Mississippi State Student Shot to Death, Obama Unavailable for Comment

Via-JWF

Posted by Jammie

A Mississippi State student was shot and killed over the weekend. Don’t be surprised if you haven’t heard about this since at least one of the victims identified is white and the three suspects are blacks, and could look like Obama if they were his sons or something.

CORZINE ORDERED $200 MILLION TRANSFER OF MF GLOBAL CUSTOMER FUNDS

Via-Free Beacon

OBAMA’S “WALL STREET GUY” HAS RAISED AT LEAST $500,000 FOR REELECTION CAMPAIGN

Jon S. Corzine, MF Global Holding Ltd. (MFGLQ)’s chief executive officer, gave “direct instructions” to transfer $200 million from a customer fund account to meet an overdraft in one of the brokerage’s JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) accounts in London, according to an e-mail sent by a firm executive.

Official Crusade

Via-Weekly Standard

Michelle Obama’s theology of the body.
BY MEGHAN CLYNE

So religious leaders and employers have no business opining on what a woman does with her body. Unless, that is, Michelle Obama gives the all-clear. Because when it comes to eating habits, physical activity, cholesterol, and weight, the White House is telling churches it’s their obligation to instruct women (and men and children) what to do with their bodies.

This is the principle behind Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move Faith and Communities” initiative, launched in November 2010 to enlist faith-based organizations in the anti-obesity crusade. At events across the country, Obama has celebrated religious organizations that have heeded her call, lauding everything from Jewish community gardens to Muslim sports tournaments.

Why Is Observing Obama as a Marxist Verboten?

Via-American Tninker

By Bill Flax


Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice." Obama's justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.

Still, most Americans would deny Obama's Marxist outlook, mistaking the term's meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao. Marxist theory informed many of history's most murderous tyrants, but Obama's brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge. He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.

Further confusion revolves around textbook definitions as production remains primarily private. We still exhibit generally free markets, although our economic liberty rapidly erodes. If socialism connotes complete public ownership of society's productive infrastructure, and capitalism represents purely private property with minimal state interference, then few examples of either exist.

Court sides with property owners over EPA

Via-AP

The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.

DID BECK JUST UNCOVER THE ORIGINS OF OBAMA’S NEW DOCUMENTARY?

Via-The Blaze

It is a matter of religious liberty

Via-JS On Line

By Timothy Dolan

..On Jan. 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraception. There was a miserly religious exemption, for the parish church, for example, but it provided no protections for institutions such as Catholic charities, hospitals and universities. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to serve those outside our faith community. The regulation also gives no consideration for the individual faithful in the marketplace.

People of every political persuasion and creed, or none at all, saw how wrongheaded this was. They came together and stood united against this attempt to deny or weaken the religious freedom upon which our country was founded.

On Feb. 10, the administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed "without change," despite the language of "accommodation" issued by the White House the same day, leading to more questions than answers. The mandate to provide the controversial services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite public outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

Clearly the administration has attempted to reduce the free exercise of religion to a "privilege" arbitrarily granted by the government. The exemption is too narrowly defined because it does not exempt most nonprofit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily...

HHS Expands Unconstitutional Birth Control Mandate

Via-Townhall

by Guy Benson

...Not only must all universities now provide insurance plans that cover "free" birth control to their employees, they are also required to do the same for students. Perhaps we should call this latest maneuver 'the Sandra Fluke provision.' Note how Kathleen Sebelius goes out of her way to advance the specious argument that the White House's "accommodation" for religious employers provides a meaningful escape hatch from the policy. It does not. Religious employers and institutions are still forced to pay for insurance packages that must cover birth control at no charge. The US Catholic Bishops aren't fooled by this clumsy attempt at misdirection and remain dead-set against the mandate and its phony religious liberty "protections:"...

Barack Obama, Oil Prices and Reality

Via-Townhall

by Derek Hunter

...When he was running for president, then-Sen. Obama basically told people President George W. Bush owned Exxon/Mobil and Vice-President Dick Cheney’s pacemaker was a secret implant from Halliburton that contained a hidden valve to control the world’s oil supply. Now that prices have gone through the roof and he needs to hide, the president presents himself as a helpless observer at the mercy of evil oil speculators.

