate speed limits on interstate highways. The “mandate” rationale, which liberals attempted to justify under the Article I Commerce Clause, represented an unprecedented and dangerous expansion of government power.

When challenges to the law arose in the summer of 2010, the Justice Department said it would defend Obamacare as a “valid exercise” of Congress‘ power to “lay and collect taxes.” This contradictory position was painfully reflected in oral arguments before the court when U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli struggled to explain that Mr. Obama “said it wasn’t a tax increase because it ought to be understood as an incentive to get people to have insurance. I don’t think it’s fair to infer from that anything about whether that is an exercise of the tax power or not.” When Chief Justice John Roberts asked about this blatant twisting of words and logic for purely political purposes, Mr. Verrilli stammered, “Well, I – you know, I don’t – there is nothing that I know of that – that illuminates that, but certainly …” before Justice Sonia Sotomayor rescued him with another question. That was the moment when the case was decided.

After the decision, Mr. Obama doggedly stuck to his implausible line that Obamacare wasn’t a tax bill. His unpopular law was upheld in the worst way possible politically. The decision handed the issue to Republican challenger Mitt Romney and fired up the conservative base in a way that wouldn’t have happened had the law been partially or wholly overturned. Obamacare now stands as a highly regressive tax on middle- and lower-income families, a tax on jobs, a tax on youth, a tax on health, a tax on freedom of choice. In his decision, Justice Roberts wrote, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” This includes Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats who voted for the Obamacare tax increase. (WT)

Because no Republican did. And Olympia Snowe of Maine is retiring.

So, to all my Fellow “terrorists”….

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Damage Done

Amanda Clayton (24 yrs old) .. who actually WON The lottery in MI ..
She CHOSE to take a $500,000 one-time lump sum payment.

She bought a house and car — In CASH!

But was found to be using her Bridge Card (The Food Stamp Card in Michigan).

When confronted, Clayton said she didn’t think she was doing anything wrong.

“I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working,”
When asked if she thinks she has a “right” to the food stamp money, she said yes.
“I mean, I kind of do.”
“I feel that it’s okay because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay,”

“I have two houses.”
Now when the interviewer asked if she’d continue to CASH and USE the $200 a month of Food Stamps she’s been using ..
“she admitted “yeah,“ adding things are ”hard.””

The Leftist indoctrinated “entitlement” mentality in crystal clear HD. I win $500,000 and I’m still ENTITLED to government assistance!

Wow! the scope of the damage done by Leftists is far worse than even a cynic like me thought.

Some of the record total of 46.3 millions recipients of food stamps–a federal welfare program–have traded their benefits at a discount with corrupt retailers to get cash to buy drugs and weapons, the inspector general (IG) for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Congress yesterday.

Sidenote: there was USDA inspector “anonymously” on the radio here yesterday and he outlined some of the more hilarious government classifications of food. Did you Ho-Ho’s and Ding Dongs are classified as “bread” and so are ok to buy? Or Ketchup is a “tomato”. (I can’t remember the others I was driving and trying not to cause an accident).

In July (2011), a group that included the National Council of La Raza, the Snack Food Assn. and the Frozen Potato Products Institute issued a statement asking the federal government to “preserve food choice” for the poor.(LA TIMES)

Ah, our good friends at “The Race” (La Raza). 🙂

USDA IG Phyllis Fong highlighted food stamp trafficking, which refers to the sale or purchase of food stamp benefits for monetary gain, which is punishable by disqualification from receiving future benefits, fines, and criminal prosecution.

“In some cases, recipients have exchanged benefits for drugs, weapons, and other contraband,” she said.

The latest estimate from the USDA places the number of food stamp recipients so far this fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2011-Sept. 30, 2012) at about 46.3 million. That is a substantial increase from the 30.8 million beneficiaries at the beginning of FY 2009. (KFYI)

Despite several recent, well-documented cases of food stamp fraud — including a couple in Washington State living in a $1.2 million home, 30,000 college students on the food stamp rolls in Michigan and Wisconsin beneficiaries selling their cards on Facebook. (FOX)

Just Like the Oil Production (better than ever),the border (more secure than ever), etc. The Leftist in Administration are lying about this too and put on the rosy face to save their face.

