Tag Archives: NYTimes

Obama deports the peas from the guacamole

920x920Originally posted at American Thinker

Totally unconcerned about ISIS’s stated intent to put American heads on spikes, sitting in the White House safely behind a newly reinforced spiked fence, Barack Obama felt moved to weigh in on the heavy issue of a concoction credited to the ancient Aztecs: guacamole.

Coincidentally, the Aztecs were notorious for beheading sacrificial victims with the same gusto as modern-day ISIS.

But this 4th of July, it isn’t ISIS threatening to emulate the Aztecs on American soil that has captured Obama’s attention.  Instead, it’s the audacity of the New York Times’ suggestion that peas should be added to guacamole.

Much like “Let’s Move!” Michelle’s gag-worthy ideas about ramping up nutrition levels by adding spinach to meatballs and cauliflower to scrambled eggs, out of the blue, someone at the New York Times proposed adding fresh green peas to guacamole.

As always, with priorities firmly in order, Barack Obama, who probably never noticed ISIS’s strong similarity to the guacamole-loving, head-chopping Aztecs, did find time on Twitter to extol “classic” guacamole dip:

The blasphemous pea suggestion got more of an emotional response from the president than barbaric ISIS soldiers in Iraq drowning prisoners in cages and detonating explosive devices wrapped around their victims’ necks.

Based on his emphatic all-lowercase-letter Twitter response, it’s clear that for Barack Obama that ISIS threats take a backseat to purist guacamole preferences, and when it comes to vegetable varieties, Obama has no problem with discrimination.

The glaring hypocrisy here is that Obama thinks peas should be banned from invading the avocado dip, but he allows guacamole-eaters to invade the U.S.

Although many Americans are probably charmed with a president who weighs in on the pressing issue of guacamole, in the meantime, the reality of ISIS potentially executing a catastrophic event on the 4th of July makes Obama’s insistence on the proper ingredients in guacamole somewhat of a moot point.

Then again, on the cusp of a revered American holiday, and considering the timing and theme of the debate, there may be método para la locura de Barack Obama.

Suddenly, when we should be discussing potato salad and hot dogs, a few days before the 4th of July, the debate is all about Mexican food.

Could offering up an inclusive tweet on July 1st that celebrates a bowl of Mexican smashed avocados, lime, and cilantro be Barack Obama’s way of reaching out to 11 to 40 million illegal aliens, commending the Supreme Court’s decision on undocumented voters, and showing Confederate flag lovers a thing or two about which flag has the president’s approval?

Sort of like insulting 40% of America by lighting up the White House to look like a gay pride rainbow, could the president be sending yet another screw-America message by purposely elevating tortilla chips and guac above jingoistic snack foods like potato chips and onion dip?

Sorry to have to say it, but this president is that spiteful, petty, and immature.

For whatever reason, in the midst of dire security threats, Barack Obama has chosen to take up pressing issues like deporting peas from dip and whether to a-peas or not to a-peas Iran.

And while Obama was busy tweeting his culinary preferences, on July the 1st, the FBI was constructing command centers across the U.S. to monitor ISIS, whose pea-less guacamole recipe for Independence Day includes a generous helping of gore and heads piled up like avocados.

Obama’s One-sided “No victor/No vanquished” Maximalist Philosophy

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

The definition of a maximalist is a “person who holds extreme views and is not prepared to compromise.” Although he accuses others of being maximalist saboteurs, there is no one who holds more “extreme views,” or is less “prepared to compromise” than Barack Obama.

In an interview with a supporter and defender of progressive-style overreaching government Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, in a piece entitled “Obama on the World,” self-proclaimed moderate Barack Obama talked of Iraq, Putin, and Israel.

The president used the unrest in the Middle East to describe the state of American politics in the following way:

We have so many things going for us right now as a country — from new energy resources to innovation to a growing economy — but we will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.

Obama did not elaborate on whom, in America’s political system, he likens to ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, so one can only guess.

According to Barack Obama, “societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions.” The president said, “At the end of the day… the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us.” Naturally, that “us” does not include the one issuing the warning.

So, while attempting to explain how American politics are dysfunctional, our doggedly un-self-aware president used Middle Eastern upheaval as a parallel to accuse conservatives of being the very thing that he is — a partisan maximalist.

In essence, Obama was accusing others of doing what he does, which is a classic psychological defense mechanism called projection, where a person assigns to someone else the very same thinking and motivations he himself demonstrates.

Excusing himself from his own failures and assuming zero responsibility for the barrier to political cooperation his own extreme liberal views pose, the underlying message of the interview was that extreme conservative opinions that demand “maximalist” ends are a danger to the country.

Then, after a dysfunctional president described American politics as dysfunctional, he inserted the tried and true ‘diversity’ buzzword into the conversation by contending that “the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”

While Barry pretends to be chastising ISIS in Iraq by dropping on them what equates to a couple of brightly-colored water balloons, here at home, in the name of diversity he allows gangs of tattooed Mexican hoodlums dressed in army fatigues to roam America’s streets and threaten American lives.

That sort of philosophy works on Obama’s behalf. By imposing a wide variety of illegal interlopers on a resistant public, the president can then accuse those who differ from his extreme views on immigration of xenophobic obstructionism.

Since he was elected, Barack Obama has adhered to the “I won” mentality. Now after six years of shocking ineptitude that has left everything from the economy to the healthcare system to the future of America hanging precariously in the balance the person responsible for the mess has the bald-faced audacity to label those attempting to stop that downward spiral extremists?

On the list of politically dysfunctional maximalists, both in and out of Congress, would be nation-wreckers include extremists like the diminutive governor of Arizona Jan Brewer, whose state the Obama administration sued for trying to uphold immigration law.

How dare Brewer attempt to defend Arizona citizens from a blitzkrieg of sickly, criminal, big government-dependent illegals all of whom contribute to the diversity Obama claims is incompatible with the opinions of conservatives?

Then there’s Governor Rick Perry who, as governor of a state under siege, had to call out the Texas National Guard to protect his people from the tide the president refuses to stem of diseased, lawless humans entering Texas from south of the border.

Other ideological maximalists are Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Trey ‘the pit bull’ Gowdy (R-SC). Both these so-called extremists regularly nip at the heels of the IRS scandal, and, every chance he gets, Gowdy handily eviscerates perpetrators with the skilled precision of Edward Scissorhands.

Then there’s maximalist obstructionist extraordinaire Ted Cruz (R-TX) whose The Legal Limit Report No. 4: The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power, lists 76 of the president’s “lawless” actions. It’s likely that Obama sees the outspoken Mr. Cruz as a major contributor to America’s political dysfunction and a huge part of the problem of why our nation is presently, as the president put it, a nonfunctioning society.

Alluding to Iraq and Israel, Obama reassured Friedman that in the Middle East he is only going to involve the U.S. if “different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

That “no victor/no vanquished” philosophy must be the driving force behind his plans to “provide a unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work permits.” Never mind that those sorts of “inclusive politics” fly in the face of an American public that opposes executive action on amnesty and a Congressional community desperately trying to curtail the president’s repeated autocratic maneuverings.

Speaking specifically about the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the president pointed out to Freidman that “Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you.”

That sort of catch-up is precisely what Obama is about to experience himself. Because despite his delusional rhetoric, and based on his own all-time low approval ratings in the polls, this November his maximalist positions will catch up with him and the equally maximalist wing of the party he leads.

The FLOTUS Pooh-Poohs Potatoes in an Op-Ed

5206Originally posted at American Thinker

In response to complaints about her precious school lunch program, Mrs. Obama is riled up.  The FLOTUS is so annoyed that she’s written an op-ed published in the New York Times that praises physicians, pans the House of Representatives, and pooh-poohs the potato.

Does it matter that the doctors Michelle Obama cites in her effort to give credibility to her healthy lunch argument are the same group of professionals that “overwhelmingly disagree with the changes to U.S. health care by ObamaCare?”

