Pet Projects and Wasted Money: the Lunchtime Saga Continues

During the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt had an impasse with his Interior Secretary Harold Ickes. Ickes came to the president to argue against a hare brained scheme of the First Lady.  She wanted to build socialist commune style towns in the mountains of West Virginia.  There people would make traditional handcrafts, living off whatever pittance consumers decided to throw their way.  As Arthur Schlesinger wrote, the pragmatic Roosevelt assured Ickes that he knew it would not work. But, he needed to get Eleanor off of his back.

Arthurdale and Eleanor turned out, as predicted, to be wastes of taxpayer dollars.  The project of Michelle Obama, designed to force unappetizing meals into children while encouraging exercise, has as well.

According to the Washington Examiner, Obama cherry picked information from a Centers for Disease Control report.  She claimed that her program had caused a 43 percent drop in childhood obesity, which would have been a breathtaking change, were it true. The CDC report actually concluded that no appreciable change had taken place.

Schoolchildren often rejected the new mandated lunches.  Districts across the country reported higher levels of waste.  Meanwhile the 850 calorie limit imposed for a time left athletes, who need hundreds of calories more than the average student, underfed.

Had Obama merely stopped at encouraging more exercise, perhaps trying to find ways to get schools to allow more time for it, that would have helped.  But, being an Obama, she had to move into pointless social engineering which undermined the original goal.

Obama and NASCAR...What Could Go Wrong?

In one of the worst of a series of bad moves for the Obama administration, someone had the bright idea to put Michelle Obama front and center in front of a .........NASCAR crowd?

What's next? Beer summit between Barack and Charlie Daniels?

Michelle Obama, she who was first proud to be an American only when her husband received the nomination, was booed heartily by the crowd in Florida. Just like Herbert Hoover met with boos in 1932 when he attended baseball games.

She ostensibly was on tap for a pretty worthy cause, honoring troops and their families. The swing state timing of this appearance was certainly political, and had she met with roars of approval, Democrat pundits would have eagerly embraced this as evidence that Obama has more support than we think.

Barack himself, who believes that these NASCAR fans cling unreasonably to guns and religion, (among other fairly condescending remarks) was booed in 2010 by Boy Scouts, of all people. This is not a new phenomenon for the Obamas.

I wonder what bright individual thought that Obama and NASCAR would mix. NASCAR fans do not tend to be leftists. And don't give me the race issue either. Had Allen West or Herman Cain done the same, they would have received raucous cheers.

Michelle Obama should try opening up CPAC next year. She might get a better reaction.

Michelle Obama or Marie Antoinette? Who Was More Out of Touch?

The American media for the most part has been hammering the president on his lack of, well, almost anything presidential. Comments from former supporters parallel the complaints of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 2008. The president looks overwhelmed, incapable, and out of touch. But his worse public relations problem may be his wife.

First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.

Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.

The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.

Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.

Time to Eliminate Mike Huckabee From Presidential Consideratin

Former arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in my mind, eliminated himself from serious discussion of a presidential nomination. He did so by backing Michelle Obama's nanny statist crusade against obesity. She is trying to attack freedom of choice and freedom of speech. She left us with the chilling line that the issue "just can't be left up to the parents."

Huckabee, a formerly obese man, backed her 100% and criticized Sarah Palin for objecting to Big Government making our food choices for us. He should know as well as anyone that weight is a lifestyle issue. It boils down to how much you eat and how much you exercise. Leftists don't believe in individual choice or responsibility, so they would like to use any other excuse to impose their will upon a nation.

MAD TV once ran a skit parodying those late night infomercials. The ad "offered" a can't fail diet plan of "Eat less, move more." The overweight woman kept asking if it was a trick. Would it cost money? The narrator said that if you eat less and move more, it actually saves you money. Michelle Obama convinced Congress to pass a $4.5 billion law that will target obesity. That costs all of us money in a time when our nation does not have it. Government needs to leave obesity alone. It is not their concern.

