Michelle Obama calls fat people a national security risk

Candy Crowley, 362 pound CNN Reporter

Washington DC, Oct 25, 2012. First Lady Michelle Obama has repeated her claim that fat people a national security risk.

The First Lady sees obesity as a greater than the threat of terrorism or the threat of rogue nations getting atomic weapons. 

Many objective observers have noticed that the First Lady is a hypocrite for dining on lobsters swimming in melted butter and ribs slathered with barbeque sauce while criticizing others for being overweight.

Michelle Obama prefers pants with elastic waistbands, and her waistline clearly shows that she does not practice what she preaches.

Her critics have pointed to Michelle Obama's spread at her Super Bowl party last year, which was almost exclusively foods high in sugar and salt content. Another example of "do as I say, and not as I do."

The net result of her forcing public schools to serve food that children refuse to eat was a doubling of trash collections from school cafeterias, and a huge increase in children smuggling snack foods into our schools.

Michael Moore slimmed down to 418 pounds

If nothing else, the people on the radical left like Michelle Obama are hypocrites who demand that others follow rules that they themselves refuse to follow.

Former Vice President Al Gore, a professional global warming hoaxster, wants you to stop driving SUVs, because they emit too many unburned hydrocarbons and are bad for Mother Earth. But then he flies around in his private jet, which emits more greenhouse gasses in one trip than you car will in 30 years of driving.

But at least one Democrat Activist takes Michelle Obama's advice seriously. Michael Moore went on a crash diet recently and dropped 22 pounds to bring his weight down to a more flattering 418 pounds.

Mr. Moore says he plans to continue the diet until he reaches his goal of weighing "under 400 pounds."

Obama Tries New Debate Strategy: Childish Insults

Take your pick. mature intelligent man or childish grinning idiot

Boca Raton FL, Oct 23, 2012. Governor Mitt Romney won the third and final presidential debate last night making it a clean sweep for the challenger. The debate topic was foreign affairs and the President completely failed to defend his own string of foreign policy failures and simply resorted to repeating "I killed Osama" a total of twenty six times in ninety minutes.

The Kenyan born President insulted, patronized and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to be channeling Joe Biden, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking and grinning in Romney’s direction. At one point Governor Romney got fed up and said "attacking me isn't a foreign policy."

In contrast, Governor Romney calmly endured the childish abuse and retained a serious demeanor all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. After three debates we have heard absolutely nothing of Obama's plan for a second term. We have to assume he plans to do nothing different during his second term, which will guarentee the same poor results he had during his first term.

While the Obama camp and the faithful at MSNBC claimed victory as we expected they would, they also stepped up their calls for riots if the President lost the election. As the President's poll numbers have been sliding in recent weeks, the Obama fans have been ramping up their threats of riots and violence if the President loses the election.

Obama adopted the Biden debate style

Not only have Obama voters been making open threats that they will riot and cause mayhem, they have also been caught making direct threats to assassinate Mitt Romney, prompting the Secret Service to announce that it was “aware” of the threats and would “conduct appropriate follow up if necessary.”

With only two weeks left in the campaign, desperation is really setting in for the radical left.

Opinion: How to Fix The Illegal Immigration Mess

There really is a way to fix this problem, but it probably will never happen. It won't happen because there are too many powerful forces who actually WANT more illegal aliens here. 

And to be more specific... I am talking about the following special interests:

• Labor intensive businesses who want cheap labor (like agriculture, construction, food service, and hospitality)
• The Democrat Party who sees immigrants as part of their voting base. Their hope is to bring in as many as possible, then grant amnesty so they can vote for their candidates.
• The Republican Party who also wants cheap labor help their business elements, especially those that are fighting unionizing efforts.
• The Catholic Church for whom these people represent the only real growth they had lately. These are the people who fill their pews and have become their most devout new members.
• The Hispanic Community in America, even those who are here legally, see this as a fast way to bring friends and relatives here to join them. Virtually 100% of these people want "immigration reform" which means amnesty, and this group is our largest minority now.

I say these are powerful groups because the vast majority of ordinary people, whenever they are polled, say they want illegal immigration stopped. And despite decades of debating this problem it just keeps getting worse. This tells us that these special interests are getting their way in preventing the routine enforcement of our law.

It is also important to remember that all politicians, whether they are Republican or Democrats, are whores, who will do anything they can to win votes. And they love having it both ways, so they will go "on record" voting for tough immigration laws but then never provide adequate funding to actually enforce the law properly. 

A good example of this is how they vote for a border fence, then don't vote enough funds to actually build it.

So while we all generally agree that legal immigration is a good thing, and illegal immigration is a bad thing, we can't agree on a solution to this problem. One side refuses any type of amnesty for those already here, and the other doesn't seem to want any sort of restrictions on immigration.

So how can we fix this mess?

The very first step is to reach a national consensus on what we actually want. This means we might even have to have a national plebiscite on the matter. We need to agree on how many immigrants we want admitted every year. And once we do that, we need to adjust our immigration quotas accordingly, then simply rigorously enforce the law that exists.

The key here is we must bring these people in legally and process them properly. The current free for all system must end. Unless we enforce our own laws, we will have no control over the number of immigrants flooding our labor markets, whether we are admitting criminals, or whether we are introducing diseases that were previously under control.  (if your ancestors came here through Ellis Island, then they were probably screened for TB and Influenza.)

Personally, I feel our immigration quotas are much too low. We actually need these people to come here, and by so many of them being illegals we are making assimilation more difficult for them. And that lack of assimilation is a problem that will come back to haunt us. We could end up like France or Germany in that regard, and that just isn't a good place to be.

We need these people because our birthrate is too low. Our children have children much later than we did, and they have fewer children.  And abortion has become widespread and commonplace.

The net result of this is that the ONLY real population growth we have is through immigration.

Without it we could have a negative population growth like Italy, Spain or Greece. And the net result of negative population growth is bankruptcy due to a shrinking tax base.

That last point is beyond dispute. If you WANT all these generous government benefits to continue, then you need a LARGER taxpaying workforce, and not a smaller one. This is just simple math, and not politics.


The solution to this problem is:

1. Decide what you want to do
2. Raise or lower the immigration quotas accordingly
3. Enforce the Law rigorously

This solution is so simple that it probably will never happen. The problem doesn't exist because the issue is impossible to solve, it exists because we lack the will to fix it. Once we find the will, it can be fixed.

And no matter what you do, you really do have to make some sort of provision for "those who are already here" because mass deportations would just not be acceptable. 

Politically, I am what you might call an arch conservative, but I will promise you that America can not "round them up and ship them out." It just will never happen. We have to legalize those who are good citizens (which means almost all of them) then deport those who aren't, then slam the door shut and really mean it this time. We also need to raise our quotas to match what we actually want to come in every year, and not to what the special interests want.

UPDATE! Today's Price JUMPS AGAIN!

San Franciso, Oct 6, 2012.  An unprecedented spike in California gasoline prices showed signs of easing on Friday, with some supply-stricken service stations preparing to reopen and retail rates poised to ease after topping $5 a gallon in many places.

This week's abrupt price spike blindsided the state's car-loving consumers and left some retailers in Los Angeles scrambling for supply, causing wholesale prices to surge and driving up pump prices by an average of 36 cents a gallon.

Gasoline Price up 244% Since Obama Sworn In

"I told you to buy a Chevy Volt. You just didn't listen!"

The average price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas in California, a state which publishes their weekly gas prices on their official state government website, have soared to a new high of $4.57 per gallon.

The current price represents a 244% increase over the price in January 2009, when President Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, was sworn in. During the 2008 election campaign, the President had vowed to reduce gas prices for Americans. It would be accurate to say he hasn't met that campaign pledge, and has in fact gone in the opposite direction more than doubling the cost for Americans.

Of course, the President really has no direct control over gasoline prices but he can initiate policies that will drive the price up or down. President Obama's policy of banning new drilling off the east and west coast, banning drilling in the Alaskan ANWR region, and banning the Keystone Pipeline have created a domestic shortage of oil which increases our need to import more.

Prices in Santa Monica yesterday, October 4, 2012

Also, his inflationary policy of devaluing our currency ("quantitative easing") encourages foreign oil suppliers to demand more dollars for their oil. After all, if you keep making your dollars cheaper they have no choice but to raise their prices.

Those prices on the chart above are average prices for unleaded regular gas in California. In some places the prices are much higher, and naturally the higher grades cost a lot more too.