by: the Common Constitutionalist
The other day I heard a commercial as I was listening to the radio. It’s aired quite often, so I didn’t pay much mind to it. The ad pertained to obesity. Something about the large percentage of children that are overweight.
It’s an epidemic, they say. “They”, being the so-called experts. Experts like, say… Michael Bloomberg or Moochelle Obama.
Well, I had heard public service announcements like these thousands of times. They are always the same. They don’t ask for anyone to donate time or money to the cause; they just seek to “inform” us morons that our children are all whales.
Here’s the kicker. About an hour later, on the same radio station, I heard another “public service” ad. No, it wasn’t another announcement of how fat our children are. This one was on childhood hunger.
It explained that too many children are going to bed hungry. Evidently, it too is an epidemic.
Okay, I thought, what the heck! I literally laughed out loud at hearing it.
My next thought was of the management at the radio station and how they must not monitor the stuff. Why would they? I’m sure these PSA’s help pay the bills.
Now, I can’t be the only one that hears these ads and sees the irony. It’s comedy gold.
So which one is it? Are our kids big fat Gila monsters or are they starving little waifs like Oliver twist? “Please, sir, may I have some more?” (The previous statement has more impact when said with an English accent. Just a tip.)
Is it possible that these two epidemics are occurring simultaneously? Like we see in films depicting medieval England – where the Royals are behind the gates gorging themselves and the serf class are dying in the streets, eating dirt sandwiches, without the bread.
I decided to go online and watch a few ads and read some reports on both hunger and obesity in America. A few of the hunger ads are as follows:
One report claims that one in five in the U.S. is struggling with hunger. Of course the ads focused on “the children”. Another claimed that: “when a government and a model focuses on the well-being of its people, obviously it’s children would be a priority, but unfortunately the United States is not a country with that kind of model.”
George Snufullupigus of ABC news reported that one in six Americans and one in four children start their day not knowing if they will have the food they need.
A feeding America ad, with the help of some Hollywood stars, asked if someone could tell the hungry where their next meal would come from?
Okay, I get it. There’s hunger in America and its epidemic.
But at the same time other experts are telling us that obesity is becoming the number one health problem in America. And of course, as with the hungry, it’s all about “the children”.
Michelle Obama claims obesity is one of the most serious threats to a child’s future. She also claims it is an epidemic. (yeah, it’s a distant number two to her husband’s policies.)
One study estimated that adolescents visit fast food restaurants approximately twice a week.
The Children’s Defense Fund claims that nearly one in three children in America are overweight or obese.
Okay, enough is enough. So I ask again, which is it? There is no way that one in four children can be hungry and one in three are big fatties.
Maybe it’s that the children are so fat they are just always hungry. Or maybe it’s that both these highly exaggerated and exploitive claims are a crock.
As it is with most of lefty causes, these ads and reports are intended to do but one thing. That is to guilt people into charging the government to further control our behavior.
For a story that the White House (“happened a long time ago“) and our last two Secretaries of State (“what difference does it make?” / “more important things to worry about“) insist is basically over, the Benghazi attack continues to make headlines. CNN is reporting that at least three Al Qaeda operatives took part in the 9/11 raid. The administration knew within the first few hours of the assault that it was the work of radical Islamist terrorism. How long have they known that the specific organization that attacked America in 2001 was directly involved?
Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN. One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack. Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose. If the AQAP members were dispatched to Benghazi, it would be further evidence of a new level of co-operation among jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, counterterrorism analysts say. According to one source, counterterrorism officials learned the identity of the men and established they had spent two nights in Benghazi after the attack. Western intelligence agencies began trying to track the men in the aftermath of the terrorist attack, but were always behind in their manhunt.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
For the past few days the liberal press has been abuzz with the rumor that the Los Angeles Times is for sale.
Actually, it’s not just the times, but all eight of the Tribune papers. They include, not only the LA Times, the country’s fourth largest paper, but also the Chicago Tribune, the ninth largest, as well as the Baltimore Sun, the Hartford Courant, and the Orlando Sentinel.
The problem is the right-wing evildoers; the Koch brothers are rumored to be interested in the purchase.
All the papers combined are estimated to be worth about $623 million. That’s a drop in the bucket for the billionaire conservative brothers.
I guess the staff of the LA Times isn’t taking the news very well. They claim there hasn’t been propaganda reporting, and there aren’t topics that are off-limits to the staff. This according to Times reporters. (Stop laughing – it makes it harder to continue reading).
The Blue Texan wrote: “I just don’t see how this will work. California is an extremely reliable Democratic state, which hasn’t gone for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, and L.A. is a liberal city… It makes sense that California’s largest newspaper, therefore, will reflect left of center politics.”
For, of course, there is no other kind of politics.
But I’m sure the left would hail the news if mega-billionaire Bill Gates decided to buy Fox news and turn it into the “Common Core” network. That would be okay.
Many outlets described the rumor as an invasion of liberal territory, as a takeover of a once eminent serious newspaper and would threaten the left. (I told you to stop laughing).
Another liberal reporter wrote that he couldn’t remember a case of the newsroom fretting that a corporate suitor might wreak havoc by pushing staff too far to the left. (Try to control yourself).
How would that be possible being the journalism schools are filled with leftists, both professors and students alike. They wouldn’t have been hired in the first place if they were already leftists.
Last week Steve Lopez of the LA Times took an informal poll of all staff members. He said: “raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Austin Beutner’s group.” No one raise their hands. (Beutner is a former Democratic mayoral candidate).
“Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Rupert Murdoch.” A few people raise their hands.
“Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by the Koch brothers.” About half the staff raised their hands.
This past Tuesday LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a motion to pull city pension money from the investment firms that own the LA Times if they sell the publication to buyers who do not support “professional and objective journalism.” (All right, I understand if you can’t control your laughter).
