Sales of regular soft drinks have declined by almost 10% during the past decade according to Beverage Digest, but since when are facts an impediment to Barack Obama’s smug foolishness?
In a recent interview with Men’s Health Magazine, Obama conveniently scapegoats soft drinks, saying that a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.” He added, incorrectly, that “there’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else.”
Except that there’s not. In a devastating commentary today, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent notes that sales of regular soda have actually declined, as has consumption of added sugar as a percentage of daily calories, even as obesity rates increased. He shows that America’s increasing obesity is actually attributable to declines in exercise, as well as to increased fat and flour/cereal consumption. Facts, however, are small hurdles for Obama in his campaign to dictate every aspect of our lives and tax us in every conceivable way.
It occurred to us yesterday that we should request the names and affiliations of the 150 doctors in white coats (some hastily provided by the White House costume department) who appeared at President Obama’s latest ObamaCare infomercial.
Then, as if by providence, The New York Times provided us with one sentence that told us all we really need to know about these people who are going to fan out across the countryside to sell, sell, sell:
Many are members of Doctors for America, a new grass-roots organization that has advocated a health care overhaul and is an outgrowth of Doctors for Obama, which worked to help elect the president.”
Since the President said nothing new yesterday, we must assume that they’re going to sell the same old “hope and change” they were peddling before the election. That isn’t medicine, and it surely isn’t how to pay for it.
There’s a fair bit of schadenfreude going around the conservative blogosphere over the International Olympic Committee’s decision to deny the 2016 summer games to Chicago despite a personal trip by President Obama and the First Lady to Copenhagen to lobby for the Windy City’s cause.
I’m not quite as triumphant as many on the right. The reality is that an American city still missed out on the games. That in and of itself shouldn’t be a cause of celebration for anyone who wants to see their country honored.
That being said, the moment is an instructive metaphor for the Administration’s broader foreign policy. As late as last night, the speculation was that there was no way the First Family would make the trip without knowing for certain that Chicago would emerge the victor. Now we know that obviously wasn’t true.
So what we have is proof that the Administration believed that the force of Obama’s personality alone would be enough to woo the IOC members. In light of the outcome, I wonder how anyone can still take seriously the notion that the same strategy will somehow work in situations where there are legitimate national security interests at stake.
COPENHAGEN — The International Olympic Committee delivered a stunning blow to Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics, knocking it out of the voting in the first round Friday, leaving Rio de Janeiro and Madrid waiting for the announcement which city will host the Games. Tokyo was eliminated in the second round.
I.O.C. president Jacques Rogge made the announcement as the first round concluded, a surprisingly early exit, especially because of President Barack Obama’s whirlwind trip to boost the bid of his adopted city. Mr. Obama was the first American president to make an in-person appeal for a bid city and first lady Michelle Obama had also come earlier this week to lobby I.O.C. members for votes. Chicago’s bid leaders had worked for nearly four years and spent close to $50 million to bring the Olympics to the United States for the first time in 20 years. Chicago had been considered among Olympic insiders as a favorite to win the Games, along with Rio.
Meanwhile, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are still waiting on Obama to make a decision on whether he will send reinforcements, Iran has nuclear weapons, U.S. unemployment hit 9.8% today, the stimulus isn’t working, deficit spending is through the roof, your neighbor just lost his job… do we really need to keep going?
In a column published today, CFIF Contributing Editor Troy Senik argues that the Administration’s response to a nuclear Iran must be more definitive.
Below are some highlights of the piece:
The die has yet to be cast, but when the history of the momentous changes that beset Iran (and with it the world) in the early 21st century is written, this may go down as the first time in our history when Americans – who often wait too long to respond to a crisis – failed to react whatsoever.
“Last week, as President Obama gathered with world leaders at a United Nations session in New York, Iran announced the existence of a second nuclear site on its soil, this one’s location obscured deep beneath one of the country’s mountain ranges. For the second time in less than a year, a rogue nation was showing off its weapons capacities as the President held court about the need for a nuclear-free world. The net effect was something like holding a gun control rally in the middle of a gang fight.”
That’s the headline President Obama will have to live with if he doesn’t wise up to the unintended consequences of health care reform.
A Pennsylvania physician called into Mark Levin’s radio show this afternoon to share with the nation that the Amish — who oppose any form of insurance as a matter of theology — will not comply with any individual mandate that is part of healthcare reform.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we stop caring about individual rights.
Mere days ago, Barack Obama stabbed our Polish and Czech allies in the back by scrapping plans to locate missile defenses on their soil (on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland, no less). Jan Vidim, a Czech legislator, reacted by saying that “if the (Obama) Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it.” Obama’s transparent rationalization was that his intelligence showed Iran’s long-range missile capabilities were not as advanced as previously thought.
Now, however, we receive word that Iran has test-fired its most advanced missiles yet, which are capable of reaching Europe. Among other concerns, the missiles stand as a technological breakthrough because they are propelled by solid fuel, which allows for greater accuracy and potency than Iran’s liquid-fuel older models. This comes on the heels of disclosure last week that Iran has been operating a covert nuclear enrichment site, despite a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate report stating that Iran halted its pursuit of nuclear development in the fall of 2003.
In other words, Obama the geostrategic genius has again threatened American security in his pursuit of personal popularity amongst global thugocracies.
After chairing a United Nations Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, President Obama gets a nuclear reality check from CFIF’s Renee Giachino. Watch this week’s Freedom Minute below:
Yesterday, we remarked briefly and pointedly on the paranoid delusional loon who is the (appropriately) deposed former President of Honduras, one Manuel Zelaya. By President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (not to mention the Organization of American States), the tiny country has been threatened with economic ruin if it does not return the guy to power.
But what of the mainstream media that also supported Zelaya’s return. Well, at least the Washington Post read that Mr. Zelaya now claims to have been “bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by ‘Israeli mercenaries.'”
So what does good old WaPo write now? “Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States – starting with Brazil – from supporting anything other than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office. The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we)…”
We’re much too busy to go back and parse words, but we just can’t seem to remember the emphasis on “token” by any of the aforementioned in the past.
Based on some pretty solid understanding of the Honduras Constitution and the circumstances of Zelaya’s removal by people who actually know something about the country, we think he was removed from office legally and by the book. And now we also know, from his own mouth, that he’s certifiable.
Would a “token” return to office be in a straight jacket with Nurse Ratchet on duty?
Ben Smith of Politico.com, reporting on the resignation of Yosi Sargent (former NEA Communications Director who organized and participated in call enlisting artists to support Obama programs): “The White House has sought to downplay the story, which has gotten little mainstream media attention, despite heavy coverage on the right.”
Perhaps that would explain the latest poll findings on national attitudes toward the media, conducted by Sacred Heart University: “A large majority, 89.3 percent, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0 percent suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9 percent agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5 percent disagreed. Some, 3.6 percent, were unsure.”
Breaking News from the Miami Herald: “It’s been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He’s sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and ‘Israeli mercenaries’ are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.”
This, dear readers, is the guy that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demand be returned to power as President of Honduras.
It has come to our attention that Barack Obama, the duly-elected 44th President of the United States, today went before the United Nations and appealed for a New World Order.
Based solely upon that empirical evidence, it is your immediate duty to release from your institutions all who have been committed there based on conditions that were previously and erroneously diagnosed as “paranoid delusions regarding black helicopters and the world takeover by the United Nations.”
As should be eminently clear from the above-cited evidence, those unfortunates aren’t loonies at all, just visionaries decades ahead of their time.
Once that considerable space in your institutions has been emptied, you would be well advised to begin preparing more luxurious, though no less secure, accommodations for the 44th President of the United States, whose delusions thus far exposed are yet to be thoroughly diagnosed and categorized, but are being addressed around the clock by the absolute best psychiatrists at the CIA, many of whom have volunteered to work on their own time at their own expense in the interest of national security.
“AP: Ahmadinejad urges Obama to see Iran as friend”
Learned commentary thereon: Hey, you anti-semitic psychopath, the problem for your people and for ours is that he already does.
In related news, thanks to Canwest News Service, “Canada will boycott Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, saying his outbursts about the Holocaust and Israel are ‘shameful.'”
Learned commentary thereon: Canada, and only Canada?
Hello. Good morning. We need to use this opportunity for an urgent message to American business, large and small (and even tiny), to American agricultural interests, large and small, regardless of crop, if you are or are trying to sell overseas or buy overseas.
Your president is in the process of starting a trade war with the Chinese over imported tires. He is doing this on behalf of a union, no big news on that. It is, as most protectionist acts in the global village, silly and ill-advised. In this case, the potential upside is infinitesimal and the downside, in an unusually fragile economy, similar unto the scariest Halloween movie in which victims are picked randomly and abruptly for slaughter.
You may not be paying attention now, but you better. Trade wars cannot be contained. Trade wars cannot be limited to the original countries involved. Trade wars cannot be limited to specific products or commodities. You wanna talk political triangulation? Trade wars involve hyperdextrangulation squared.
The problem with trade wars you ignore is that one day you wake up to learn you have become collateral damage, through no fault of your own, never did one thing wrong in or to any country involved. Doesn’t matter. That’s what collateral damage is. You don’t want to become collateral damage. You don’t want to explain to your employees and farm workers and families and children that you are collateral damage.
You have three choices. The first is to call the president and tell him to stop this nonsense before it gets out of hand. The second is to write the president and tell him to stop this nonsense before it gets out of hand. The third is to do nothing and play foreign trade roulette. You do not want to take the third option.
Trust us. We know. We once, shall we say, had some proximity to advising on targets for collateral damage in other countries.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done Americans a big favor by posting a crystal-clear graph illustrating the dramatic impact of Obama’s deficit on the nation’s economy. What immediately stands out is that the nation’s budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) during the past 45 years has essentially remained in the +/- 5% range. Although politicians from both parties and political pundits from all perspectives have famously used the federal budget deficit as a bludgeon during that 45-year period, the CBO’s graph shows that it’s fluctuations have actually remained fairly moderate. Those Bush deficits for which he was justifiably criticized? They actually remained within post-World War II averages, and were headed on an improving trajectory. In contrast, Obama’s deficit trajectory shows an new, alarming, dramatic deterioration.
Obama ran on a slogan of “change,” but who suspected that this is what he would deliver so soon?
Following the news that the White House has been colluding with the National Endowment for the Arts (a public agency) to enlist artists to become propaganda tools for the President’s agenda on health care, the environment and other issues, we thought it would be prudent to remind readers that Congress earmarked $50 million for the NEA in the so-called Economic Stimulus Bill passed back in February.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, Members of Congress have surpassed those evil, greedy, no-good Corporate CEOs as having the least respected job in America.
Just one-out-of-four Americans (25%) have a favor[able] opinion of members of Congress. Seventy-two percent (72%) view them unfavorably. There’s some intensity in that perception, too. Only four percent (4%) have a very favorable view of congressmen, while 37% view them very unfavorably.
Even 56% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Congress although their party controls both the House and the Senate. Of course, their opposition pales next to the 86% of Republicans and 81% of adults not affiliated with either party who have an unfavorable opinion of Congress.
Topping the list for most respected profession are small business owners, with 94% of respondents claiming to have a favorable opinion of them vs. a mere 3% who expressed an unfavorable opinion. Journalists finished fifth out of the nine professions asked about with 43% viewing them favorably vs. 54% unfavorably.
I wonder how President Obama would rank the professions asked about in the Rasmussen Reports survey? He must least respect those “greedy Corporate CEOs” for making profits and creating jobs, right? Or, does Obama least respect those small business owners who stand to lose most from the policies highest on his agenda?
Then again, maybe Obama agrees with the public and their unfavorable view of Members of Congress, who failed to ram through his cap-and-trade and government-run health care schemes by the beginning of August as he demanded? No… he must least respect those biased journalists. How dare that Stephanopoulos press him on the fact that his health care tax is a tax when he says it isn’t a tax, because if it were a tax he again would be breaking his promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year?
It appears that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus failed to get the White House memo about tax increases not being tax increases prior to drafting his latest version of ObamaCare.
During yesterday’s now-infamous exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, President Obama insisted that the provision in Baucus’ bill that taxes families up to $3,800 annually for failing to get health insurance (aka the “individual mandate”) is not a tax increase and therefore does not violate his oft-repeated campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Hat tip to Chris Frates and Mike Allen of Politico for pointing out that the first sentence of Page 29 of the Baucus bill reads: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”
But that’s not all. According to Frates and Allen:
And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: ‘The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.’
So who’s lying now?
Here’s a hint: The President and his Administration are trying the same sleight of hand trick with regard to Cap-and-Trade … oops, Cap-and-Tax.
Barack Obama isn’t going to “tax” Americans earning under $250,000 to help subsidize his healthcare overhaul – he’s merely going to “penalize” them, which is apparently something altogether different and palatable.
During this morning’s Obamapalooza tour of the Sunday talk shows (intentionally ostracizing Fox News Sunday, in a most un-Presidential fit of spite), a prevaricating Obama bizarrely insisted that his healthcare reform’s penalty provisions for those without insurance somehow do not amount to a “tax” on Americans earning under $250,000, but rather a justifiable “penalty.” Throughout a large portion of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the two battled over this topic, with a visibly frustrated Obama even reproaching Stephanopoulos for reading Merriam’s definition of “tax” – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Instead of honestly explaining why his plan doesn’t meet this simple definition, Obama descended into pettiness and replied, “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”
The reason that Obama resorted to this contortion of logic is that he solemnly and repeatedly promised throughout his campaign that he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000 by a single dime. Knowing that he cannot afford his own version of President George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips – no new taxes” broken pledge, Obama will apparently stop at nothing in his Orwellian campaign of distortion.
Is he lying? Or is he honestly confused? Who knows anymore. But uninsured Americans earning under $250,000 can rest assured that the money they’ll be forced to pay under ObamaCare isn’t a “tax,” it’s just a “penalty.”
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on X
CFIF on YouTube