Washington, D.C. – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Paterson are asking the federal government to deny New York City residents on food stamps the ability to use aid to buy certain beverages. Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, sees this as a warning about the limits to freedom that inevitably come with increased government dependency.

“Efforts by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson to use the power of the government to control the dietary choices of Americans on food stamps should serve as a warning that dependency leads to a loss of freedom,” said Project 21′s Borelli. “Once someone is on the government’s plantation, politicians will inevitably try to leverage this power to control every aspect of their life. They think they know what’s best for everyone else.”

Under the rules governing food stamps, there are currently only prohibitions on the purchase of certain prepared foods, alcohol, tobacco and vitamins. Bloomberg and Paterson, however, now want permission from the federal government to prohibit New York City’s 1.7 million residents using food stamps from buying certain sugary drinks. The politicians want to see how this affects obesity statistics. Such a restriction on assistance to the poor would be the first of its kind anywhere in America.

“Controlling poor peoples’ diets is likely only the first step. This attempted power-grab shows there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to government dependency,” added Borelli. “When the government pays the bills, it will use this power of the purse to control peoples’ lives. From this example, it’s not hard to see how the government can use its increasing command over the health care system to dictate additional lifestyle choices.”

I’m sure it began long before our obsession with self-esteem. So consumed we became with making sure our kids’ feelings were never hurt, we lost all reason and understanding and began teaching that exceptionalism wasn’t “fair”. (Oh, there’s the four-letter word that should be banned.)

Was it diversity? We were being indoctrinated that diversity was admirable, that some was good and more was better. Lost in all this was the importance of retaining identity, for without identity how can a child’s self-esteem have a foundation?

I’m afraid it all began a long time ago. Little by little we lost the focus of what made America great.

Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison and Edward Rutledge, are only a few of the exceptional people who signed our Declaration of Independence. One trait that made them exceptional was their desire for and understanding of freedom. They didn’t want to be like England or any other. They wanted to be like America.

John Adams at a very young age wrote of his dreams that someday America would be the greatest nation on earth, not to look down on others but to draw them up unto this country’s greatness. Adams’ dream came true. America did become the greatest nation on earth, doing more to help other people than any other nation. It came from liberty, the freedom to excel, the desire to be the best of the best. It was called exceptionalism. It is what made America a magnet that draws others to come here. Why do we want to extinguish the magnetism?

As I sat yesterday and watched the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderone, stand at the stage of the greatest legislative conclave on earth, the symbol of liberty and everything great, and ridicule America while members of that Congress stood in applause for such treasonous, anti-American sentiments, I wondered if the above mentioned exceptional men had been sitting in that audience, what their reaction would have been.

As President Barack Obama stood outside the White House with Calderone, in what certainly appeared to be an affirmation from our President of his hatred toward America, I pictured George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson gathered amongst the bushes of the Rose Garden, standing in utter disbelief.

Tom Remington

Picture this if you will. One day you sit down to your computer and log onto your favorite website. That of course would be the Black Bear Blog. There you find a story about 300 scientists who have gathered in Chicago to discuss the prospects of global cooling, update everyone on the fallout from Climategate and provide the best available science about our changing climate. In the middle of your reading, this annoying bubble keeps popping up trying to tell you that if you go over to the website Climate Debate Daily, you’ll get an opposing view.

So that you know, the administrator of the Black Bear Blog did not provide that service for you. That would be compliments of Cass Sunstein and his dictator Barack Obama. This is just one idea these intellectuals have for us ignoramuses because we just aren’t smart enough to figure out right from wrong or what our interests are.

You may even think that it’s a good idea to have such a feature on all websites. From my own perspective, if the Internet Marketplace demands that this be the trend, then more than likely I would keep up with the demands of my readers and give them what they want. Government should have no business telling me or anyone else that I must provide a link to a website with an opposing view.

I heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday and someone asked if this sort of opposing view enforcement would be carried out to involve everyone and everything? In other words, when the president is giving his State of the Union Address, will there be a script rolling across the bottom of the screen informing viewers where they can go or who they can listen to that has an opposing view?

I remember when I began making a few waves about Internet regulation, etc., I was told that this would never happen in America. I was fear mongering. Well, it hasn’t happened yet but there sure are a lot of people in high places that want to see it happen.

It angers me to no end when I hear friends and relatives sitting around bemoaning someone’s wealth. I don’t get it. Is this because of jealousy, resentment, disrespect or what? And of course in these flip conversations comes out the profound that anyone who made money did so by screwing their friends and neighbors. We know this is not true. (Exceptions to everything, so give it a rest.)

Why can’t people be honest? Have you ever sat down and seriously considered how much you and I have benefited from other people’s wealth? We all have and I’m willing to bet some people don’t even realize it.

To seriously give voice that we should limit the money anyone can make might even sound intriguing to some but unless you spend some time thinking about how this would negatively affect us all, you will never fully appreciate the actual benefits we all share.

Thomas Sowell writes, “The moral bankruptcy of the notion that third parties can decide when somebody else has “enough” money is matched by its economic illiteracy.”

Think of the everyday benefits we all share from other people’s wealth. Has anyone you’ve known ever received a scholarship made possible through an endowment? How about a walk in a park made possible by the wealth of someone buying and donating that park? There’s always a chance to spend an afternoon on the town common, listening to a band played on the gazebo that was made possible through generous donations of others’ wealth. Probably instruments in the band came from donations.

Most of us own cell phones and computers. What has happened to the price of those over the years? And why has the price fallen? Those companies we like to dump on made money and as such had money to devise ways of manufacturing products and getting them into our hands in a less expensive way, forcing the prices down. Have we not all benefited from this kind of wealth before?

Or how about something as simple as your job?

The next time you get ready to open your mouth to put down somebody and the money they have made, ask yourself just what your life would be like without it. And then ask yourself what it would be like around here if Obama got his way and began telling you and I and all the great philanthropists of this nation, how much money is enough.

Go out and enjoy that museum of fine art this weekend!

The truth is many of us can and do see only what we want to see. This is partially what defines us. God forbid we should all be so much alike that life would be boring. The black box above can represent anything you would like it to be and probably even some shrink would tell you that what you wrote would be a reflection of your inner being, perhaps even your suppressed fears, or hopes and dreams.

So much has been made of the Tea Party movement. From both sides we have witnessed the influence of the Tea Party. The Republicans, who seem to think they own the movement, got handed a rude awakening as we saw what happened in Utah with Bob Bennett. The Democrats as well, are dropping like flies as Americans in general are fed up with politics as usual.

If you don’t fit the mold of what the local Tea Partiers want, you won’t get their support. Why is this considered bad by some? Isn’t this exactly what American politics was supposed to be? A country governed of and by the people?

That black box takes on odd illusions I think for some. We have always had political organizations that put their support behind the candidate of their choice. But this Tea Party thing is grass roots and scares the living hell out of some people. As a result a person’s black box becomes a living nightmare for them.

Witness an opinion piece posted at Politico by Charles Postel, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University, about the Tea Party that he labels the “dark side of conservatism”.

For whatever reasons, in Postel’s black box he focuses on the main stream media and their insistence on calling Tea Partiers, “populists”. In case Postel hadn’t figured it out yet, the MSM is clueless when it comes to the Tea Party and they too are petrified of it. He spends much of his time wanting to paint the Tea Party, as he says, the “dark side of conservatism” by disproving the media’s contention that it is “populist”.

Here is a grocery list of the things Postel sees in his black box as what makes Tea Parties, “dark”.

