Here's a president who doesn't like the term WAR ON TERROR, something to really worry about, but he'll back a WAR ON FOOD, as headline in the following underlined link suggests; a war against US. THIS is a rather perfect example of the sneaky freedom-snatching ways of the Left. WHAT CHILDREN EAT should not be a GOVERNMENT DECISION. PARENTS make those decisions. And LEAVE MY GIRL SCOUT COOKIES ALONE!Remember when McDonald's had to acquiesce to giving APPLES in Happy Meals? The threat was "no apples, no toys can be given away" if they didn't. Have you any idea how many perfectly good apples will be thrown in the trash when they start this practice? Have you ever heard a kid say "Mommy! I just have to have an APPLE!" as they drive into McDonald's, or EVER, for that matter?
But, you see, the sneaky part is that the Left can say "Really....? You don't WANT your children to be HEALTHY? WHY NOT?" ("Really, you don't want abortion on demand? You don't care about a woman's 'right to her own body'?" "Really? You don't want 'undocumented workers' coming into America, are you RACIST?" "Really? You don't believe gays should marry, are you a HOMOPHOBE?" REALLY? REALLY?)EDUCATE the parents and the children. EDUCATE them, give them choices. Put an apple in their lunch they take to school but let them have a small burger and fries once in a while! I stood up here at geeeZ for Michelle Obama when we all heard she'd had a cheeseburger and fries in a place that has particularly good ones. I got creamed by my rightwing friends who thought she was hypocritical, but her eating a hamburger wouldn't have been like if Nancy Reagan had done CRACK when she pushed "Just say no" to drugs! It's a BURGER! This is a normal woman of normal weight and normal health just wanting a delicious cheeseburger ONCE IN A WHILE...what's the big problem? I eat very healthily but, I have to say, once in a while my car just drives itself to KFC or Carl's Jr or I find myself ordering macaroni and cheese in a favorite spot for it. It's not ME, it's the car, it's my cravings :-) (that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!) I know better; but I'm HUMAN.
STOP taking away our freedoms, please. Obesity's apparently on the rise, young children are getting diabetes, nobody wants that, but EDUCATE THE PARENTS......most parents know what's good for their children, anyway. If your kid's fat, have them eat better, take him for a walk, but let US have the option of treating normal children to something delicious and supposedly so bad for them just once in a while, OKAY? And please don't start counting how many times I slip up....that'll be the next thing; wait for it.
z
45 comments:
The food police have no business patrolling a free society
I suspect that ObamaCare will at some level start enforcing "a healthy weight" as part of its "wellness program." Hell, we may even see a special higher premium for those who exceed their ideal body mass index. Of course, such a penalty may not apply to federal employees. Let me tell you, when I venture into downtown DC, I do see one helluva lot of obese government workers. Just sayin'.
A viable eating program requires three elements:
1. the availability of healthy choices
2. determination to make healthy choices
3. the understanding that occasional unhealthy choices do no harm
That's what I was taught years ago by Diet Center, when I dropped over 35 pounds. And what put all that weight onto my small frame? A combination of two things: (1) unhealthy eating (after I got married to a man who likes to snack, snack, snack) and (2) drinking milk to the tune of 1/2 or 1 full gallon a day.
Anyway, enough of my weight woes.
I am convinced that one reason for the childhood obesity "epidemic" is the fact that so many mothers are working outside the home. Mothers are often too exhausted to fix healthy meals. I do note that all the students in my homeschool group -- and I do mean ALL -- are of a very healthy weight. Their mothers are stay-at-home moms!
Many times, a mother's working outside the home isn't a choice: we can thank real-estate (and other) taxes for that. Once local governments found out that they could, they raised tax rates so that they could get a share of the working mothers' wages.
When they violate out liberties, it's never immediately for a nefarious purpose. It's always "for the children" or for our health, whatever. We're on to their game.
Good post!
With three children and a limited budget we eat just fine here at home, and going to McD's is a real treat for them, so I want them to have their FRIES and a toy!
The government can stay the hell out of private enterprise. They have no business telling me what to feed my children. They are MY children, and I don't think it 'takes a village', as Hillary once said.
Besides, Moooochelle eats whatever she damn well pleases. Hypocrites.
Brooke,
With three children and a limited budget we eat just fine here at home,
Obviously, you are a working mother with a lot of energy and a lot of determination.
I know many like you -- and many who are not like you.
When I was on the Diet Center eating program, I spent a fortune for food. Buying healthy choices is expensive!
The liberal/progressive mind set is to control the rest of society (excluding themselves, of course)in the foolish name of "what's good for society."
That is EXACTLY the same reason given by despots (Read: Hitler) for inacting their agendae.
ENOUGH!!
Get them out of my life...and out of your's, too!