Obamas: $4 billion to End National Security Threat of Fat Kids, $135 million For National Guard on the Border

Michelle Obama got her pet project through. It will cost us over $4 billion and put the president in charge of what snacks go into each school's vending machine. Unconstitutional, but when has that ever mattered to him.

Meanwhile, the funding for the paltry National Guard presence at the border $135 million, has run out. Troops will be withdrawn in February rather than July as planned.

Michelle Obama says that fat kids are a threat to national security. Obviously the Obamas think overweight children are more threatening than drug cartel assassins, threats to local law enforcement, gang infiltration of the Southwest, etc.

The Washington Examiner story is here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/world/2010/11/obama-administration-plans-pull-back-national-guard-much-border

This Is Not a Joke: Michelle Obama Claims That Overweight Children Threaten National Security

There are few people in power in the federal government right now who are more absurd than Michelle Obama. The First Lady is looking very hard to make herself relevant to DC and the nation at large. Like many before her, she has latched onto a cause.

Laura Bush's passion was literacy. She wanted kids to read more books. Education and wide ranging reading expand the mind and enhance teh value of the free citizen on an individual basis.

Michelle Obama has bought into the notion that obesity is one of the greatest problems to ever strike the United States. Apparently when the vast majority of people have more than enough access to food that can sustain them, it's a bad thing. But don't worry, MO has a plan. Congress just passed a $4.5 billion spending bill to address childhood obesity. That'll cure it right?

In the speech after the bill's passage, she actually said that childhood obesity is a national security problem. Nothing that Joe Biden has said has ever approached the strangeness of this assertion. She claimed that if one in four kids were obese, then we would not have enough to recruit for the armed forces.

Let's see. Two million were in the military at its peak during the Cold War, outside of Korea and Vietnam. Probably 2.2 million or so today. We are a nation of over 300 million. That means that less than 1% of the population is in the military at any time. They can probably safely draw from the 75% of the nation, according to her numbers, that are not overweight.

She also said that the issue just cannot be left up to the parents. This is a red flag. Reducing freedom for the sake of the children is a common tactic of nanny staters. You never know precisely what their end game is, but you can bet that their "concern" does not stop with the children.

In all honesty, there are other reasons why kids might be overweight. Let's look at the elimination of recess and physical education classes. Let's look at the long bus rides taken by kids in consolidated school districts. Consolidation also reduces the opportunities to play team sports. Let's look at an antiquated time change structure that makes it dark at 4:30-5:00 PM in the winter. When are kids supposed to exercise if they so desire?

How Can Republican Victories This Fall Help Kill Obamacare?

This question came up in a Facebook discussion yesterday. I made a casual comment that Republican victories could help kill Obamacare and got a fair question. How?

First of all we have the court cases challenging the notion that the federal government can force you to purchase a commodity because you are alive. This runs counter to any principles or ideals Americans generally hold, as well as the Constitution, but without this part, Obamacare does not work. The Virginia case has gone farthest. This case will end up in the United States Supreme Court. Only five justices have consistently shown a dedication to restrained government and the Constitution. If one gets sick or dies, a Republican Senate can ensure that we keep socialists off the bench. It can also prevent any attempt by Obama to enlarge the court to get what he wants.

Second comes the matter of funding. All money bills start in the House of Representatives. The best way to kill a bad policy is to either vote it out or simply defund it until it dies of its own accord.

Finally there is the matter of states' rights. Missouri voters by an overwhelming margin (71% of the vote, more than Manchin got in West Virginia in 2008!) put into law a proposition that nullifies the federal government's power to compel anyone to purchase health insurance. This high percentage shows that mainstream Democrats do not even support this mandate. Other state legislatures have voted to opt out of and resist other facets of Obamacare. A leftist Congress can punish states by witholding highways funds. A Republican Congress will sympathize and work with them to get rid of this bad law.

Republican gains will help destroy Obamacare. Even if they cannot overturn it in one fell swoop, they can kill it with the death of a thousand cuts. Since 60% of the people still hate Obamacare and only 40% approve of Obama at all, this looks increasingly likely.

Oh and we hope everyone enjoys the fact that the First Lady is vacationing in Spain with seventy-seven secret service and forty of her best friends on your dime. And no, she is not in the Holiday Inn, either.

The Audacity of $500 Tennis Shoes and Obama's Managed Mediocrity

I remember driving down a country road in Hardy County once. We passed by a nondescript house with a nondescript truck in the front. My wife commented, "believe it or not, those are some of the richest people in this county."

In their time, whatever method they used to make their money, I imagine that the government did not spend a lot of time telling them how and how not to earn it. Obama plans to unveil a bewildering array of new taxes and regulations that will hamstring corporations and investors alike. The goal lies in reducing the dynamic nature of American capitalism and imposing Obama's dream of managed mediocrity.

Managed mediocrity means that most people have to learn to live in a less prosperous America. Why? Because Barack and Michelle Obama say so! No one should get rich off of good old fashioned risk and reward. That is just too American. And nobody ever accused the Obamas of being American. Perhaps they hold US citizenship, but their ideas do not come from the traditions of our country.

It all comes back to the shoes that Mrs. Obama wore to a charity event. Five hundred dollar sneakers. Only rich people can afford to spend so much on their feet, unless there is a crying medical need. I suppose they got rich in the approved liberal way, instead of the evil capitalist way, investing in companies and putting Americans to work.

In Obama's new America of Managed Mediocrity, we will not be able to achieve the nouveau riche dream of wearing $500 tennis shoes. Only rich liberals can do that.

Obama's sacrifice

I am tired of hearing the line about how the time is over where we can drive what we want and eat all that we want in America. These remarks have been considered economic references by the Obama camp. What if he means to control American diets and strike a war on obesity. Perhaps there will be a quota on the number of miles you can drive forcing you to walk to work. How should we know, we don't know anything about Obama, except that he has a contempt for the lifestyle of many "bitter" Americans.

This week I didn't eat anything special, the majority of my meals came from making a large pot of chili on Monday then reheating it for several lunches and a dinner. If I had my choice of what to eat, I would have gone to a steakhouse, Outback or Texas Roadhouse if there was one, but as long as I am traveling I would go to a Ruth's Chris or a Morton's. Then my 12 year old truck broke down so I wasn't driving all over the countryside, burning gas for the heck of it. In fact, I drive about 3-4 miles per day on most days, except when my job requires me to run additional errands.

So what does he think I am going to sacrifice? Perhaps the people that eat at Ruth's Chris on a regular basis will be the ones sacrificing. Of course, if they stop eating there and the restaurant closes, I won't be able to eat there on the few occassions where I venture out for a top of the line steak.

Then I look at the men making these sacrifice accusations and ask "what are they sacrificing". How much money is being spent on the election? By the time it is all said and done, I would say at least a Billion, maybe more. Obama doesn't drive a hybrid to campaign stops, he is in a huge bus, with several SUVs and a press bus following. Thousands and thousands of miles driving vehicles that get under 5 mpg. Surely inside they are eating from McDonalds dollar menu. No, they are eating gourmet food, steak, lobster and whatever else Michelle deigns worthy of her diet. So we are supposed to sacrifice, but the "leaders" are supposed to live like kings of old? That's not the America that I want to see. That's not a change that I hope for. I don't want people being brought down to eating leftovers and living paycheck to paycheck, so that others can share in the fruits of my labor. I want to be able to see the fruits of my labor. To know that I worked hard and have the benefit of choosing what I eat, where I live, what I drive, and what I do to earn those rewards. I want my kids to have the opportunity to choose their lives. I am willing to be accountable for my actions and learn from the choices that I make. I hope enough Americans are willing to make that same statement on Nov. 4.