1. Tea Partiers are conservatives
2. They repeat catchwords of Goldwater and Reagan
3. “echoes of a well-known grass-roots movement of the 1950s and ’60s — the John Birch Society”
4. Sound like the John Birch Society
5. Author views Obama as a moderate
6. Believes all TPers think Obama a communist
7. Tea Partiers have “angrily taken to the streets”
8. Tea Partiers “are boiling mad”
9. They are “punishing politicians”
10. Tea Partiers are “more concerned about possible inflation of the future than with the current ordeal of the unemployed.”
11. Tea Partiers don’t care about unemployment among blacks
12. Tea Partiers are like Ku Klux Klan members who want to protect their Protestant religion and white race from communism and immigration.
13. Sees Tea Partiers as “birthers”, opposed to immigration and against Mulims.
14. Tea Partiers, being “radical rights” have a “soft spot for bigots”.
15. Tea Partiers are “a movement of the haves and well-protected who” that since FDR, “have feared that their freedom will be lost” if government expands its powers and steals from the rich to give to the poor.

That’s a lot of things to see in a black box. The Tea Party is many things but “dark” is not one of them. It is unfortunate that Mr. Postel sees those who cherish the American dream and a return to following the Constitution as being “dark” and all the other nasty things he sees.

Makes you wonder what kind of a childhood he must have had. (snicker)

“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”

Here’s that video:

Pfizer CEO Says Sums Given to PhRMA for ObamaCare Lobbying “Not Available” to Him; Volunteers that ObamaCare is “Reasonably Consistent” with Principles Pfizer Advocated

Washington, DC: Johnson & Johnson Chairman and CEO William C. Weldon agreed Thursday to disclose the exact amount his company gave to the drug lobby group PhRMA to promote ObamaCare, while Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler said ObamaCare legislation adopted by Congress is “reasonably consistent with the principles we advocated” in the health care debate.

These responses and others came in response to questions from Dr. Tom Borelli, Deneen Borelli and Justin Danhof of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who inquired about the companies’ justification for supporting the unpopular legislation through the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby group. Johnson & Johnson was also asked about its support for controversial cap-and-trade legislation through its membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) lobby.

The National Center for Public Policy Research owns Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer stock.

“The drug industry was largely responsible for passage of ObamaCare. Shareholders and consumers of Johnson & Johnson products have a right to know how much of their money was contributed to the $150 million ad campaign that its trade group used to advertise Obama’s plan,” said Dr. Borelli, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Johnson & Johnson consumers who oppose ObamaCare should take note on how their money was used against their values.”

“In August 2009, the New York Times reported that PhRMA and the drug industry authorized its lobbyists to spend $150 million to advertise and promote ObamaCare. When I asked Pfizer Chairman and CEO Jeff Kindler how much of this was Pfizer money, Mr. Kindler ducked the question, but when I asked him if Pfizer would suffer a backlash from its support of the President health care bill, he volunteered that the health care legislation adopted is “not perfect, but, by and large, the bill that emerged was reasonably consistent with the principles we advocated.”

In response to Dr. Borelli, Johnson & Johnson Chairman Weldon said, in part, “[w]e feel that there are things that would be very good for the people of America that are in ObamaCare…” Weldon also said extra dues were assessed from Johnson & Johnson and other PhRMA members to promote ObamaCare, and that “somebody could get that” exact amount to Borelli.

Weldon also said, “I don’t think there is any reputational damage” due to the company’s lobbying for ObamaCare’s passage.

Responding to another National Center for Public Policy Research question, from Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored Project 21 African-American leadership group, Weldon defended Johnson & Johnson’s continued support of the lobbying efforts of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to enact “cap-and-trade” emissions regulations, which are expected to raise consumer prices and destroy jobs domestically.

Mrs. Borelli had pointed out to Weldon that “you have a roomful of wonderful senior citizens who are most likely on [a] fixed income” and that “consumers will most likely not be able to afford your premium products” as a result of cap-and-trade’s effects on the economy. Weldon said Johnson & Johnson has saved money thanks to the company’s conversion to “alternative sources” of energy and said the company philosophy is “the health of people is tied directly to the environment.” He did not, however, address the company’s membership in USCAP directly.

“It’s clear Johnson & Johnson is acting like an agent for President Obama,” said Mrs. Borelli. “In addition to playing a major role in passing ObamaCare, Johnson & Johnson is also effectively lobbying for the President’s cap-and-trade energy policy through USCAP. The public should hold Johnson & Johnson CEO William C. Weldon responsible for his role in diminishing our liberties. Not only will the quality of our health care suffer, but — should cap-and-trade pass — we are going to bear the burden of higher energy prices and reduced disposable income.”

Audio recordings of the exchanges are available on the SunnyDayAmerica YouTube Channel. A transcript is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PfizerJJ042210.pdf.

This morning I thought I found another. The email was titled, “Assistance Living Tax Slipped In”. I read it and laughed because nothing could be so absurd that American workers and taxpayers would be asked to cough up anywhere from $150 to $250 a month from their regular paychecks to pay for home health care that wouldn’t take effect for at least five years to perhaps ten and you may never need it but perhaps someone else will. Ridiculous!

But at the bottom of the email are two links that supposedly verify this to be true. An editorial in the Washington Times by the staff dated April 1, 2010 seems to verify this information, well, at least according to them. The editorial is called, “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul“.

One costly provision buried in the lengthy reconciliation bill at the last minute has taxpayers covering long-term at-home care for the elderly. Through the so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act (CLASS Act), Americans will find between $150 and $250 taken out of their paychecks each month to cover this program nobody knew about.

There was a reason why the slimy politicians created this portion of the bill to not really show up as a giant unaffordable tax foisted on Americans is because Congress instructed the Congressional Budget Office to only look at the impact of Obamacare for the first 10 years.

The CBO is instructed only to consider the fiscal impact over the next 10 years, but the way the scheme is set up, people must pay the additional taxes for at least five years to become eligible. So for the first five years we only see revenue. After that, the taxpayers are eligible only gradually. They must then become old enough to require home health care, so expenditures will occur in the distant future. In other words, we see taxes with no expenditures upfront, but huge expenditures picking up after the CBO’s 10-year evaluation window passes.

Can you afford to have another $150-$250 dollars a month stolen out of your paycheck? And these lying, vermin bastards are now running around telling Americans that we should be thankful that Obama gave us all a tax cut. Did you hear the full-of-himself dictator yesterday telling his hand selected crowd of zombies that Tea Party protesters should be thanking him for cutting their taxes? Brazen deceit!

In addition to the Washington Times editorial, WBT, News Talk 1110 AM, interviews Senior Editorial Writer for the Washington Times, John Lott, about “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”.

According to John Lott, this added tax of $150-$250 PER PERSON, will be levied on everybody who works. It is a payroll tax deduction. For the 47% of Americans who don’t pay a nickel in income tax, you will now. How does this sit with you and your family? How’s Barack Obama’s lying, cheating hope and change washing down your parched throat now?

And let’s not dump all the blame on Obama. I’m sure he never read the bill either, nor did he give a rolling donut hole what was in it. The pond scum-sucking leaches in Congress voted for it. If there was just one damned reason why every son of a bitch in Washington should be fired, this is it.

You and I can take the blame for voting these lame excuses for life and noxious human beings into office, but there has to be a complete overhaul. Thomas Jefferson reminded us many times that there are times when revolution is necessary.

If you’re not enraged over this irresponsible act of tyranny, not just by the President but by all of Congress, then by God I’m beginning to think nothing will put you over the edge.

I don’t know about you but I’m mad as hell. I can’t pay this amount of money each month. I have friends and family who can’t afford this.

This morning I heard a newscaster invoke the analogy of the frog and boiling water. If you place a frog in boiling water, he will immediately jump out. Place the same frog in cool water and slowly bring the water to a boil and the frog will remain in the water and boil to death.

So, what are we frogs going to do about it?

Tom Remington