Liberal thinking people always think they know best how people should live, spend their money, how much people should have, and what rewards and benefits should be awarded to whom.
In short liberalism is a mentality that shouts, "I am know better than you!"
It is a frame of mind, and not an indication of a superior mind. As can be seen time and time again, our left wing friends run out of facts quickly, and have no arguments other than insults.
Conservatives, on the other hand, debate on the basis of facts, and mistakenly think that logic matters to our wannabe communist friends.
If our left-wing, freaky friends cannot have their way, they resort to insults. That's just the way they think. That's where all this food police thing comes from.
Get used to it.
If it's a war on food you want to talk about you should have brought this up:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html
THAT is a war on food.
soap, there isn't much info there about WHY he was arrested but that arrest method alone is enough to scare me. He's being held 15 minutes from my house, by the way.
Are there LAWS against raw products like milk?? And had he been warned previous to this Gestapo-like attack?
If you read and understand the Constitution you ought to know that the Federal Government has the power and authority to regulate INTERstate commerce.
There's a huge difference between INTERstate commerce and INTRAstate commerce. People ought to learn the difference and whether or not they care one iota about raw milk or not is irrelevant. They should stand with their brothers and sisters and fight against this type of unConstitution action.
I have friends here in Minnesota who have faced similar action (Check it for yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuC6nws6Jcg)
Re: laws against raw milk and the like.
You should know that the mega dairy corporations lobby heavily to secure their monopoly in this regard.
Soapster, why insult me? The point is also RAW FOODS. The LA Sheriff did go in; and he's kept here in California, where it is illegal to sell raw milk.
Your bitch is that the feds were also involved.
Who knows why? That's overstepping...no doubt about it.
But the California authorities were apparently right to go in, though it's pretty bad thug tactics; maybe they'd tried before and they guy persisted.
Raw milk can be problematic. Anyway, let the raw people lobby, too.
That's the free market, though I despise the whole lobbying thing.
I wonder how many Americans are aware of what Our Dear Leader did on the way to his Vacation last Friday?
Well here it is folks, and it's pretty Ugly!
“With no fanfare, no press coverage, and with every effort made to hide his actions from the American people, President Obama snuck through the spirit of the DREAM Act via an ICE memo.” ICE = Immigration and Customs Enforcement! This is outright lawlessness on the part of the Obama administration, and once again he steps all over our Constitution.
We have a Constitution, and under it it states that illegal immigration is exactly that, ILLEGAL! What part of that don’t these people understand?
I have an idea why not serve the salad with a side of toy?
Malcontent; I blogged on that somewhere below this post; it's horrifying, isn't it... and so sneakily done (again).
Sue, really? I don't appreciate what you consider 'valid' comments? Amazing.
Great, glad your grandkids like apples; most kids don't go to McDonald's for the apples.
I'm not against apples, i just hate to think how many will be tossed out.....And I just want the government out of my food except for food safety, which they actually don't do such a good job of all the time, by the way.
By the way, I thought the apple thing wasn't happening until September.
Lisa....well, the gov't is treating adults as children AGAIN, so why not include a toy with their adult salads? :-)
well, the gov't is treating adults as children AGAIN, so why not include a toy with their adult salads? :-)
Ain't that the truth Z? Yeah according to the left the child president is the only Adult in the room.
Lisa, if only he'd had some real experience first...if only he'd had an upbringing that supported being the president of these United States.
It should be noted that no where did the article say companies could not sell sugar laden diabetes inducing food. Just that they would not be allowed to market it to children.
How is this different from say... cigarettes or beer? The government has made a decision that it is best for people under age 18 should not smoke or drink.
Shouldn't we just teach parents that cigarette smoking and beer drinking are bad and drop those regulations?
I wonder if when the government decided it needed to regulate access to those two products, there were the same types of objections?
Certainly a libertarian would object to any regulations that restrict the ability of a private citizen to buy whatever he or she wants, but these proposed regulations are only curbing marketing to people too young to make informed decisions.
Parents will still be free to make good, or bad decisions for their kids.
Brooke - Mooochelle.
Now there's an intelligent comment.
Dave Miller: "The government has made a decision that it is best for people under age 18 should not smoke or drink.
Shouldn't we just teach parents that cigarette smoking and beer drinking are bad and drop those regulations?"
Answer: YES!!
The government has no moral or Constitutional right to make these decisions for us (And for the record, I HATE cigarettes and resent having to inhale smoke from the un-filtered end of them...think about it). That "they have made a decision that..." is exactly the problem.
The liberal/progressive mind set is that everything they do is for the "good of society," the very argument used by all despots (think: Hitler and friends).
Sue, you repeated "Moochelle" in the post below; is that the new mantra now? :-)
After all the left has said about Bush, you really think that's SO BAD? REALLY?
Joe, exactly.
Dave...most of us did read the article...and you really think it'll stop at marketing?
Sue, how can a comment not be what "I'm looking for" if it's right ON topic of apples in happy meals and that's what you wrote about? !!
Joe, I appreciate the consistency, and I can see that logic, but let me look at the other side.
If we go with a model where government has no role in this situation, would it be safe to assume that some people will make disastrous decisions, feeding their kids so much sugar laden food that they become obese at an early age and end up with diabetes?
Of course it would.
So when that happens, and little Susie does not wake up to the potential problems, let's say she is unable to get health insurance. Something not unexpected.
If she has en emergency, and then cannot pay her medical costs because of those bad decisions, do we let her die?
After all, it really was her responsibility to take care of herself wasn't it? Why should my buddies hospital have to care for her free?
Isn't there a "too much" on the libertarian side?
For instance, a motorcycle rider. In my state riders must have helmets. The riders claim that this law is an intrusion on their rights to ride without helmets, a view many libertarians support.
But when the rider is in an accident and suffers a head injury, society will be unable to say, hey buddy, you chose no helmet, so pay up, or no treatment.
How do we, as a society, decide when it is good to intrude on the rights of some, for the larger good?
Clearly, helmets have saved a lot of bucks in medical costs from head injuries.
Not trying to be difficult, just trying to see how far the hands off approach will go when in fact, people will make bad decisions in their lives.
Dave, that's not a new argument, believe me! SOmething we all consider. Your word "intrude" is a good one.
You said "After all, it really was her responsibility to take care of herself wasn't it? Why should my buddies hospital have to care for her free?"
Is it our responsibility (or your 'buddies') to pay for illegals 'free'?
Maybe, if there weren't quite so many lawsuits, we'd all be able to consider that we messed up and we have to clean up our own mess. Maybe we'd be more careful about what we do. It worked before laws for this and laws against that.
"Brooke - Mooochelle.
Now there's an intelligent comment."
How intelligent is it to force others to eat their veggies while every photo from your never ending vacation involves stuffing your face with anything fried or sugar-based?
"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."
This is a quote from the article. Now, if recipes are retooled, the food is not not merely for children, it's for everyone or anyone, including adults.
Childhood obesity is the excuse for controlling what all of us eat. Does anyone here really think a restaurant will use the old recipes AND retooled recipes?
And how much more would it cost to eat there if they did?
This is how the left works, in steps, so people will do what I see here in comments.
Speaking about how they feed their children, feeling defensive, talking in terms of "once in awhile going to McDonalds", as if it's wrong to do that.
What is so unhealthy about a cheeseburger: A bun, hamburger patty, cheese, pickle, lettuce and tomato.
Or is it only unhealthy when you buy it at a fast food restaurant?
This whole campaign is to control what all of us eat. To create guilt in those who go out to eat what they enjoy, a treat.
How can you enjoy it, if you feel guilty doing so? That's what these campaigns are all about.
Dumping guilt on people, and eventually the populace does what all politically correct control freaks do. Go up to complete strangers, and humiliate them into compliance.
Well, not me. I don't care about what others eat, or what habits they may have, it's none of my business, and it sure as hell isn't the government's business.
I like being free, and treating others how I'd like to be treated.
It's Michelle's war on food, not Barack's. I want to be on his diet, burgers, ice cream, all the good stuff. If it's OK for him to choose and not listen to Michelle, then it should be OK for the rest of us. I'm so sick of the government thinking they no better and they can tell all of us what we can and can't do, right down to light bulbs and everything else.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Pris said... "This whole campaign is to control what all of us eat. To create guilt in those who go out to eat what they enjoy, a treat."
Is it at all possible that the policy might be based on doing what some might be considered is in the best interests of society, or people who cannot make their own decisions?
Isn't that the argument people use from the Right-to-Life crowd? That they are standing up for those unable to decide? [the unborn]
In this case, why is the government seen as stepping in to control a families private life, yet on the abortion issue, it is seen as advocating for the least of these?
However misguided they Admin may be, it looks like the same thing to me...
Man you guys like to bitch about anything. Most tea party members I've seen look like they haven't missed may meals, lol! If McD is a 'treat' for your kids, you got a problem with good decision making.
Bd. I know...only Republicans treat their kids to a Happy Meal once in a while.
gad
"Is it at all possible that the policy might be based on doing what some might be considered is in the best interests of society, or people who cannot make their own decisions?"
What if we choose to believe what's best for society, is to be free to decide for ourselves.
And who get's to decide what's good for us? Some bureaucrat?
Btw, we're talking here about what we eat, nothing else. Don't try that bait and switch with me, it won't work.
