Food Nazi Alert: Nanny Bloomberg Bans Large Drinks

New York City Mayor Michael “Nanny” Bloomberg wants to ban large drinks. Apparently Bloomberg is convinced that large coffee’s and large pop’s are making Americans obese. This “problem” is something Bloomberg thinks government must take on. A century ago progressives like this were trying to ban alcohol, now they’re trying to ban drinks with sugar in them. He isn’t concerned about milkshakes with all their fat and sugar. He isn’t concerned about large 32oz beer’s with all their calories served at Yankee Stadium and bars throughout the city. Nor is he concerned with doughnuts and all their fat and sugar. In fact, the Mayor endorsed National Doughnut Day with a video!

It’s only sugar drinks over 16oz that Bloomberg wants a piece of. He believes it’s his duty to “force you to understand.” He isn’t banning us from doing things, he’s simply forcing us to understand. How Orwellian. Adults can and should be free to make their own drink size choices. It really shouldn’t be any of the government’s business one way or the other. Bloomberg’s plan fails in that there’s nothing stopping me from buying two or more 16oz drinks. It also fails to combat obesity by failing to ban milkshakes, doughnuts and doritos. The problem though is that it’s a step in that direction. The progressives learned from prohibition. Going at it all at once is a bad idea, taking it step by step works. Food totalitarianism here we come!

One of the problems with government control of healthcare is that it leads to a reasonable argument for government micromanaging our lives. If it saves the state money to micromanage us by banning drinks, it becomes a taxpayer savings argument that may even draw in conservatives. A quarter of Americans are on Medicaid these days, almost as many are on Medicare. In New York it may be even higher. Suddenly obesity, which should be little more than a private issue, becomes a “public health” issue.

This is where Obamacare becomes so problematic because it will lead to socialist single payer healthcare. Rather than having fat people pay higher rates for their health insurance, taxpayers are going to be stuck paying for fat people’s healthcare. That gives incentive to people like Bloomberg, who want to micromanage our lives, to propose laws that actually do so. Step by step of course. One morning we’ll wake up to discover that we aren’t allowed to drink pop, we aren’t allowed to have an egg cream and National Doughnut Day will have long since been banned.

Bloomberg is trying to force us all to understand. What he doesn’t understand though is that we adults already know that sugary drinks can make us fat. We simply don’t care. We make choices, we’re adults who understand that the momentary pleasure of drinking a pop could lead to the undesirable consequence of obesity. We’ve made a rational choice not to care about the latter. We of course won’t even get into the absurd statistics which have been manipulated to show that nearly all of us are obese when in fact most of us are simply a few pounds overweight.

Bloomberg needs to understand what freedom is. It is not his job as Mayor to micromanage the lives of the people of New York just like it’s not the job of the President t micromanage the lives of Americans. Bloomberg is proposing food totalitarianism. If successful you can bet it will be coming to a city near you soon. Mayor’s across the country have power envy, once one mayor achieves an amount of power over the people in his city every other mayor wants the same power. New York first, San Francisco next, then Chicago then your small city. Meanwhile freedom falls by the wayside.

Harvard Elites Want to Take Fat Kids From Their Parents

The Journal of the American Medical Association is advocating states removing fat kids from their home. This is an incredibly dangerous proposition that would give the state near dictatorial powers over parents. Michelle Obama is running around the country demanding children eat what she considers healthy, her recent 1,700 calorie lunch notwithstanding. Some schools are handing out scallions and radish slices as snacks because of Mrs. Obama’s meddling. The AMA is taking it one step further, advocating the government remove fat children from their homes.

A Harvard doctor argues the following:

Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children’s Hospital Boston, said the point isn’t to blame parents, but rather to act in children‘s best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can’t provide.

State intervention “ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting,” said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

“Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child,” Murtagh said.

There are any number of problems with this sort of elitist attitude. First, the doctor presumes to know what is best for everyone, as though it’s any of his business. Apparently his education  entitles him to make declarations about our lives. Not only that, if you don’t think properly or if you don’t behave as the state sees fit, the good doctor wants you to be re-educated. So not only will your child be ripped from you but you’ll also have to be re-educated as well. Once you accent to the government position, then they may let you have your children back.

This issue has nothing to do with fat kids or the alleged obesity epidemic in this country. This is a matter of freedom to parent as parents see fit, free of government intrusion. It’s none of the state’s business what I serve my children for dinner. Unfortunately Mrs. Obama and various medical elitists believe it is their business and they’re willing to use the power of the state to coerce parents into serving what they want kids to eat. Don’t do as the nanny state wants and they’ll take your kids. Make no mistake, the government will make that abundantly clear to parents. You can bet they’ll be using the government schools to push this agenda.

There is only one way to protect your children from the state and ensure your freedom to serve your children what you want for dinner. Homeschooling is the only way to keep the prying eyes of the arrogant government out of your dining room. It’s seriously come to this in America, we have to worry about our kids weight because the government might step in and rip them away from us. How have we gotten to the point where we have lost this much freedom?

If we cannot serve what we want for dinner, we aren’t a free people. At the end of the day, this is what Mrs. Obama and the elites want. They want to dictate to us every aspect of our lives and use the power of the state to enforce their dictations. This is what the Obama’s believe in, they’ve not hidden this from view. We must fight back against this nonsense. I don’t care how fat kids are, it’s none of the government’s business. It is not their place to set weight restrictions on children and parents.

Stimulus II, Islamic Terror Support & Food Police

I’ve watched with a certain amount of amusement the left’s reaction to the deal Obama cut with the Republicans concerning the Bush tax cuts. The left has gone mad even though Obama got the better end of the deal. Meanwhile, Obama himself can’t even bring himself to say anything nice about the deal, going on the attack against everyone in his presser last week. He attacked the GOP as a bunch of hostage takers while attacking the left as a bunch of sanctimonious purists. Obama got the better end of the deal though, which makes the left’s attacks so absurd. The GOP got to keep the Bush tax cuts but had to give up what amounts to extended welfare for the chronically unemployed. The cost is nearly a trillion dollars, two thirds of which are spending. Which of course means the real cost is over $600 billion, since taxes aren’t monies being paid out by the government. I’m not so sure avoiding a tax increase is worth that sort of dough. The right has been largely silent, much to my chagrin. But the left is enraged over this deal. The left is so in love with the idea of taking money away from the rich that they can’t see past keeping tax rates the same for a paltry two years. In their rage, the left is behaving as only the radical left used to behave. For a century the left has been willing to go along with incremental change. They’ve been willing to compromise because they know in the long run they’ll end up getting everything they want. It’s only been the extreme left, the Communists and other such leftists, who have demanded absolute purity and called left-wingers like FDR and LBJ traitors, phonies and most amusingly “right-wing.” Now they’re calling Obama a corporatist, a centrist and a sell-out but it isn’t just the extremists in the left-wing doing it. It’s rank and file left-wing Democrats who are the loudest complainers. There is no plausible explanation for why Obama is being held to a higher standard by the rank and file than other liberal Presidents. That is unless I care to turn the race card on the left, which I’m not willing to do. Obama cut himself a great deal, a liberal deal and it’s the liberals who are the most outraged. No wonder the moderates didn’t vote for these people last month.

WashPo: Swindle of the Year (Charles Krauthammer)
WSJ: From Audacity to Animosity (Peggy Noonan)

I’m not a Glenn Beck fan. I find his radio show irritating and I see through his bogus sales technique. While I find the left’s hatred of him amusing, it’s not compelling enough for me to pay a ton of attention to him. I did notice last week that the left was enraged because Beck accused 10% of Muslims of being terrorists. One of his assistants wrote a blog post defending Beck and I’ll have to say he makes a compelling argument. A terrorist is defined as someone who ‘uses or advocates terrorism.’ Which means that anyone who supports terrorism is in fact a terrorist. There was a poll done in 2009 by a respected polling company (ie: the study wasn’t paid for by Beck) which sought to discover the feelings of Muslims living overseas. The results suggest that Beck is mostly correct and the findings suggest that Islam is extremely dangerous. When asked whether they support attacks on US citizens 4% of people in Azerbaijan support terrorist attacks on the low end of the poll. On the high end 24% of Palestinians support such attacks. Some people in these countries had mixed feelings about terrorist attacks, so they’re at least somewhat sympathetic. 15% of Palestinians have mixed feelings, meaning nearly 40% either support or somewhat support terrorist attacks against the US. The range goes from 10% in Egypt to 40% of Palestinians. Asked whether they support al Qaeda’s attacks on the US the range is from 9% in Azerbaijan to 21% in Egypt. Those approving of attacks on US citizens working in Islamic countries, the range is from 7% in Azerbaijan to 30% in the Palestinian territories. Like it or not a good number of Muslims support terrorism, it’s likely in the 10% range. This is a religion with 1.5 billion people, which means 150 million of them are terrorists. If only 1% of those people would actually carry out a terrorist attack, we’re still looking at 1.5 million people willing to go forward with a terrorist act. Islam is a religion of war and conversion by the sword, it has been from its very beginning. Until we take this wicked religion and it’s true beliefs seriously, we stand no chance in the War on Terror. Beck is unfortunately right.

Stu Blog: Dear Media: Glenn was right. You were wrong.  Apologize.

The food police are at it again. Mrs. Obama’s childhood nutrition bill was passed by Congress last week. The bill continues the cradle to grave welfare that the left loves so much. Now taxpayers are not only going to foot the bill for breakfast and lunch for low income students, we’re going to buy them dinner as well. Next we’ll be buying them a suit of clothes, a car and a puppy dog. Mrs. Obama’s bill isn’t just about welfare, it’s about the nanny state as well. Her bill bans (I kid you not, it bans) pizza parties in school and bake sales that do not sell food the government declares as healthy. So much for the local control Democrats like to lobby for when it suits them. In any event, Mrs. Obama takes matters two steps further than all of this. First, Mrs. Obama claims we can’t just leave nutrition up to parents. Apparently parents aren’t capable of deciding what’s best for the children, the government needs to step in and make the decisions for them. We can’t just leave it up to those parents, parents are idiots after all. Government has to step in to stop these idiot parents. I find this sort of arrogance vile. Mrs. Obama also declared childhood obesity a ‘national security threat.’ If the term ‘national security threat’ hasn’t jumped the shark already it certainly has now. Fat children are as much a national security threat as the grandma’s the TSA has been groping for the past month. Mrs. Obama’s assertion is ridiculous on its face, as is her nutrition bill. For all the whining the left is doing about Obama, his administration has done more for the nanny state the left loves so much in two years than has been done since LBJ. School children are being fed by the government, the government is dictating what can be eaten in schools, parents are declared incapable and their job is taken over by the state, what’s not to love about this bill if you’re a leftist? If you love freedom, if you believe parents are more than capable of making decisions for their children, if you’re tired of cradle to grave welfare then this bill makes you sick to your stomach.

Breitbart Video: Michelle Obama on Nutrition: ‘We Can’t Just Leave it Up to the Parents’
Politico: Michelle Obama has new warning on obesity

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers