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.

Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billon for Obamas last year

Barack Hussein Obama lives like a king

Washington DC, Sept 30, 2012.  American taxpayers have spent $1.4 billion dollars on staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year. In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on their own royal family.

Do the math. That means we spend not just a little more... or even a lot more... but a staggering twenty five  times more entertaining and providing for our presidential family as the British do for their royal family.

We have always spent a lot of money on our first family, but the Obamas have taken this to new levels, smashing all previous records.

President Barack Hussein Obama, D-Kenya, has the largest staff in our history, and they get paid the highest wages. Despite a well publicized wage freeze early on, the President has continued to give his staff huge raises making them the highest paid serving any president in our history.

He has dozens of appointed Czars who are well paid and completely unaccountable to anyone but him. And the President keeps Air Force One in the air almost constantly, which consumes thousands of dollars per minute. And a lot of the time these expenses are to transport him around for fund raising campaigning, and not for any intended official purpose.

How much sense does it make to take a $2 million trip to raise $1 million? Well, it makes perfect sense if the taxpayers pay for the expenses, and you get to keep the proceeds for your reelection committee.

This is another story that the mainstream media refuses to report. Taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But that doesn't even come close to covering the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

In effect, the President can buy his own reelection, using taxpayer funds.

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,"

Here is a some examples of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:

• The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”

• The president can vacation for free at Camp David: and each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.

• When the President and his family vacations, which is pretty often unless he is in campaign mode, he likes to bring along hundreds and sometimes thousands of guests. Some of these are personal friends, but most are campaign donors. This imposes huge costs on the taxpayers.

• The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater. Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie.

• The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing. First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.

• The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer His dog Bo and his handler get flown to join the President on some of his vacations. Bo’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.

• The president has his mother-in-law on the White House payroll as a babysitter for his two teenaged daughters! And she gets to go with them on every luxury vacation and lavish trip.

Opinion: Obama is wrong to apologize for our freedoms

Our President Barack Hussein Obama finds himself in the uncomfortable position of trying to quell Muslim violence through apology, rationalization, and denial.

Long after the Libyan terrorist attack in which our ambassador was sodomized and murdered he still calls it a spontaneous and random act, and not a coordinated act of terrorism. He still maintains that the mass murder at Ft. Hood wasn't an act of terrorism, but rather is an example of workplace violence.

Obama's first response to this brutal and inhuman attack in Libya, was to blame it on some film made by an American, which Muslims find offensive. The film maker was even taken in for questioning, and he will be very fortunate if he isn't eventually charged with some hate crime.

But this film didn't just happen. It has been floating around since July.

The terrorists used this film as an excuse to whip up a crowd, and make it seem like the attack was just part of the outrage over the film. And Obama took the bait. The simple truth was that there were demonstrations in 23 different Muslim cities over that film, but it was only in Libya that the demonstrators brought mortars and RPGs with them, and actually took hostages then brutally murdered them.

Also, it was no coincidence that this attack came on the anniversary of 911. Everyone understood this except President Obama, who still believes it was a spontaneous attack, caused by this film. Obama's response was to blame the film for inciting the violence, rather than blaming the terrorists. He effectively apologized for our freedom of speech, saying it had been abused.

Whenever there is some horrific act of Islamic terrorism committed, the people on the radical left fringe in America (i.e. the Democrats) are quick to remind us that every group has terrorists.

And they tell us that Christians are no exception.  Then they quickly mention Eric Rudolph or Tim McVie as proof that Christians are "just as bad."  Because those are the only ones they can find. This is supposed to somehow justify or excuse Islamic terrorism.

All reasonable people can agree that there are criminals in every culture and ethnic group on earth. And those criminals who are motivated by religious beliefs are often called terrorists.

Citing examples of a handful of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist terrorist DOES NOT negate the fact that intolerance and hostility towards others is a widespread belief among Radical Muslims, and a rare exception for everyone else.

Like everyone else, all Muslims are not the same. There are religious Muslims, and fundamentalist Muslims, and fanatical Muslims and some who just aren't that religious. Muslim clerics tell us that "not more than 15% of all Muslims are Jihadists."

Now think about this number. 15% of 1.5 billion means 225 million people!

And it only took 19 of them to kill 3,000 people on 911.

This also means that 85% aren't Jihadists. So their point is valid. they really are a minority. But this is a distinction without a difference when the entire civilized world has to worry about, and actively plan for, and devote extensive resources to defending themselves from this minority.

I should make this point clearer. In every case, terrorism is rare. Even for Muslims. However, only one culture actively approves, encourages, supports, and glorifies this behavior, while all the others condemn it.

I don't think you can deny that Islam encourages this behavior if you read their Qu'ron. There are many passages in it that extol the reader to behead infidels and beat their wives.

All religions have had things like this happen in their past, but every religion except Islam has undergone some sort of reformation. Islam still dwells in the seventh century... in fact Islam 100 years ago was much more tolerant of others than it is today. Islam has regressed, while other religions have moved forward.

Here is the critical differences between Islamic terrorism and terrorist acts committed by other groups:

• Radical Islamic terrorism is inspired and led by their clerics, not by their secular criminals. This is terrorism sanctioned and encouraged by a religion.
• Radical Islamic terrorism is much more common than terrorism done by other groups. So common that even their overall large population can't explain it.
• Radical Islamic terrorism is celebrated, supported and encouraged by a LARGE minority of their people. Not the small fringe like other religions, but a LARGE minority.Polls taken in Islamic nations following 911 showed that large minorities, if not outright majorities of the people thought "America got what it deserved."
• Just look at how each culture regards their terrorists. We hunted down Tim McVie. We tried him and convicted him of murder, then we executed him, and no one complained. Meanwhile, the most popular name for newborn males in Saudi Arabia following the 911 terror attack was "Osama." 
• Compare how tolerant each group is. We can say anything we please, and Obama won't send a drone to kill us. At least not yet. We can own a Koran or a Torah and not get sent to prison. Our wives can drive cars, and wear sleeveless shirts... The Islamic culture of intolerance breeds an acceptance of terrorism by a large percentage of their people.
• It probably should be noted that Radical Islam is at perpetual war with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheists, Agnostics, and even OTHER Muslims who aren't sufficiently devout. Their normal conversational tone is outrage. They truly believe that everyone else must conform to their ways.
• In general, Muslims believe that their religion MUST be respected by all, while they give absolutely no respect to anyone else's religion. This is so arrogant, that it should make you sick.
• Absolutely no one gets offended as easily as a Muslim can, and no one else thinks that being offended gives you the right to riot, burn, maim and murder. There were no Christians rioting when the liberals put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art. We didn't even riot when they demanded that the art be publicly funded. All we did is write angry letters to the editor. Quite a difference there.

Citing a few random acts of Christian terrorism is NOT a proper defense for the tens of thousands of violent acts committed by Radical Muslims in defense of their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, defending these people is a crime against humanity.