Posts Tagged ‘Jell O’

The real Velvet Revolution and Brett Kimberlin

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, June 14th, 2012

This is article 65 of 113 in the topic Free Speech

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Bloggers are letting it shine, shine, shine down on convicted Speedway Bomber/vexatious litigant/online harasser Brett Kimberlin and his shady Velvet Revolution.

You can help by spreading the word, Facebooking, tweeting, blogging, and e-mailing the truth:

Brett Kimberlin stole the Velvet Revolution. We’re stealing it back.

Brett Kimberlin, and his associate Brad Friedman, do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. They do not, and cannot, claim trademark or copyright protection in the term, because in the realm of politics, where Kimberlin and Friedman seek to meddle, the term “Velvet Revolution” is more generic than “Jell-O”.

Likewise, we do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. No one owns the term. The Czechs and Slovaks who put their lives on the line in 1989 have a pretty strong moral claim, but they’re all in MittelEuropa. The Czechs and Slovaks have bigger problems than one terrorist moonbat making a mockery of a First Amendment that they don’t have anyway.

So we’re taking the name back, for them.

What are your demands?

Our needs are simple. We seek to drive Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution into third place, or lower, on a Google search for the term. We estimate that we can do this within six months. Eventually we’d like to knock Wikipedia out of the top spot, but all things in their time.

We seek to replace Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution with a fake Velvet Revolution of our own, a Velvet Revolution that tells the truth about Kimberlin and his henchmen, in order that past and potential donors to Kimberlin, such as George Soros, may be fully informed about who is cashing the checks.

Great. How do you propose to accomplish this?

Imagine Google, and its competitors Bing and Yahoo, in terms of politics.

Individual searches are like issues. The websites to which those searches lead are like constituencies. Large, highly trafficked websites, like Boing Boing, tend to be heard first where smaller, non-specialist websites are relegated to page 10, just as the bankers at J. P. Morgan get private White House audiences when ordinary citizens who want to meet the President have to pay $15.00 to enter a lottery and pray that Sarah Jessica Parker draws their names out of a hat.

But just as little people can gather to make their voices heard on important issues, a multitude of smaller websites can drown out the majors, through links. Eventually, whatever they’re linking to rises to the top of the search result…

…We’re in it because we are offended, because we are committed anti-Communists, committed Czechophiles, and because we hate what Brett Kimberlin and his ilk are doing to this country.

Our only reward is the satisfaction of a job well done, and eventually, an enraged frivolous lawsuit from Brett Kimberlin or VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.

We recognize that this site will live or die, will rise or fall, on its own merits and the quality of its writing. We’re confident in ourselves, and we’re confident in you, our readers. All four of you.

Do it for the Czechs.

Do it to support and protect the freedom to blog.

Go straight to Post

Liberals Always Get Caught By The Semantic Games They Play

by J.J. Jackson on Saturday, March 31st, 2012

This is article 82 of 196 in the topic Liberalism

Semantics is the use language to manipulate the meanings of words in order to achieve a desired effect on an audience. For example when an angry liberal emails me and says, “someone should put a bullet in your head,” I ask if that said liberal thinks that it would be good if someone killed me and then said liberal emails me back crying about how he, “never said that!” Well, this is semantics. Yes, it is indeed true that said angry liberal never uttered the exact words, “I wish someone would kill you,” but what else does someone putting a “bullet in my head” imply? Still, to the liberal mindset, this liberal has never said anything as inflammatory as wishing me dead. This is precisely why it is so hard to argue with a liberal. No matter what they say, there is always some semantic argument that they will make that allows them to claim that they never really said what they said. It is like nailing Jell-o to the proverbial tree.

The examples of these semantic games played by liberals are numerous. Abortion is not “murder” because even though an innocent child is being killed in cold blood, they have come up with another name to call it. Formally declared wars are not “formally” declared wars because liberals do not like the verbiage that was used to initiate the use of military force (i.e. war). According to liberals, certain groups of people are not people (i.e. corporations) and said people are not entitled to their first amendment rights because liberals refuse to call them people. But on the other hand, labor unions, groups of people, had better be allowed their first amendment rights and then some or else holy Hell will break loose. Conservatives are “NAZIs” because, even though Nazism stands for National Socialism and was practiced by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the word “socialism” is not uttered when saying the words “NAZI”. Therefore NAZI magically comes to mean “conservative” rather than left-wing, socialist, progressive moonbat.

And then of course there is Obamacare. Liberals have been all over the place on this one and whether or not the funding mechanism for the program is a “tax” or not. Whether or not it is varies on how Constitutionally inept the person they are arguing with is. It is a “tax” when they want to justify it under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to levy taxes. For reference, the powers of Congress to “tax” are limited to [1]:
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to continue reading “Liberals Always Get Caught By The Semantic Games They Play”
Go straight to Post

Should food stamps be used to buy junk food?

by John Lott on Friday, February 10th, 2012

This is article 21 of 53 in the topic Social Services/Welfare
Florida seems to be joiningthe movement in other states to limit what food stamps can be used for. Why not limit it even further to really basic foods that aren’t already? For example, not allowing the money to be spent on TV dinners.