U.S. Department of Agriculture said that fraud cases have dropped to an all time low record of less than 1 percent.

“It’s one of the best records among federal programs,” he said

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute,“What we are getting into is part of an overall process where more and more people are becoming dependent on the government for larger and larger portions of their income. What we need to do is restore a little bit of the self reliance that we used to have,” he says.

In the 1970s, about one in 50 Americans participated in the program. Today, it’s almost 1 in 7. One congressional critic, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., thinks the states have a disincentive to reduce fraud – the more they crack down on it, the fewer federal dollars they receive.

ILLEGAL ALIEN WINS LOTTERY

 An illegal immigrant from Guatemala will be able to collect $750,000 he won from a lottery ticket he purchased in 2010.

A Georgia Superior Court jury ruled in 27-year-old Tony Cua-Toc’s favor Thursday that he was the rightful owner of the Jingle Jumbo Bucks lottery ticket.

Cua-Toc entered the country illegally in 2000, claimed that the business owner he worked for, Erick Cervantes, claimed the winning lottery ticket for him and ended up keeping the money.

Cervantes said in court that he was the rightful owner of the ticket because he gave Cua-Toc $20 to purchase it for him.

The jury awarded Cua-Toc $207,000 in attorney’s fees and is also entitled to punitive damages. (KFYI)

YOUR UNPAID LUNCH

The Columbus City Schools hope to recover an estimated $900,000 in unpaid lunch money from almost 6,000 students. The district loses roughly $2,622 every school day in unpaid lunches. Most of the delinquent accounts average between $150 and $170, according to Meade and Associates , the collection agency in Westerville hired by the district to collect the money.

Unpaid-for lunches are not unique to Columbus. Across the country, districts are struggling as the ailing economy brings more students to school without lunch money.

Until then, school districts continue to make accommodations for students who can’t pay. Some offer alternative meals of cheese or peanut butter sandwiches. Districts also try various methods of collecting debts, such as phone calls and letters to parents.

OMG! You want to Starve Kids you heartless greedy bastards!!!!! 🙂  (my impression of a Leftist).
NOT MUCH OF FLUKE
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Sandra Fluke (what an ironic name), the Democrats latest put-up job  is now being represented by Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn.

Gee, that’s a coincidence! 🙂

So I wonder how much she was paid to start the Democrats “War on Women” to distract people from the Democrats need to mandate everything to everyone??

KEYSTONE LOBBYING

Sen. McConnell: “Most Americans strongly support building this pipeline and the jobs that would come with it. And it’s incomprehensible to me that the President of the United States is lobbying against it.

“There’s a report this morning that President Obama is personally making phone calls to Democrat Senators he thinks might vote for this amendment. He’s asking them not to. And, frankly, it’s hard to even comprehend how out of touch he is on this issue.

“I mean, think about it: at a moment when millions are out of work, gas prices are skyrocketing and the Middle East is in turmoil, we’ve got a president who’s up making phone calls trying to block a pipeline here at home. It’s unbelievable.”

But the AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

“ILLEGAL” is Racist!

From “Drop the ‘I’ word”. The Pledge:

I will not call any human being “illegal.” The racially charged slur and related terms confuse the immigration debate, fuel violence and don’t reflect my values. I join communities nationwide in challenging all media to do the same.

Are we all doomed?

OBAMACARE

Rep Ron Johnson (R-WI)  & HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius

JOHNSON: It is true that the President said that by enacting this healthcare law, every family would save $2500 per year, in their family insurance plan – correct?

    SEBELIUS: He said that once the exchanges are up and running, and you have an affordable marketplace, the insurance estimates were that the rates would go down by about $2500, yes– that has not occurred yet.

JOHNSON: The Kaiser Family Foundation has already released a study saying that average costs of family healthcare plans is up $2200, correct?

    SEBELIUS: Again, there is no new marketplace yet for insurance policies.

    JOHNSON: But the costs are already up. We’re already different by $4700; it’s going to be hard to get us down to $2500 cost savings.  I would consider that broken promise number two.

    It’s also true, that President Obama very famously said, ‘if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.’  Period.  ‘If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.’  Period.  No one will take it away, no matter what. Now, we’ve granted quite a few waivers – about 1,200 to 1,700 waivers – on about 4 million Americans, correct?

    SEBELIUS: I’ve no idea what waivers you’re talking about or–

    JOHNSON: Well, those are waivers–

    SEBELIUS: On doctors and health plans, is that…I–

    JOHNSON: Just waivers from having to implement portions of the healthcare law that probably would have allowed those – or forced those workers – off their employer-sponsored care.

    SEBELIUS: Again, I’d be happy to answer these questions, but I have no idea what waivers you’re talking about–

    JOHNSON: The waivers that HHS has granted to employers not–

    SEBELIUS: Which do what?

    JOHNSON: Not having implemented sections of the healthcare law.

    SEBELIUS: There have been waivers granted to employers, yes.

    JOHNSON: And had those waivers not been granted, chances are, those employees probably would have lost their employer-sponsored care, correct?

    SEBELIUS: I have no idea. I mean, I’m happy to answer those one at a time and look at the waivers and see what–

JOHNSON: Unfortunately, I’m pretty short on time.

I know Nancy Pelosi said we’d have to pass the bill to see what’s in it, but you’d think that two years down the road, Sebelius would know. (Kate Hicks)

Marvel once again at the fact that there are Americans who want this lady running their healthcare!

SCOTT RASMUSSEN:

Many Republicans talk of an entitlement mentality that threatens the character and finances of the United States. In their view, the problem is that too many voters feel entitled to goodies provided by the government and financed by taxpayers.

It is true that so-called entitlement programs are growing as a share of the federal budget and the national economy. Along with spending on national defense and interest on the federal debt, spending on entitlement programs consumes the overwhelming majority of the federal budget. But a close look at the data shows that it’s not a voter sense of entitlement that is driving the process. Quite the contrary.

The two biggest entitlement programs — Social Security and Medicare — are seen by voters as trust funds they pay into during their working lives and then get back in their retirement years. That’s what President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold voters back in 1935. He wanted the “contributors” to have a “legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions.” That’s what voters still want today. Seventy-three percent believe the best way for the program to operate is to protect the trust funds and make sure there is enough tax revenue to pay the promised benefits. Just 10 percent want to scrap this approach and have the government pay benefits out of the general operating budget.

There are problems with the public perception, of course, starting with the fact that the way our politicians have defined “trust funds” is fraudulent. But those problems reflect the failings and deceptions of politicians rather than voters. In Social Security and Medicare, voters are not looking for a handout. They are looking for a return on money invested.

Perhaps because of their distrust of the politicians, two out of three voters now think workers should be able to consider the relevant trade-offs on their own. For example, those who would like to retire later could pay less in taxes now, while those who would like to retire earlier could pay more in taxes now. That’s an investing mindset, not a sense of entitlement.

But politicians in Washington continue to blame the voters for allegedly wanting more government than they are willing to pay for. The effort of politicians to pin the blame on voters diverts attention from the real entitlement mentality that threatens to bankrupt the nation: A political class that feels entitled to rule over the rest of us. Government spending has gone up in every years since 1954 because political leaders have pursued their own agenda rather than listening to voters.

Over the past 58 years, voters have consistently elected presidents, senators and congressman who promised to cut government spending, but it has never happened, not even once. As shown in my new book, “The People’s Money,” voters are ready to support the kind of long-term thoughtful changes needed to balance the budget and eliminate the federal debt. The only thing standing in the way of a solution is the nation’s political leaders from both parties.

While most voters view excessive government spending as the problem, those who feel entitled to rule over the rest of us see the voters as the problem. And that’s the real entitlement crisis facing the nation today. The political class wants to govern like it’s 1775, a time when kings were kings and consent of the governed didn’t matter.

King Obama and his Congressional  House of Lords, anyone?

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Matter of Identification

A Classic Thanksgiving Moment, Brought to you by your friends at WKRP:

And as God is my witness, I still think Spending Even More will work!! — Barack Obama. What a Turkey. 🙂

Here’s another reason to throw them all out:

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes

Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

But remember who controls the Senate– The Democrats.

So throwing them all out sound pretty good at this point.

In October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration officially approved so-called DNA barcoding – a standardized fingerprint that can identify a species like a supermarket scanner reads a barcode – to prevent the mislabeling of both locally produced and imported seafood in the United States. Other national regulators around the world are also considering adopting DNA barcoding as a fast, reliable and cost-effective tool for identifying organic matter.

And since humans are “organic matter” how long before they come for you!??

Then there’s money and power.

The war against the financial sector is no accident. Rather, it was carefully planned over decades as part of a social crusade to wipe out what the left calls “financial apartheid.”

Starting in earnest in the 1990s, coat-and-tie radicals gathered in Washington and conspired to use banks to “democratize” credit. They socialized the mortgage industry after declaring traditional underwriting standards “racist.” Bankers were ordered to “reinvest” in unprofitable areas, and reallocate capital to people who posed credit risks.

When those risky loans went bad, radicals blamed “greedy” bankers and “predatory” lenders. Today, they want to punish bankers and lenders by forcing them to “repair the damages” that they themselves caused. And they don’t care if it drives many of them out of business.

In fact, President Obama is deliberately trying to downsize the financial sector. He and his social engineers think it accounts for too big a share of the economy. Obama says his sweeping new regulations are designed to clamp down on bank profits and limit the finance industry’s influence in the U.S. economy.

“What I think will change, what I think was an aberration, was a situation where corporate profits in the financial sector were such a heavy part of our overall profitability over the last decade,” he said, adding that his “more vigorous regulatory regime” will “inhibit” the industry’s growth.

Think about it: Obama is engineering a controlled starvation of America’s most vital industry — capital, the lifeblood of the economy — as punishment for allegedly causing a crisis that anti-bank community organizers and housing-rights zealots like him actually caused.

Why is Obama at constant war with “fat cat bankers” and Wall Street? His mentor, Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky, identified banks as one of the “power sectors” topping the industrial food chain, and therefore a top “target” for street agitators like Obama.

“The target, therefore, should be the banks,” Alinsky wrote in “Rules for Radicals,” the bible of the left.

This was drilled into Obama by his Alinsky trainer, Jerry Kellman, who first hired Obama as a South Side Chicago organizer, according to the book, “The Great American Bank Robbery.” “The real enemy,” Kellman told Obama, are “the investment bankers.”

Obama was trained in Alinsky agitation tactics in Los Angeles and Chicago. After Harvard, he returned to South Side to train Acorn and National People’s Action leaders. They, in turn, deployed busloads of thugs to terrorize bankers into making easy loans and subsidies in a multitrillion-dollar shakedown that sped the collapse of the banking and housing industries.

Obama also represented alleged victims rounded up by Acorn and NPA in class-action lawsuits against Citibank and others. The ilk that wrote “Rules for Radicals” wrote the rules for “fair lending.” Now they’re helping write them again to leverage banks anew, and make credit for the uncreditworthy even easier.

This financial disaster didn’t just happen. It was engineered. It was designed by people with radical agendas to redistribute credit and, ultimately, your wealth. And they are just getting started. (IBD)

Big Brother is Watching.

But at least you’ll have your bar coded fish!!