You love to blur the subject don't you. The fact is, if I make a wrong choice for myself, that's my responsibility.
You do realize don't you, if the govt. regulates everything, You've lost all autonomy over your own life.
Perhaps your ox hasn't been gored yet. Wait for it, then we'll see how your fence sitting works out.
The fact is, this administration has issued a threat to the food industry. Either they comply, or they can't promote their product.
Is it that now we have a dictator who'll issue laws through fiat? Sounds like it to me!
Pris, so well said...
You included "Is it that now we have a dictator who'll issue laws through fiat? Sounds like it to me!"
me, too...sadly. Of course, maybe if things like this weren't happening so often, so quickly, and furiously, we wouldn't be quite so prickly about this food thing?
No Pris, I am not looking to bait and switch... I am simply wondering if there is a consistent objective standard we can apply to things like this...
Otherwise, we will always end up in a position where one person says it is best one way, and another, the other way.
Perhaps my question might better expressed like this...
Is it always better to leave the decision as to how to behave, or act, to the individual, or, are there times when it is better for the state to make those rules?
And, if there are times when we must turn to government, what standard should we use to determine when that is best?
Dave, perhaps it's best if I put it this way. I don't want the government trying to protect me from myself. If we are to be free, we have to be able to fail as well as to succeed.
Only those who have no faith in the American people, feel the need to control us. Thus the bans, too many laws and rules, until we're paralyzed and lost in a sea of regulation.
This is a country based on individual freedom from the beginning. If we lose that, and we've already lost too much, we lose everything which made this a great country.
We can't abide the government picking winners and losers. That is a recipe for resentment and loss of self respect.
If we hold ourselves responsible, we won't blame others, we'll either dust ourselves off and go forward or give up, but that should be up to us.
"Of course, maybe if things like this weren't happening so often, so quickly, and furiously, we wouldn't be quite so prickly about this food thing?"
Z, at least when things like this happen quickly, they get everyone's attention much sooner than before. Maybe this kind of thing will keep people awakened to what is happening. I hope so.
Pris, that's true; my blog tomorrow is an article which mentions how Dems are turning against Obama, even those who aren't far leftwing and don't like him "because he's not left ENOUGH!" :-)
"...the blog host referred to her big ass. Now really, is that kind? If you want to say something about the president, fine. But don't insult the First Lady for the way God created her."
Or, rather than 'the way God created her,' maybe, this has more to do with it.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/02/11/total-calories-white-house-meals-6500/
I'm sorry, but I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy.
Sue, well you DID manage to get your insults in about Bush without 'name calling' per se, good job! :-)
By the way, I'm quite sure I know NOBODY who could quit drinking without help. I consider that quite a fete...and for the love of his wife and children. Not bad.
I wish Clinton had been that kind of a real man with his family.
If Mrs. Obama wore clothing more appropriate to her title and her figure, who'd notice that she's 'hippy'? How many times do we all have to CRINGE at the shots of her in awful shorts, hair in a mess, climbing up and down plane steps, walking with the dogs. I never once saw Laura Bush or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton, in such disarray before. And, trust me, Hillary's hips make Michelle's look thin.
I'll admit Michelle has VERY good help and she can dress up and look elegant; I just don't think First Ladies who wear the kind of casual clothing she sometimes wears should be photographed and she should stay hidden.
I also thought the shots of them eating in the Oval Office as they supposedly watched America in the soccer game last month were gross with all the bare feet. You're in OUR HOUSE, OUR OVAL OFFICE< put shoes on, Michelle and the girls. My God. Or do what you want and do not allow photographs.
Sue, you really do make me laugh. Bill Maher, your hero, allows the MOST hideous insults and you find him so wonderful! ANd then you come to Conservative blogs and ridicule 'big ass'..wow.
JAN: it is hypocrisy but I have to admit that a binge once in a while doesn't bug me too much, as I've said before.
Still, you're right; if you're going to be preaching to everyone in America about what WE should be eating, then eat your fattening stuff in private.
Pris, your statement is a strong one on self reliance. What about people who are not able, like children, to make those decisions.
If their parents will not make good decisions and protect them, does government have a role to play in their protection?
leftards want to control everything, from the food you eat to the light bulbs you have. It's all for your own good good you see and you're too stupid to know otherwise.
I know that applies to leftards, but not to the rest of us.
"If their parents will not make good decisions and protect them, does government have a role to play in their protection?"
Dave, our government schools are teaching Five year olds about sex. And homosexual sex.
There's a role the govt. is playing. Is that what you mean? You're ok with that?
The thing is, if the government will rob our children of their innocence, and fill their heads with adult behavior not suitable for children, how in the hell can you trust it to do what's right by our children?
Need I say more?
Post a Comment