Guess not, because Mrs. Obama is using every weapon at her disposal to wage war against those who dare to suggest schools should be given the choice to opt out of her veggies-for-lunch program.  

According to the FLOTUS, the original goal of instituting a government-run lunch menu was to “end the epidemic of childhood obesity … so that kids born today … grow up healthy.” Mrs. Obama swears that the way to end to childhood obesity is to allow the same government – the one that has thwarted the ability of 92 million Americans to work – to apply “what works” when feeding their children at school.

In defense of government-ordered cafeteria fare, much like her global-warming huckster husband Barack, Michelle depends on the “most current science,” as well as research that indicates “kids needed less sugar, salt and fat in their diets.”  Who knew?

So while Sasha and Malia attend a school that costs $25K per year and get to choose between “Classic Entrees” that include baked Ziti, Cuban pork sandwiches, and BBQ wings, Michelle, who adores ancho-chile short ribs herself, denies similar choices to children tethered to publicly-funded school lunch programs.

Meanwhile, the FLOTUS asserts that the benefits of healthy-lunch initiatives are “evidence-based” and rely on “current science,” which raises the question:  Are Sasha and Malia instructed to pick only from the “Vegetarian Entrée” side of the Sidwell Friends lunch menu?

In her NY Times piece, Michelle emphasized that the obesity rate is beginning to fall among our youngest children, a claim Albert Einstein College of Medicine epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat believes is an “imprecise” CDC finding that may very well be the opposite.

Nevertheless, despite conflicting studies and overall obesity rates remaining stagnant, Mrs. Obama sees progress, which is the same mentality that considers it progress to ruin the healthcare of 270 million insured Americans so that 30 million uninsured Americans can have equally shoddy healthcare.

After citing imprecise CDC findings, leaning upon the expertise of doctors who criticize Obamacare, and ignoring the lunch menu her own daughters enjoy, Michelle shifted her argument to the child-hating House of Representatives.

That’s when the potato bashing really got started. 

This is a woman who admitted that she couldn’t stop eating French fries.  So why demean potatoes so aggressively that the United Potato Growers of America deserve a public apology?  Oprah Winfrey got sued for less than that by Texas cattlemen for dissing beef. 

Moreover, doesn’t Mrs. Obama, organic gardener extraordinaire, grow a unique variety of spuds in her Kitchen Garden – potatoes like red Sangre, purple fingerlings from Peru, Mountain Rose, Red Thumb, and Canela Russet?

The article didn’t stop with disparaging potatoes, either.  From there Michelle blatantly accused Republicans of waging war against women and children by suggesting that potatoes, which are rich in Vitamin B6 and potassium, as well as Vitamin C, phosphorus, manganese and fiber, should remain on the list of foods women can purchase with Women, Infants and Children (WIC) dollars.

“That’s why,” Michelle informed readers, “the Institute of Medicine — the nonpartisan, scientific body that advises on the standards for WIC — has said that potatoes should not be part of the WIC program.” 

According to Michelle ‘Fingerling Potato Velouté’ Obama who, unlike Dan Quayle, spells potato correctly and obviously consumes a healthy share of taters herself, “there is nothing wrong with potatoes. The problem is that [in her opinion] many women and children already consume enough potatoes[.]”

In the paraphrased words of Thomas Jefferson: ‘A government big enough to buy you your potatoes is a government big enough to take those potatoes away.’

From spuds, Michelle moved on to the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which hundreds of schools are hoping to opt out of.  Clearly not a fan of “optional,” the FLOTUS favors “mandatory.”

The FLOTUS warned America that members of the House of Representatives (meaning Republicans) are “threatening to roll back these new standards and lower the quality of food our kids get in school,” which is untrue. The type of flexibility and autonomy Michelle’s daughters enjoy at Sidwell is what Republicans are requesting on behalf of public schools.  