Councilman Denis Zine and Councilman and LA mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti also signed the motion.
Ah… big brother… Nothing like the threat of the government strong-arm. That’s the American way!
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh weighed in, with his usual sarcastic wit, to advise the Koch brothers. He said if the brothers were serious about the purchase, they should get promises, in writing that the liberal staff threatening to quit if they purchased the paper, actually would.
My guess is that this is just a rumor and won’t happen, but we can always hope and wouldn’t it be fun to watch the left meltdown over it.
Arrests of illegal immigrants crossing into the United States have nearly tripled in recent months — in anticipation of Congressional efforts to enact comprehensive immigration legislation, border patrol agents told CBS News Wednesday.
“Once the first group gets across, they call their family, they call their friends and let them know, ‘Hey the time is right, come on over,’” Border Patrol agent and union representative Chris Cabrera told CBS News.
In March, 7,500 illegals were arrested in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas — which includes McAllen — Cabrera told CBS News. That’s up from 2,800 in January.
In February, nearly 4,800 illegals were arrested in the Rio Grande, the local news website The Monitor.com reports.
In fact, agents in McAllen used their station’s carport to process nearly 900 illegals caught over three days in March, according to the Monitor.com.
And border patrol agents have become so concerned about overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that they’ve complained to local and federal officials, the Monitor.com reports.
Saudi Arabia last year sent the Department of Homeland Security a written warning about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombings, according to an online report published Wednesday.
The British-based MailOnline claimed it interviewed a senior Saudi government official with direct knowledge of the document. The unidentified official allegedly told MailOnline the warning was based on human intelligence developed in Yemen and was separate from the information Russian law enforcement officials gave to their American counterparts in 2011.
The warning “was very specific,” and indicated that “something was going to happen in a major U.S. city,” the website quoted official as saying, adding that it “did name Tamerlan specifically” although it did not name Boston or suggest a date for his planned attack.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
We’ve heard the arguments by both Republican and Democrat alike regarding immigration. We must have comprehensive reform, nothing less will suffice.
There was even a new national survey conducted recently to tell us so. The survey was conducted by the Winston group, and commissioned by “Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)”.Ahhh… ATR… The Grover Norquist group. Grover Norquist; friend of the Muslim brotherhood. Love that guy!
The survey found that 85% of Republicans either “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the requirement that “illegal immigrants in the U.S. register for legal status, pay fines, learn English, pay taxes and wait in the back of the line to apply for citizenship, until every person who is currently in line to legally enter the U.S. gets in.”
Well, if that’s true, we have more low information citizens than I thought.
The main problem with these polls is they don’t give people enough time to think about what they are being asked and they lump too much information into one question.
I’ve always supported the back of the line bit and learning English. However, most of the illegals aren’t sneaking in with a job waiting for them. So how would they pay the fine? Almost none of the illegals would make enough to even pay taxes, so if they file a return they would end up getting money back due to earned income, child credits, etc. So it would be another net loss for our country.
Yet many Republican lawmakers still support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”.
As an aside, whenever you see or hear the word comprehensive, it’s code for – we’re hiding a bunch of crap in here we don’t want you to find.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) said on April 19: “given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.” Gaps and loopholes? If we actually followed current immigration law, there would be no gaps or loopholes. The gaps and loopholes are created by not following the law.
Our old buddy Sen. John McCain said a new computer that tracks visa and passport information would actually keep better care of who is entering and leaving our country. Surprisingly, I agree with Johnny, but it has nothing to do with sealing the border and legalizing the gazillion illegals. And a new computer and fancy technology is only as good as the as those operating it. Garbage in – garbage out.
Then there’s Lindsey Graham (Gramnesty) who chimed in with his usual pearls of wisdom: “You’ll never convince me leaving them in the shadows, some who may be here for terrorist purposes, is smart national security” Graham said: “We can’t shut America off… I think what we are doing is going to make situations like Boston less likely to happen.”
He went on to explain that having 11 million people hiding in the shadows in America is less safe than bringing them out and registering them as registered aliens and eventual citizens.
And there is the new buzz phrase, “hiding in the shadows”. No doubt it was focus group tested.
They are not hiding in the shadows. They’re right out in the open. They even have rallies in American cities. There aren’t enough shadows to hide 22 million illegals. What… 22 million? I thought Sen. Graham said it was 11 million.
Well, as with anything the government is involved in, feel comfortable in at least doubling whatever figure they toss out and you’ll be in the ballpark.
So the “Gang of Eight” trotted out its 844-page monstrosity entitled “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744).
I have a better idea. Courtesy of Mark Levin; here is the official true conservative illegal immigration bill:
“Close the Border and Get Back to Us”
Eight words and it’s done.
Health Care Politics: As ObamaCare rolls out, some of its biggest backers from labor to D.C. lawmakers are having second thoughts. It’s a sign that the idea of ending this national nightmare isn’t about to go away.
Late last week, the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers dropped a bombshell on the Obama administration, not only withdrawing its support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but also demanding its repeal.
The reason: ObamaCare subsidizes low-paid non-union workers in small companies that don’t insure their employees, while leaving union shops with ObamaCare’s higher health care costs and a 40% tax on Cadillac plans by 2018. That’s a “death warrant” for unions, as the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle noted.
“These provisions jeopardize our multiemployer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers and, in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multiemployer health plans,” said union President Kinsey Robinson.
It’s the latest shoe to drop in the Great Buyers’ Remorse of ObamaCare’s biggest backers.
The call from the roofers was hardly the first shot fired on this terrible piece of legislation.
Last January, Sheet Metal Worker Local 85 in Atlanta asked for new subsidies for lower-paid union members.