November 14, 2018

Totalitarians Without a Clue

Rebels Totalitarians Without a Clue are alive and well anywhere in the Corporate United States – Maine is no exception.

First, we see where there will be on the ballot in Maine in November, Question 1:

“Do you want to create the Universal Home Care Program to provide home-based assistance to people with disabilities and senior citizens, regardless of income, funded by a new 3.8 percent tax on individuals and families with Maine wage and adjusted gross income above the amount subject to Social Security taxes, which is $128,400 in 2018?”

I have known for some time that it was only a matter of time before the majority of citizen-serfs would eagerly and willingly come around to living the communist life. History, and there are almost NONE who read it anymore, has repeatedly shown us that the road the U.S. has taken will eventually lead to communistic rule. It always does. But we are totalitarians without a clue, as were those who came before us.

Of course, none of us really know what passage of such a communist mandate will actually mean. The finer details are never revealed and are written in such a way that lawyers and the lawmakers are the ones who benefit.

There have been many tests to see if the braindead masses in this country are ready for communist rule under a dictator. We certainly have fallen head over heels for fascist rule – Fascism ALWAYS leads to communist dictatorship. But

Don’t Go Look! Truth is Too Scary for you! You Can’t Handle the Truth!

As near as I can tell, the passage of this ballot initiative is a government mandate – meaning that you and I would have no choice in the matter (land of the free and home of the brave?). Much like the fascist rule of Obamacare – NO CHOICE. GOVERNMENT FORCES IT ON YOU BECAUSE THEY CAN! and you like it.

There is never a consideration that some of us don’t want government health care. As a matter of fact, some of us don’t want any of the BIG PHARMA murdering unHEALTHy care thrust upon us now. The government and all the totalitarians doing the bidding for the lifetime crooked politicians can go stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Slaves in this country are incapable of understanding that these initiatives aren’t about health care, no more than Obamacare was about health care. It’s about controlling you and making sure you always remain needy, oppressed, and in desperate need of corrupt government.

And who is pushing this communist manifesto of mandated universal government controlled unhealthy care? A group called the Maine People’s Alliance (might as well be the People’s Republic of China Maine). Check them out. See what they are and what they support. The problem is, most people, not just in Maine, are primed and ready for communist rule. Bernie Sanders was and is a test pilot. More and more fake, political candidates are posing as communists.

Another exemplification of communist influence in Maine comes as we discover that a group called beaherofund.com are asking you to donate $20.20 (get the number?) to fund ANY CANDIDATE except Susan Collins if she votes for Trump’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court.

But that’s okay. Brainwashed into believing that a democracy is a good thing and when it’s convenient the fascist government allows the totalitarians to take action against a candidate, even if it involves severe ridicule and disparagement, groups can do this sort of thing.

However, take a look at who is behind this movement. It shouldn’t surprise you that it’s communists.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

And for those who really don’t have a clue, Susan Collins out to retire into a potato barn someplace in northern Maine and never be heard of again. So don’t tell me that I am biased because I support Susan Collins. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A friend of mine says that Maine has to deal with two kinds of ticks – the deer tick that carries Lyme disease and infects humans, and a lunatic named Susan Collins who also infects humans with her political viruses and parasites.

Share

Hijacking Dietary Guidelines (of all things!) for Politicial Gains

USDA’s Switch From Science-Based Nutrition Advice to Green Agenda Harms Americans

Health Policy Expert Warns Against Politicization of Diet Advice

Issues Such as Climate Change Don’t Belong in Government Policymaking About Healthy Eating, Says Health Policy Expert Jeff Stier

New York, NY/Washington DC – The naming of an “environmental nutritionist” to a top USDA nutrition post is drawing fire from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

In an op-ed published in Friday’s Des Moines Register, “Iowan’s USDA Appointment Raises Concern,” Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier writes, “The appointment of Iowa’s Angela Tagtow, a controversial ‘environmental nutritionist’ and local food activist, to head the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is causing more headaches for the agency, already facing criticism about politicization of federal nutrition advice and its consequences for public health.”

Stier earlier criticized the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and its work to establish new recommendations for federal nutrition policy. Stier’s concerns have been widely echoed over recent months, given the DGAC’s mission creep towards environmental activism. The DGAC is meeting this week in Washington.

In that context, “the appointment of ‘food crusader’ Angela Tagtow to a USDA position responsible for assessing and implementing the Committee’s recommendations is cause for serious concern,” says Stier.

In the op-ed, Stier writes, “By using the government’s official dietary guidelines as a tool to advance her well-established environmentalist agenda, Tagtow would undermine the USDA’s mandate – to provide families with science-based, impartial nutrition advice. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services administer the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which makes recommendations regarding the congressionally mandated Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines, currently being revised, are the basis for Federal food and nutrition programs and welfare benefits such as SNAP and educational campaigns, including MyPlate (formerly the Food Pyramid). The USDA touts them to be ‘authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.'”

Stier writes, “According to Politico, recent DGAC meetings raised eyebrows because ‘hot-button issues, such as diet and climate change’ are being discussed in an unprecedented way. The committee has even dedicated one of five subcommittees to ‘Food Sustainability and Safety’ to discuss how the food we eat contributes to climate change, and how the government should recommend changes to our diets based on those concerns.”

While Stier agrees that maintaining a food supply and environmental protection are important, he says, “these issues don’t belong in discussions of healthy eating. But that hasn’t stopped the DGAC from delving deeply into them over the past year. In the January meeting of the DGAC, committee member Miriam Nelson gushed about the importance of promoting foods that have the “littlest impact on the environment,” and invited testimony from sustainability expert Kate Clancy, who argued it would be “perilous” not to take global climate change into account when dispensing dietary advice.

Stier’s earlier criticism drew rebuke from the USDA, for being “premature.” In April, a USDA spokesperson seemed to back away from the row by minimizing DGAC’s role in policy-making, saying ,”the committee is still in the early stages of its work, so it is premature to guess what their recommendations might be, and even more premature to speculate about what will be included in the final dietary guidelines.”

That seems to have changed, Stier notes. “But the appointment of Tagtow to the USDA office responsible for not only developing and promoting the Dietary Guidelines, but advancing prominent programs such as MyPlate, the re-vamped version of the well-known food pyramid, suggests that the agency is doubling down on raising the profile of our diet’s alleged affect on the climate, and other issue that have more to do with political science, than nutritional science.”

Stier slams Tagtow’s firm’s mission statement as code language for politically charged activism.

Her firm’s goal was “to establish healthier food systems that are resilient, sustainable, ecologically sound, socially acceptable and economically viable…”

Stier points out that Tagtow has written that we should select meat and dairy products from animals that have only been fed grass diets.

In the op-ed, Stier challenges the USDA’s new nutrition expert for repeating the “myth that meat is an environmentally-reckless form of protein, suggesting a plant-based diet instead. She says we should reduce our consumption of meat, lean or not, not because of any potential health benefits, but in order to ‘conserve natural resources and energy.'”

Stier also debunks Tagtow’s alleged economic justifications for her radical agenda. “Tagtow has suggested that Iowans could improve the state’s economy by only eating food grown in the state, at least part of the year. She touted a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture study claiming that ‘if Iowans ate five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and Iowa farmers supplied that produce for three months of the year, these additional crops would add $300 million and more than 4,000 jobs to the Iowa economy.'”

“She fails to mention that in her utopian Iowa, residents wouldn’t likely enjoy the benefits of staples like oranges or pineapples for those months. Nor does she consider the devastation to Iowa’s agricultural community if her agro-protectionist ideals were implemented in other states. Well, now she’s headed to the federal government to promote her narrow ideology.”

Stier concludes, “The maxim that, in government, ‘personnel is policy’ is especially true here, given Tagtow’s policy-making role. The priorities she’s spent her career advancing are far from the consensus among mainstream nutritionists. Her appointment is a slap in the face to thousands of men and women in nutrition who daily work tirelessly and impartially to help Americans eat better. And it casts doubt over whether USDA is willing to dispense nutrition advice based on science rather than an activist agenda.”

Stier has written on this issue in the past, raising concerns over the Committee’s direction in a March piece in the Washington Examiner and in the Daily Caller in April of this year. He is available for press requests on this issue.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and Al Jazeera America, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post , Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings, and testified at the United Nations (video here).

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

From Sandy Hook to Malpractice?

“Doctors use dead children and manipulated research to promote civilian disarmament.”

“As we approach the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, it has become clear that civilian disarmament proponents use 20 dead children to promote their disarmament agenda.”

“But by not fact-checking, media failed to act as a disseminator of truth and government watchdog, instead becoming a promoter of government policy, and socially engineering public opinion to support that policy.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Black Conservatives Speak Out on Beginning of ObamaCare Enrollment

Washington, DC – With Congress at an impasse and President Obama threatening to shut down the government rather than make concessions regarding his very unpopular federal takeover of private health care, black conservatives with the Project 21 black leadership network remain highly critical of ObamaCare and President Obama’s unwillingness to compromise.

“ObamaCare will invariably lead to a centralized, rigid health care system that will insert the government as the decision maker and destroy the traditional doctor-patient relationship. Cost control will become the driving force. There will be a transfer of wealth — not from rich to poor, but away from the middle class. They will become dependent on the government,” said Project 21’s Dr. Elaina George , an award-winning, board-certified practicing otolaryngologist. “People will find themselves in the unenviable position of not being able to afford medications, tests or procedures because they cannot afford to pay their portion. Even though no one can be turned away for preexisting conditions, they can still effectively be priced out of care because the premiums and the out-of-pocket expenses are too high.”

On October 1, except in places where implementation has already failed, such as Colorado and the District of Columbia, people can begin to comply with ObamaCare’s individual mandate. President Obama pushed back the mandate for employers past the 2014 federal elections by. Conservatives have suggested a similar postponement of the individual mandate, but President Obama is willing to shut down the government to prevent this.

“It’s laughable that ObamaCare proponents are now arguing that the fact that it is a law means that it is sacred and cannot be repealed. Really? I’m sure glad my ancestors and others fought and died to repeal bad laws so that I can live free today,” said Project 21’s Christopher Arps. “There’s at least one liberal senator willing to say that ObamaCare is a looming disaster, so there’s likely others who have been waiting for someone to go first. For instance, a huge divide exists between organized labor and the White House right now. How can principled liberal senators — especially those who are also in more conservative states — sit idly by while ObamaCare destroys the 40-hour workweek?”

A recent USA Today/Pew poll found that 53 percent of those Americans surveyed disapproved of ObamaCare. A similar 53 percent also said they disapproved of the way the Obama Administration is handling health care policy.

“Promise after promise was made by President Obama and this administration in order to get the monstrosity that is ObamaCare passed. Now that it is the law, we see that Nancy Pelosi was absolutely correct when she said we’d really get to see what was in the bill once we passed it,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper , a former leadership staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives. “This law will lower the quality of care for many Americans who already have health insurance, and it will lead to significant increases in the cost of the care they get in the future. It is likely to continue exacerbating the elevated unemployment among 18 – 30 year olds and place a further drag on the economy. Government-run health care has always been a bad idea. The execrable version that progressives imposed on America in 2010 is beyond awful.”

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Share