MSM IGNORES OBAMA'S FRIDAY HHS MANDATE EXPANSION

Via-Big Journalism

by DANA LOESCH

...It is absolutely a mandate to abridge conscientious objection by way of the First Amendment right to freely practice faith. It doesn't "protect religious liberty" simply because Sebelius says it does; especially when the financial reality undercuts such a preposterous argument. The media blackout only assists by providing cover.

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

Department of Justice shifts medical marijuana strategy

it avoids possible embarassing DEA raids at the White House :)

The Obama administration was accused of being soft on drugs Monday after the Justice Department released new guidelines telling federal prosecutors not to target people involved in the medical use of marijuana where state laws permit it. ........

Read entire article here

picture from American Digest

Assault in the first degree Part 1

As much as the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms spawns passion amongst Americans, according to polls the most cherished of all liberties we enjoy is freedom of speech. Nothing will so insight the people of the United States as learning that someones has had this freedom trampled on.

This is what makes the current administration in Washington so frightening. Not only do they attempt and succeed in some cases to shove through programs and laws without normal discussion or debate they have shown a propensity to stifle opposition. As an example of this tactic let's look at just a couple of items from the current health care debate.

First remember it was the President himself who insisted that the Congress and Senate pass health care reform bills before they took their recess this past August. There is no "crisis" that demands this type of extraordinary haste, The only reason for this insistence's was to forestall the coming public debate everyone knew the "reform" would engender. It was a calculated attempt to shove through massive legislation on a very important national issue and to do so by stifling debate and free speech.

If it were just that you might just call it politics as usual, which I believe was a big deal back during the campaign, but not so important now evidently. If you don't think that attempt to stifle the debate was an attempt to ram through unpopular legislation, consider the graph below from Pollster.Com which is a compilation of all polling on the issue. .







Had those bills been rammed through without a public discussion the entire debate would now be over except for the negotiating in conference. The American public obvious concern if not outright outrage over the proposed bills would have been totally mooted by the fact that the bills would have already been passed and the pressure excerpted by WE THE PEOPLE would have been easily ignored. It would have been water under the bridge. They may still ram this through, but they can not now do it without the knowledge that a majority of Americans do not support it. But it is worse than just political maneuvering.

In September Humana sent out a flyer to it's customers explaining that certain aspects of the health care reform bills being debated in congress would drive up prices on Medicare Advantage Program which is a portion of their business. They had every right to do this the flyer was accurate and they are allowed to communicate with their customers, even if they are a profit making entity, something which our government seems to now consider a crime.

Senator Baucus (D-MT) took offense to a company criticizing his bill by telling the truth to their customers and promptly unleashed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on them. As the Wall Street Journal put it:

Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana's yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.

This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law. For months Humana and the wider insurance lobby have been among ObamaCare's most prominent cheerleaders, with the exception of Advantage cuts and the public option—even though they'll be converted into government contractors in the business of fulfilling whatever Congress happens to dictate. The insurers are willing to give up their remaining business autonomy because Democrats intend to mandate that all consumers buy their products—but as with Advantage now, that means government will control the funds upon which the insurers' survival depends. They'll have no choice but to genuflect, or else the political class will pull out the tire irons.

Humana merely made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, and now CEO Michael McCallister had better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make him an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.

Regardless of what you may think about this bill or the health care debate in general, this is not how the US Government is supposed to operate. They are not meant to be dictating to either an individual citizen their speech or a companies communications with their customers. The US Government is supposed to be a servant of WE THE PEOPLE not our rulers.

This week Price Waterhouse Cooper issued a report on the Baucus bill which was commissioned by the insurance industry. The report among other things showed that health insurance premiums could go up substantially if the bill is passed. What was the governments response to this challenge? From Politico:

The long-simmering tension between insurers and congressional Democrats is erupting into open warfare, with lawmakers stepping up their push to revoke a key federal protection for the insurance industry.


Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday called for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry...

This is government by intimidation and thuggery. This is also just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. It is worse than this and getting worse. I intend to do a series of post on this assault by our own government on the American people. I know that the insurance industry is not a very sympathetic entity, but they like every other institution and individual needs to be protected from an out of control government. If you don't think this can affect you read this.

It is time Americans took back their country from their government while we still can.