Then Michelle asked, “Remember a few years ago when Congress declared that the sauce on a slice of pizza should count as a vegetable in school lunches? You don’t have to be a nutritionist” – which she is not – “to know that [pizza sauce counting as a vegetable] doesn’t make much sense.”

Neither does eating fried fat cakes, Michelle, neither does eating fried fat cakes.

Still, despite the futile nature of the carrots-and-kale versus pizza-and-hot-dogs argument, Michelle is right about one thing:  “Our children deserve so much better than this” – but not as it relates to food.  Our kids deserve a future that includes freedom from the government strangulation prevalent in every policy Michelle Obama and her husband Barack have placed upon the tiny shoulders of America’s next generation. 

As Michelle Obama rightly says, “The bottom line is very simple: As parents, we always put our children’s interests first,” which is why the government should butt out.  After all, as Michelle points out, “We wake up every morning and go to bed every night worrying about their well-being and their futures.”

The problem is that, in the interest of furthering their progressive ideology, from policing lunch rooms to invading doctors’ offices to running roughshod over our economy, New York Times op-ed contributor Michelle Obama and her husband Barack are clearly the ones putting the well-being and future of America’s children last.

The NY Times not updating its ‘Casualties of War’ page – American Thinker Blog – February 25, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

During the Iraq War and when the New York Times was actively campaigning for Barack Obama, Grey Lady readers were subjected to a military service obituary entitled Faces of the Dead.  Daily, readers were forced to “face” the grim reality that young American soldiers were prematurely dying in Iraq.  The content of the site focused on poignant stories juxtaposed against the backdrop of what liberals argued was an unjust war.

Every day readers were confronted with demographics, photographs and related links like, 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark (October 26, 2005) and U.S. Death Toll in Iraq War Hits 4,000 (March 24, 2008). In addition, the NY Times online included a photo diary containing excerpts from e-mails and journals of six soldiers who died in Iraq

In May of 2009, around the same time Obama decided a troop surge was necessary in Afghanistan, the NY Times death inventory came to an abrupt halt. To date, eight-months after the first major wave of new troops were ordered by Barack Obama into Afghanistan, Casualties of War has not been up-dated to include Afghan surge fatalities.  Military victims of Obama’s Afghan war are missing from the Faces of the Dead section, which throughout Bush’s Iraqi war effort was refreshed on a daily basis.

The NY Times said the following about Casualties of War,

“However you feel about the war, this graphic presents facts and allows the viewer to develop their own impressions and opinions rather than packaging the same information with any sort of bias.”

So, in the spirit of unbiased journalism, it’s time the NY Times extended the present administration an equally impressive detailed register of soldiers dying under Commander-in-Chief’s Obama’s war watch.

In the last eight months 600 dead has grown to nearly a thousand. If pertinent “facts” allow website viewers “to develop their own impressions and opinions,” which was the supposed purpose of Casualties of War, then the NY Times has an opportunity to actively reengage the public in forming independent opinion by monitoring and reporting in an interactive way the sharp increase in statistical military death related data.

For instance, readers may be interested to know that the seven years and four months preceding Obama’s eight-month surge, seven deaths per month took place.  However, in eight months those figures grew to almost 39 deaths per month, which corresponds to a 450% increase in military lives lost.

Robert Gibbs contends, “We never have a plan to transfer anybody either to a home country or to a third country that we have reason to believe will present a security situation for us or for that country.” Thus, the NY Times could also include a groundbreaking addition to the presentation called The Adventures of Released Enemy Combatants. Maybe the website can dedicate a specific section to soldiers who would otherwise be alive today if not for a fatal meeting with insurgents released from the prison Obama wants permanently closed.

The uptick in war related Obama troop surge fatalities could provide the NY Times lots of vignette fodder, as well as many more photos of the president saluting flag draped coffins in the middle of the night.  If the New York Times decides to chronicle the current combat obituary, if the last eight months are any indication of what’s ahead, The Obama Years: Casualties of War has the potential to be even more damaging to Obama’s presidency than the NY Times 7-year narrative on Bush in Iraq.

%d bloggers like this: