Archive for January 16th, 2010

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: What A Waste of Air

January 16, 2010

The Felon Mayor of New York just can’t get enough of poking his nose into everyone else’s business. The utter failure of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” is only one example of his warped sense of reality. He knows better then you do what is good for you, yours, and and all of humanity… Yeah right..!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg envisions a healthy world — one with no cigarettes, trans-fat, or guns — and he is going to make you healthy, doggone it, whether you like it or not.

As the mayor begins his third term (which, to those familiar with New York City term limits, is a whole other matter), he has found yet another menace to his utopia: salt. As with his other nanny state goals, the mayor’s vision goes far beyond his own backyard to cities and states across the nation.

His administration’s new salt initiative calls for food manufacturers and restaurants across the country to cut their salt content by 25 percent over the next five years. They claim that national cooperation is necessary due to interstate sales. For now, participation of New York businesses is voluntary, but this means little to those of us familiar with the war on trans-fat. That was originally voluntary too, but when restaurants didn’t jump on the bandwagon, the city government legislated them into submission.

While the benefits of lowering salt have been well documented in the fight against high blood pressure, not everyone is convinced of the benefits of across-the-board sodium reduction. There has been no large-scale study of the negative effects of cutting salt, and several medical researchers point out that there are too many variables to assume that this measure is good for everyone. Dr. Michael H. Alderman of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, likened the plan to “an uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.”

Several companies, including Campbell (which has already cut sodium in their products without government strong-arming), will not be joining the plan. They prefer to adjust their recipes according to what the market calls for — at least while they still have a choice.

SOURCE

Martha Coakley: Typical Democrat

January 16, 2010

As more and more comes out into the open it is clear that Martha Coakley is a true Big Government democrat. One can only hope that there are enough good Americans still left in Massachusetts to send her packing.

While Massachusetts is one of the bluest states in the country, Republican Scott Brown has come within striking distance of beating Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the state’s empty U.S. Senate seat. The special election will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 19, and in recent days Brown has gone from also-ran to serious contender. His meteoric rise demonstrates that the public has serious issues with Democrats, and particularly the health care bill.

Brown made a strong showing in a debate against Coakley in which he fielded considerably tougher questions than she did. While Coakley was asked questions about her campaign style and strategy, Brown was grilled about global warming and health care legislation. He held his own and offered a nice zinger when moderator David Gergen asked him if he would be willing to “sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and vote against the health care bill. Brown responded, “Well, with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”

Absolutely true, but try telling that to Paul Kirk and the Massachusetts Democrat machine. Kirk was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick to hold the seat after Kennedy died, and he offers a crucial vote on health care should the vote come before the special election. Kirk has promised that he will vote for final passage, while Brown has indicated he will offer the 41st vote to prevent it. But now that it seems sure that the election will pass before the final vote, Kirk and the secretary of state’s office, which oversees the special election, may be prepared to stall final certification of the results if Brown wins. They claim they will have to wait a minimum of 10 days for absentee and military ballots. This standard certainly wasn’t in play when Kennedy himself was seated the day after the special election in 1962.

SOURCE

Then, as if that isn’t bad enough we learn about this,

but the real clincher is the blatant mysandry shown for purely political gain, read about that HERE. H/T The Daily Gator.

Does anyone really want a sexist like that in any position of power? Do we really need another hysterical anti freedom and liberty type ala Schumer / Lautenberg in the Senate?