The Self-Censorship of Liberals: It's Too Scary to Look

from American Thinker


When the BBC finally ‘fessed up last week to the Global Warming Fraud -- without admitting how much they aided and abetted the scam over ten years or more -- a liberal gent I know was shocked. He had sort of gritted his teeth and tolerated my skepticism over the years, but he never wanted to judge the whole fraudulent business for himself, although he had plenty of qualifications to do so. But this fraud was obvious. You had to want to close your eyes not to see it. I say that with all appreciation to the scientists and bloggers like Anthony Watt, who doggedly did the hard work of double-checking the fraud.

The global warming fraud is a lesson in the self-censorship of liberals, their fear of finding out the truth. It's even worse when you see that same self-inflicted blindness over and over again. Millions of liberals didn't want to know about Obama before the election. They sleepwalked into that voting booth, like an old Disney cartoon with Donald Duck holding his arms out in front and with his eyes firmly shut. But they do that a lot, just shutting out sizable parts of the world and not exercising basic adult intelligence in the minefield of politics. They are sucker-bait, user-car-salesman-bait, and I assume that somewhere in Nigeria a whole sweatshop of con artists with PCs is sending out thousands of emails to American liberals, and just raking in the dough. I mean, liberalism is a guarantee of gullibility, and how else do con artists earn a living? You gotta go where the suckers are. Maybe they just go for Sierra Club members, on the theory that people who are willing to believe in cute little polar bears that are desperately stuck on a melting ice floe will fall for anything.


If the Left had the simple integrity to open their minds they would have found out exactly what you and I knew a long time ago about Mr. Obama -- and the country would have averted a real risk of a catastrophe. It wasn't hard to find out. Even Obama Himself said he wasn't ready to run for Prez a couple of years ago. A lot of smart people did real journalism on Obama's background -- but none of them work in the media, of course.


Obama Himself is not to blame for his gargantuan ego. Chances are that he's been flattered outrageously by all his mentors from toddlerhood onward, most of them being whacky white liberals. That might be why he surrounds himself with all those Leftocrats: They are the best sources of ego fodder. They share his fantasy life, where he's always the Hero. He doesn't need any achievements. Obama is Nobel Prize material just by being Himself. By accepting the Big Prize without a blush he made his endless self-love obvious to the whole world. All the political jackals are laughing up their sleeves, because now they know the key to this White House. Watch ‘em operate on this guy in years to come.


This is not new. Courtiers used to surround little child princes and princesses with years of flattery, resulting in Roman Emperors like Caligula and Nero, and French Queens like Marie Antoinette and Dominique de Villepin. Human beings drift out of touch with reality when they are constantly poodle-licked with flattery. They become easy to manipulate, which is why all the cynical courtiers constantly polish the egos of their little princes. They still do.


Those five Norwegians on the Nobel PC committee acted perfectly in character. They wanted to shower love and glory on Our Guy, and by gum, they sure did, and made themselves look like priceless fools in the process. With any luck they may have destroyed whatever credibility the PC Prize had left, after Planet Gore flamed out. Obama's preemptive Nobel Prize made even the New York Times a tad defensive -- I've never seen that happen in the whole Glorious Reign of Pinch.

It all goes back to psychological denial. In psychiatric lingo "denial" -- blocking out big chunks of reality -- is considered to be a "regressive" defense. People in denial are childlike, and have a hard time telling the difference between truth and lies, especially when the lies are delivered by a black man with an Obamanesque baritone. When adults in positions of power and responsibility regress so profoundly, this country is in real danger. And it all happened because millions of liberal voters were just not willing even to Google "Obama." They took him at face value, and swooned. Nine months later some of them woke up. It's those voters who deserve the blame, and all the teachers and professors who taught them to be as blind as they are.

Now the Nobel PC Committee finally jumped the shark, and a real sense of shock seems to ripple through the Left. Even the pundits were baffled, and for once in their lives they didn't all say exactly the same thing in perfect harmony. They were shocked by a momentary bump into that ole' brick wall of reality, but it will be a long time before they admit it. Remember how long it took for the Left to dump Bill Clinton? They needed a "transitional object," in psychiatric lingo, a new comfort blanket -- Obama -- before they could junk their previous one. Bill Clinton with his voice cracking with maudlin emotion and saying "I Caaayyyr For You" was good enough to keep them hooked for a couple of presidential terms. But then he got white hair (for real, not a tint job) and they had to find another blankey. Obama is It. He's the One.