Florida’s poor can use food stamps to buy staples like milk, vegetables, fruits and meat. But they can also use them to buy sweets like cakes, cookies and Jell-O and snack foods like chips, something a state senator wants stopped.
Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, also wants to limit other welfare funds, known as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, from being used at ATMs in casinos and strip clubs and anywhere out of state. The bill comes after reports that the debit cards welfare recipients now receive were used in those places, as well as locations in Las Vegas and the Virgin Islands in a small percentage of cases, but the state does not track what items were purchased.
The bill recently passed a committee. A companion bill in the state House companion is being considered by a subcommittee.
The bill would also require the state to launch a culturally sensitive campaign to educate people about the benefits of a nutritious diet. Supporters say it would help recipients follow healthy eating habits and prevent taxpayer funds from being used to purchase luxury foods like bakery cakes when they can whip up a cheaper box mix.
“Most individuals using public assistance dollars are using the funds to get by and to provide for their families. However, we should do what we can to prevent dollars intended to help Florida’s poorest families from being spent in the wrong places,” Storms said in a statement. . . .

Go straight to Post

How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

This is article 20 of 53 in the topic Social Services/Welfare

Before the payoff, here’s a brief set-up:

Florida’s poor can use food stamps to buy staples like milk, vegetables, fruits and meat. But they can also use them to buy sweets like cakes, cookies and Jell-O and snack foods like chips, something a state senator wants stopped.

Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, also wants to limit other welfare funds, known as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, from being used at ATMs in casinos and strip clubs and anywhere out of state. The bill comes after reports that the debit cards welfare recipients now receive were used in those places, as well as locations in Las Vegas and the Virgin Islands in a small percentage of cases, but the state does not track what items were purchased.

The bill recently passed a committee. A companion bill in the state House companion is being considered by a subcommittee.

You’d think the food police would be thrilled. If there’s anything they should get behind, it’s an initiative designed to encourage lower income people to avoid unhealthy eats… right?

But instead, one Democrat gives us our chuckle of the day by denouncing (albeit selectively) the notion of food police — and maybe even things like health care mandates. Get a load of this:

But critics say the government shouldn’t dictate what people eat.

“What I choose to ingest even though I may be on food stamps, that’s at my discretion. I don’t need government telling me what I can and cannot purchase,” said Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, a Pompano Beach Democrat who voted in committee against the bill (SB 1658). She said the bill is demeaning and invasive and she worries the education campaign would imply to “minorities and low-income folks that they’re not intelligent enough to make selections on the foods they want.”

How many calories are burned by doubling over in laughter for several minutes? Maybe this is part of the “Let’s Move” program and people are being tricked into exercising. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Go straight to Post

Obama Slams Republicans in Debt Ceiling Press Conference

by Donald Douglas on Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

This is article 69 of 523 in the topic Government Spending

It’s bluster, from the Bumbler-in-Chief.

At LAT, “Obama scolds GOP as debt talks break down: ‘Where’s the leadership?’“:

In an unusual display of emotion, President Obama angrily responded to House Speaker John A. Boehner’s abrupt withdrawal from talks on a debt ceiling increase, and summoned congressional leaders to the White House on Saturday for emergency talks to plot a new course before the Aug. 2 deadline.

“We have run out of time,” the president said in a hastily-called news briefing, just moments after Boehner informed him of his decision.

On Thursday, Obama and Boehner appeared to be closing in on a deal that would have raised the debt ceiling through 2013, combined with spending cuts and entitlement reforms to achieve $3 trillion in deficit reduction.

But talks apparently broke down in a dispute over taxes. Obama, prodded by Democrats, insisted that any deal include new revenues in addition to spending cuts.

“This was an extraordinarily fair deal. If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue,” Obama said. “It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal.”

Not hard, actually. See Jennifer Rubin, “Boehner runs laps around Obama, again“:

He’s been ridiculed by the media. Liberal spinners say he has lost control over the Tea Party. But in fact the Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a plan, stuck to it, and is likely to get much of what he wants.

In a remarkable press conference revealed that he had a deal with the White House on large debt reduction and $800 billion in additional revenue to be achieved through tax reform and enhanced enforcement. Boehner brought out his “Jell-O” analogy once again to describe the White House. He said bluntly, “It’s the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute.”

Boehner is the composed “adult in the room” now. He, excuse the expression, called the president’s bluff — a viable deal with no tax hikes and Obama blinked (or sloshed in the other direction, to follow the Jell-O imagery).

All of this followed Obama’s appearance in which he angrily accused Boehner of walking away from the deal. (According to Boehner, Obama upped the revenue figure at the last moment.)

Go straight to Post

Obama’s “bargaining style”

by John Lott on Friday, July 15th, 2011

This is article 228 of 523 in the topic Government Spending

These quotes raise the question of whether Obama doesn’t want an agreement or whether he doesn’t know how to negotiate one. Boehner apparently felt that he couldn’t depend on what Obama was telling him. Except on taxes, nothing that Obama said seemed to last more than a day. The fact that Obama and the Democrats have been unwilling to make their own proposals public (see here and here) and have leaked Republican offers to press as well as attacked Republican budget proposals makes one think that they have wanted the talks to fail. From ABC News:

In a meeting with a small group of reporters in his Capitol Hill office this morning, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized President Obama and White House officials for their lack of resolve in negotiations.

“Dealing with them the last couple months has been like dealing with Jell-o,” Boehner said. “Some days it’s firmer than others. Sometimes it’s like they’ve left it out over night.”

Boehner explained that talks broke down over the weekend because, he said, the president backed off entitlement reforms so much from Friday to Saturday, “It was Jell-o; it was damn near liquid.”

“By Saturday, they’d spent the previous day and a half just going backwards” on reforming entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“The only thing they’ve been firm on is these damn tax increases,” the Speaker said. . . .

Meanwhile, Obama just rudely walked out of a meeting today.

President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, throwing into serious doubt the already shaky debt limit negotiations, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and a second GOP source.

Cantor said the president became “agitated” and warned the Virginia Republican not to “call my bluff” when Cantor said he would consider a short-term debt-limit hike. The meeting “ended with the president abruptly walking out of the meeting,” Cantor told reporters in the Capitol. “I know why he lost his temper. He’s frustrated. We’re all frustrated.” . . .

All this raises the question about why Moody’s has placed the US on “review for downgrade.” Is it because there has to be a risk or because the Obama administration keeps threatening to default and not pay the interest on the debt?

Moody’s Investors Service put the U.S. under review for a credit rating downgrade as talks to raise the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit stall, adding to concern that political gridlock will lead to a default.
The Aaa ratings of financial institutions directly linked to the U.S. government, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks, were also put on review for cuts, Moody’s said in a statement today. . . .

There is a lot of concern over “uncertainty” (see comments by Obama’s head of the CEA, Austan Goolsbee), but Obama could reduce this considerably by simply saying that he will make sure that the interest is paid off. Obama says that he cannot guarantee Social Security Checks that will go out on August 3. Obama knows how much money will be available in a few weeks. Will the media say that he is irresponsible for saying: “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s “bargaining style””
Go straight to Post

Obama’s war (er, kinetic action) on…Jell-O & Fruit Loops?!!

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, March 31st, 2011

This is article 12 of 71 in the topic Food/Natural Remedies

The busybody hand of Michelle Obama looms large. New target: Jell-O, Fruit Loops, and that evil of evils…Minute Maid Lemonade. Via the NYTimes, meet the war (or rather, kinetic action — h/t chap) on dyed foods:

After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity in some children.

The Food and Drug Administration concluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives.”

Renee Shutters, a mother of two from Jamestown, N.Y., said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr. Diller said.

The food police’s regulatory solution: More government-imposed labels, of course.

Can someone please slap a health hazard warning label on junk science queen Michelle Obama?

Go straight to Post

Like The Weekend? Praise Henry Ford, Not The Unions.

by J.J. Jackson on Saturday, March 19th, 2011

This is article 10 of 141 in the topic History

Every day I receive at least one email from someone telling me how without unions there would be no weekend. Yes, it is true, people are indeed stupid enough to believe anything they are told.

In America today we are inundated with myths. These myths are concocted to shield the overly sensitive and the generally inept from the harsh realities of the world we live in as well as propel the powerbrokers to higher heights. These myths must be challenged and those that promote them must be broken down and dismantled to the status of quivering piles of Jell-o.

Unions struggle for relevance in today’s America considering that they account for just seven percent of the private sector workforce [1]. Much of what they once fought for is now guaranteed by the government or at least bureaucratically monitored by some agency or another. They have also mostly white washed their own history of violence against the private property of business owners to paint themselves as saints in a world of sinners.

Government unions are huge enigma. Compared to the private sector, 36.2 percent of government employees are unionized [2].

Now consider the standard propaganda in favor of unionism. The claim is that workers must unite against their evil corporate masters who would otherwise enslave them and trample the rights of workers if workers were not united. But who is the “evil” employer of government workers? Why, it is government. That is odd because those on the left, and who ally with unions, tell us government is the source of all that is good with the world. Furthermore, the government is, most basically, the taxpayer. So the taxpayers are now evil corporate masters? Ok, do not try to understand their “logic.” Just understand that some dim bulbs think this paradox they have created is “logic” to them.

But what about the claim that unions invented the weekend? Well, like I said to open this article, it is a myth.

Actually, the weekend was invented by an evil capitalist. His name was Henry Ford. Some people however refuse to accept that someone like Mr. Ford actually accomplished this astonishing feat. But when confronted with the facts, they set about to justify his capitalism as being qualified. One of the popular claims is that Mr. Ford practiced, “welfare capitalism.” This, as they say, is hogwash! He was a pure capitalist, no qualifier needed, through and through.

See, Henry Ford, like any good capitalist, wanted to make money. Not only did he want to make money, but he also wanted to make more money. But there was something getting in the way of his pursuit of happiness which was, again, to make more money. That thing was that he was having a hard time hanging on to workers in his automobile plant.

The basic problem was that Ford had a certain number of positions that needed workers.

Click to continue reading “Like The Weekend? Praise Henry Ford, Not The Unions.”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin