They say that if you give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you’ll feed him for a lifetime. And if Michelle Obama forces a school to give a kid a revolting chunk of gelatinous fish for lunch, you’ll feed the Internet. At least, that’s what happened when a Virginia mother’s photo of her child’s school lunch went viral on social media.
While the lunch met Michelle “I grow my own yams” Obama’s stringent dietary requirements, even the school’s Food Service Coordinator admitted (while choking back vomit) that the lunch looked like “something that would crawl from a garden leaving a noxious, foul-smelling slime trail.” Well, those weren’t his exact words. He actually said “poor lighting and food presentation make this lunch unappealing.”
We’d guess that the “poor lighting” probably came from government-mandated CFL bulbs, and that the poor presentation occurred when the lunch lady failed to enthusiastically say “TA-DAA!”when slapping the filet-o-fail into the tray.
Presumably, both the lighting and presentation were a bit better at Lupa’s restaurant in New York on Satuday, where the first lady took her mother out for a five-course lunch. Since poached hagfish and grey canned corn weren’t on the menu, the two had to settle for Puntarelle Alla Romana salads, then Rigatoni Alla Gricia and Strozzapreti with Sugo Finto pastas. After cramming that down, the two slurped Coda Alla Vaccinara – a rich oxtail stew. But wait!…
…There’s more! Michelle and her mom then wrapped themselves around a cheese platter before finishing up with an ice cream dessert called Tartufo, which is probably Italian for “taxpayer funded.”
Meanwhile, back in the land of peasants, the national School Nutrition Association’s president opined that at least part of the problem of disgusting lunches can be solved by getting another government funding increase (surprise!) which will help schools “afford the foods we must serve” per the Cafeteria Commandments inscribed on the stone tablets Michelle sent down from the mountaintop.
But…“Unfortunately that won’t make students consume it,” the Association’s president admitted, adding that the final resting place for much of Michelle’s overpriced, under-appealing meals is “in the trash.”
Put another way, the school lunch program is increasing costs and decreasing desired results, while literally dumping our tax dollars into the garbage. Pretty much like every other policy coming out of this administration.
As the great Stilton Jarlsberg, creator of Hope ‘n Change so eloquently noted:
Granted, the lunch ladies didn’t have much to work with…
Which is more than Hillary…or Moochie…have as a foundation…on a good day!
Since we’re on the subject of government intrusion into areas neither the Constitution permits, nor the Founding Fathers EVER envisaged, writing at NRO,David French details…
“…Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.
Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives.For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?…”
Wake up, America…
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
…and smell the tyranny! It happened once; do you really believe it can’t happen again?!?
Next up, in today’s installment of Tales From the Darkside, in a city RUN by Blacks…for the BENEFIT of Blacks…by a political party supposedly DEDICATED to the well-being of Blacks:
Nowhere to be found. Two thoughts come to mind: (1) be careful what you wish for, and; (2) meet the new boss…
And for all you inner-city denizens, good luck with that whole “bottom rail on top” thing.
Since we’re on the subject of the inevitable impact of the mindless, irrational pursuit of Affirmative Action, writing at the WSJ, Husain Haqqani asks what inquiring minds…or anyone with any clue…wants to know:
“…Clearly, with the latest military package, the Obama administration expects to continue the same policies adopted by several of its predecessors—and somehow get different results.It’s a mystery why the president suddenly trusts Pakistan’s military—after mistrusting it at the time of the Navy SEAL operation in May 2011 that found and killed Osama bin Laden living safely until then in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad.
One explanation is that selling helicopters and missiles is easier than thinking of alternative strategies to compel an errant ally to change its behavior.This is a pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations going back to the 1950s. Between 1950 and 1969, the U.S. gave $4.5 billion in aid to Pakistan partly in the hope of using Pakistani troops in anticommunist wars, according to declassified U.S. government documents. Pakistan did not contribute a single soldier for the wars in Korea or Vietnam but went to war with India over the disputed border state of Kashmir instead in 1965.
During the 1980s, Pakistan served as the staging ground for the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and received another $4.5 billion in aid, as reported by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to Congress. Pakistan diverted U.S. assistance again toward its obsessive rivalry with India, and trained insurgents to fight in the Indian part of Kashmir as well as in India’s Punjab state. It also violated promises to the U.S. and its own public statements not to acquire nuclear weapons, which it first tested openly in 1998—arguing that it could not afford to remain nonnuclear while India’s nuclear program surged ahead.
Since the 1990s, Pakistan has supported various jihadist groups, including the Afghan Taliban. After 9/11, the country’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, promised to end support for the Islamic radicals.Based on that promise, Pakistan received $15.1 billion in civil and military aid from the U.S. until 2009. In February, Gen. Musharraf admitted in an interview with the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper that he continued to support the Afghan Taliban even after 9/11 because of concerns over close relations between Afghanistan and India.Thus the U.S. was effectively arming a country that was, in turn, arming insurgents fighting and killing American troops in Afghanistan.
After the Dec. 16, 2014, attack on a Peshawar school, where the Taliban massacred 160 people, including many schoolchildren, Pakistan claimed it had changed its policy toward terrorist groups and would no longer distinguish between “good” and “bad” Taliban. The Pakistani military has since sped up military action against terrorist groups responsible for mayhem inside Pakistan. But the destruction, demobilization, disarmament or dismantling of Afghan Taliban and other radical groups is clearly not on the Pakistani state’s agenda.There has been no move against Kashmir-oriented jihadist groups.
Given Pakistan’s history, it is likely that the 15 AH-1Z Viper helicopters and 1,000 Hellfire missiles—as well as communications and training equipment being offered to it—will be used against secular insurgents in southwest Baluchistan province, bordering Iran, and along the disputed border in Kashmir rather than against the jihadists in the northwest bordering Afghanistan…”
Allahu Akbar…
…to anyone stupid enough to vote for me once, let alone twice!
In a related item, Bret Stephens relates how, quite literally, more and more it’s…
“Recent conversations with senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can’t understand what’s become of U.S. foreign policy.
They don’t know how to square Barack Obama’s promises with his policies. They fail to grasp how a president who pledged to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons is pushing an accord with Tehran that guarantees their proliferation. They are astonished by the nonchalance with which the administration acquiesces in Iran’s regional power plays, or in al Qaeda’s gains in Yemen, or in the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons, or in the battlefield successes of ISIS, or in Russia’s decision to sell advanced missiles to Tehran. They wonder why the president has so much solicitude forAli Khamenei’s political needs, and so little for Benjamin Netanyahu’s.
In a word, the Israelis haven’t yet figured out that what America is isn’t what America was. They need to start thinking about what comes next.
The most tempting approach is to wait Mr. Obama out and hope for better days with his successor.Israel and the U.S. have gone through bad patches before—under Ford in the 1970s, Reagan in the early ’80s, Bush in the early ’90s, Clinton in the late ’90s. The partnership always survived the officeholders.
So why should it be different this time? Seventy percent of Americans see Israel in a favorable light, according to a February Gallup poll. The presidential candidates from both parties all profess unswerving friendship with the Jewish state, and the Republican candidates actually believe it. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is broadly unpopular and likely to become more so as the fiascoes continue to roll in.
Yet it’s different this time…”
Speaking of those about to find it’s different this time, courtesy of Bill Meisen and The Federalist, Sean Davis describes how erasing subpoenaed emails isn’t the only federal statute Hillary’s voluntarily violated:
“The Washington Post reported last week that the tax-exempt foundation run by Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary served as U.S. Secretary of State (it’s unclear how much foreign money the organization accepted while Hillary was a U.S. Senator). Super shady, right? It’s worse than that, though, becauseArticle I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution actually bans foreign payola for U.S. officials.
The constitutional ban on foreign cash payments to U.S. officials is known as the Emoluments Clause and originated from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation.The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the U.S. by paying off U.S. government officials. Here’s the text of the clause:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments.Let’s take a look at the specific language from the State Dept.:
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).
A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.
Does a foreign government have business with the U.S. State Department?Is a foreign government generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department?You better believe it.
…The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?
“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”
If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.
Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012,2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item.The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses…”
We’re of the very strong opinion this ain’t goin’ away:
The majority of Americans may be uninformed and unengaged, but they’re not stupid; and “What difference does it make now”…
…only works so long.
Besides, as James Taranto records, the longer she’s in the public eye, the more apparent it becomes the pattern of prevarication…AND predation…was established long ago:
Hillary explaining her family’s corrupt finances back in 1994…before she was broke.
“…In 1961, a black man named Clyde Ross undertook to purchase a house in North Lawndale, on the West Side of Chicago. Coates explains what Ross had to do in lieu of getting a mortgage:
Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank. And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither. Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.
When we read this last year, we recalled a similar story, which was told in a 2006 book, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do,” by the Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer. It involved an Arkansas land development known as Whitewater that was partly owned by Bill and Hillary Clinton and managed by Mrs. Clinton, then the state’s first lady.Here’s Schweizer’s anecdote:
Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in all—totaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.
Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewater—teachers, farmers, laborers, and retirees—made payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back.According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed.
Hillary whenever confronted with her any of her innumerable acts of the rankest hypocrisy…like claiming to have been broke.
Schweizer notes that although “this sort of contract was illegal in many other states, because it was considered exploitative of the poor and uneducated,” it was perfectly permissible in Arkansas. That’s why you didn’t hear much about it during the Whitewater investigations of the 1990s. The Soapes story was apparently first told in a 1994 Washington Post article—at the bottom of the story, whose lead was simply that Mrs. Clinton “was more involved in the management of the Whitewater land venture in its later years than the White House has acknowledged previously.”
But it does raise a question of hypocrisy—particularly in today’s Democratic Party…”
Hillary and another “Champion of the People”.
Actually, no; absent the most obvious an egregious hypocrisy, today’s wouldn’t exist at all.
Hillary has neither Bill’s personality nor his penchant for lying with an utterly straight face, let alone The Dear Misleader’s stentorian tone. Her voice grates, her public persona rasps and her eyes and mannerisms betray her lies. Here’s the juice: were we invited to participate in one of her carefully choreographed “public” forums, our observation would be…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.