That's what you get when race, gender and LGBT status become your sole standards for judging people. Simple honesty, competence and integrity are left behind. It happens wherever PC is spoken. Obama wasn't the only fraud running on the Democrat side. John Edwards and Hillary couldn't stand the light of day either. Dennis Kucinich was the only one with integrity, and he was disqualified for other reasons.

I'm sorry to say that millions of otherwise normal people, mostly on the Left, seem to be badly regressed. Don't ever let them cross the street without a trustworthy adult to hold their hand. Don't give ‘em a credit card, or too many lollypops, and for heaven's sake, don't ever let ‘em vote.

Who knows what might happen if they elect a nut job?

GREAT LINES

The “to do” list on Saturday Night Live will now be amended to include “Win Nobel Prize for Doing Nothing;"



Jennifer Rubin
Source

" not part of my inner circle "

There has been much discussion on the Internet and now in the media about Bill Ayers telling a conservative blogger that he wrote "Dreams of My Father" Although I find this both interesting and telling, I doubt much will come of it unless Ayers pushes it which I doubt he will .

What I do find telling though is why this encounter took place in the first place.

As you remember when the controversy first came up last year regarding Bill Ayers relationship to Obama the MSM downplayed it and refused to truly investigate their connection. Some work was done on it by conservative writers and bloggers but it never really broke into the public consciousness.

Obama with the media's help downplayed any connection he had with Bill Ayers and after McCain finally put him on the defensive about it, Obama said:

"This guy is not part of my inner circle, he doesn't advise my campaign, he's not going to advise me as president,"

Well OK but then why was Ayers in DC to run into the conservative blogger in the first place? He was a featured speaker at the same Educational Conference in DC with both the Under Secretary of Education, Dr. Martha Kanter and The Secretary Of Education Arne Duncan, a fellow Chicagoan,

So Bill Ayers may not be a part of Obama's "inner circle" advising him as president but he is sure running in the same circles with those who are.

We Remember

A war of necessity turns out not so necessary

By: Michael Barone

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

But that was nearly seven weeks ago. Now it appears that Obama is about to ignore the advice of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom he installed as commander in Afghanistan in May, after relieving his predecessor ahead of schedule. McChrystal, who came up as a Special Forces officer, is an expert in counterinsurgency. Not surprisingly, in his Aug. 30 report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he recommended a course that seems certain to require a substantial number of additional troops.

During the first three weeks of September, Obama held one meeting on the "war of necessity." Then on Sept. 20, Obama appeared on five talk shows to push his health plan. The next day, Bob Woodward published a story in The Washington Post based on a copy of McChrystal's report, which the newspaper later posted in redacted form. Woodward made it clear that McChrystal would request more troops. When questioners pressed him about the war, he said he was rethinking his Afghanistan strategy.

The rethinking looks a lot like a rejection of his general's recommendations. McChrystal said last week that he had spoken to Obama exactly once since he was appointed. But many people, notably Vice President Biden, seemed to be speaking against his recommendation in a three-hour meeting Obama held with advisers on Thursday, Oct. 1.

According to The Washington Post, "senior advisers" challenged some of McChrystal's key assumptions. "One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, 'A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day.' " Sounds just a bit condescending, doesn't it?

Among the assumptions, wrote the Post reporters, is "that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al Qaeda." That's the same assumption Obama made in his speech to the VFW 44 days before.

On the day of the White House meeting, McChrystal was in London to speak to a foreign-policy group. He was asked whether Biden's approach, to downsize the number of troops and focus on killing selected terrorists, could work. "The short answer is no," McChrystal said. "You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."

The next day, on his hastily scheduled trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics, Obama managed to squeeze in 25 minutes for McChrystal. Presumably McChrystal defended his "I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions."

What to make of all this? First, Afghanistan was never a "war of necessity." It was, like all our wars, a "war of choice." Franklin Roosevelt could have avoided provoking Nazi Germany and imperial Japan; eminences like Joseph P. Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh were arguing that we could survive, perhaps uncomfortably, in a Nazi-dominated world. But Roosevelt chose to risk war in order to rid the world of evildoers.

Declaring Afghanistan a "war of necessity" was a way for Obama and other Democrats to attack George W. Bush for choosing, in their view unwisely, to wage war in Iraq. But now when it comes time to wage the "war of necessity" in the way that our carefully selected general recommends, it turns out not to be so necessary any more. Not when Democratic politicians and Democratic voters are shying away from it.

It's not clear yet that the "senior advisers" who were mocking McChrystal's assumptions will prevail. In his 25 minutes on Air Force One, McChrystal may have used his knowledge and experience to convince Obama that his judgment was better than that of the armchair generals that the president had listened to for three hours the day before. Maybe Obama will choose to wage his "war of necessity" in the way the general he selected believes is necessary for us to succeed.

But I wouldn't bet heavily on it -- not any more, in fact, than I would have bet on Chicago's chances of hosting the 2016 Olympic games.

Food Fight: An Unappetizing Development

From American Thinker

Our regulation-hungry leaders in Washington are acquiring a new taste in governmental control. A sumptuous feast of tempting regulatory delicacies awaits them under the guise of improving the safety of our food supply. Is this a well-meaning but horrendously misguided attempt by the administration to "protect" the public through draconian regulations heaped onto farmers and small food processing businesses? After all, leftist policy-makers are the masters of unintended consequences.

Radical environmentalist organizations such as the Sierra Club have long fought battles alongside the EPA against individual farmers for producing "animal emissions" and farm dust. Now the EPA is using the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as a weapon against agriculture. The latest and most egregious example of this is the EPA enforcement of the act to turn off the water supply to the farmers of the San Joaquin valley. Arguably the most essential of America's "bread baskets", it was producing as much as 12% of the nation's agriculture, at least until the EPA decided that the protection of the three-inch Delta Smelt was more important and deserved the water more than the farmers. Now up to 40,000residents are out of work and short of food. They are waiting in lines up to five hours long for food packages marked "Product of China". Farms are going bankrupt and being abandoned in droves. Obama has so far denied requests to reverse the EPA's decision.

There are 1,320 officially-designated endangered species in the US. Each one can be used to regulate and restrict agriculture as the EPA so deigns. I agree with George Carlin, who used to say, "Species disappear at a rate of 25 a day, regardless of our behavior. Let them go gracefully."

That brings us to the two-edged sword of the FDA. I have worked with the FDA (known to insiders as "the Agency") for over thirty years, so I know from personal experience that it can be a force for good in protecting public health. It has restrained many a pharmaceutical and medical device business from illegal or unethical practices. On the other hand, it has destroyed good companies and prevented beneficial products from reaching the market, many times based on the political agenda of the Agency at the time. In this case, the sword is being directed by Obama political appointees and the legislation currently before Congress. It is pointed directly at the heart of the food industry.

There are two major pieces of food legislation in progress, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 2749), and the Food Modernization Act of 2009 (HR 875). These bills unleash a cornucopia of new regulations and harsh penalties on small farmers and food processors. Fines of up to $7.5 million can be assessed and sentences of up to ten years in prison can be imposed for violations of the new regulations. All farms and food businesses must pay a mandatory annual FDA registration fee of $500. There are fears that the new laws will make growing organic foods illegal by outlawing the use of manure and requiring chemical pesticide application to all crops. Other frightening interpretations of the provisions in these bills include potentially mandating genetically-modified (GM) crops and "terminator" seeds that will require farmers to purchase new GM seeds each season.

One thing is certain. The Obama administration is fundamentally changing food regulation to more closely resemble the current regulations on pharmaceuticals and medical devices. New FDA draft guidance documents have been issued on food regulation, with more to come. These automatically become law in two years with no congressional approval required.

One example of the unsustainable burden being placed on the food industry is the FDA's new draft guidance document "Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Fresh Tomato Food Chain". Don't let the term "guidelines" fool you. This is an Agency code word for "enforceable regulations". Under this guidance document, all growers must develop written procedures for risk mitigation strategies, employee hygiene practices, employee training and other employee policies, internal quality audits, and process validations. They must keep written records of environmental assessments, water usage, pest control, crop production practices, corrective action processes, and the conducting of employee training and internal audits. All of these documents and records are subject to unannounced FDA on-site inspection. Violations will result in fines and/or imprisonment.

These types of regulations are very difficult for established pharmaceutical and medical device businesses to follow. Many of them must hire legions of professional consultants (mostly retired FDA inspectors) to interpret Agency laws. Imagine the difficulty that will now be faced by a local farmer or a corner bakery. Many will be driven out of business.

Let me temper these concerns with the fact that we are unarguably in need of stronger enforcement of our existing food regulations. Particularly required is increased inspection of imported food products. Currently, FDA inspections are conducted only on 1% of all foreign meats, fruit, and vegetables. Even fewer foreign raw food ingredients are inspected. Under the Obama administration, the number of inspectors is being increased. But at the same time, the ravenous regulatory bureaucrats have been unfettered and are champing at the bit.

Is it possible that our benevolent Democrat-controlled legislative and executive branches would want to control the American populace through acquiring power over one of our basic needs for survival? To paraphrase an old adage, "once you've got them by their stomachs, their hearts and minds will follow".

The use of food to control and enslave populations has been evidenced throughout history. The most well-known example of this was the Stalinist revolution. Of course, he blatantly starved to death millions of Ukrainians who attempted to rebel against his authority. But he also used food to control the people of Soviet Russia. In the book Food Nations, an essay entitled "Food and the Politics of Scarcity in Urban Soviet Russia, 1917-1941" by Mauricio Borrero, states:

In the first decades of Soviet power, a "politics of scarcity" developed in response to the government's claims to control all aspects of food supply (production, transportation, and distribution) and its inability to perform these activities in a consistently reliable manner...In the context of persistent shortages and widespread social upheaval that was sometimes spontaneous (Civil War) and sometimes state-induced (the Stalin revolution), the government's control of food supplies became one of the "sticks" by which it sought to restore order and enforce discipline...Thus, with sharply reduced food stocks at its disposal, government rationing policies alternated between notions of food as a right to be given to all and as a privilege to be awarded by the state to selected groups of people.

My suspicions of the motives of our President are aroused by his famous pre-election quote: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want ...That's not going to happen (under the Obama administration)."

Forget government-run healthcare, forget "cap and trade". Those issues don't matter to people who don't have enough to eat. Government regulation and control of our food supply may be the ultimate assault on our freedom.

Video

Two Possibilities Here

The problem is that what Obama and those close to him see as normal, the majority of the American population see as radical. They face the prospect along with their allies in the MSM of labeling a majority of Americans as somehow out of touch, or accept the fact that they need to conform to the norms of Americans society. I think they will continue to demean Americans in an attempt to somehow "shame" us into submission. This ultimately will fail not because we are not compassionate but rather that they are not, and they do not even recognize it. The political correct gig has about run its course.

from Power Line

Those who are sympathetic to the Obama administration maintain that for some reason, it is astonishingly bad at "vetting" nominees. Thus, it keeps nominating people who hold extreme--not to say bizarre--views, and, when outsiders point this out, the administration is obliged to retreat in confusion.

Others argue that the Obama administration is radical to the core, and when it appoints extremists--some say weirdos--to high government positions, it is merely carrying out its ideological agenda. The case of Kevin Jennings, appointed by President Obama as Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education--"safe" seems the salient word--supports the latter view. Jennings, a homosexual activist, has a checkered history to say the least, as Regular Folks United records:

If you were looking for a tutor or even a babysitter for your child would
you hire...

...a person who founded and ran an organization where instructors had
explicitly described to middle school youngsters how to perform homosexual
sexual acts?

...a teacher who had been told by a boy of 15 that he had been sexually
abused by an older man, but did not tell authorities or his parents or do
anything to protect the youngster from the abuser?

...a man who publicly stated that he was inspired by a man who was the
number one proponent and promoter of pedophilia in the country?

...a person who wrote the forward to a book called Queering Elementary
Education?

...a person who has publicly, in writing and in speeches, ridiculed and
demeaned people of faith?

...a person who has publicly, in writing, encouraged young people to defy
their parents and religious leaders?

Let's follow up on just one of those points, which seems especially relevant in view of the Roman Polanski controversy. Obama nominee Kevin Jennings actually said that the founder of NAMBLA--the North American Man-Boy Love Association--Harry Hay, is "[o]ne of the people that's always inspired me." If you're not aware of it, NAMBLA is an organization that advocates sexual relationships between middle-aged men and teenage and pre-teen boys.

Why, exactly, would a President put someone who has advocated homosexual relationships between middle-aged men and high school or junior high school aged boys in charge of "safety" in American public schools? Who would do that? It's not as though Kevin Jennings' advocacy of such exploitation is a secret; on the contrary, this is his career, his claim to fame, his qualification for federal employment. One can only ask: is the Obama administration completely insane?