Calif. bill to limit kids' choice of drinks in restaurants

First they came for my burrito . . . 

Sacramento -- If California gets its way, and it probably will, a new bill will pass giving kids only two choices of beverage at restaurants: milk or water which will not be imbibed through a plastic straw.

Senate Bill 1192 would order milk or water to be the default beverage for kids. The reason for the bill is to reduce obesity and other bills are likely to be considered to the same end.

For example, the state senate is considering a bill to end the sale of all products containing over 15 percent of fat or sugar, and includes, but is not limited to: bacon, burgers, chicken, chips of all kinds, ice cream, donuts, fries, beer, pizza, cheeses, all fried foods, candy, chocolate, cakes, croissants, and butter.

Bill 1192 has passed the ASSembly and is on its way to Gov. Moonbeam's desk. After he signs it, California will be the first state in the nation to experience an internal revolution or exodus, whichever residents choose.

Will get you 10 to 20 years in the slammer

"Cancer is fought in the halls of government, not just in the halls of the hospital," Stephanie Winn of the American Cancer Society said. "And if we have to make laws to stop you from destroying yourselves, that's just too damn bad. Deal with it," she added.

Her group is just one of many supporting a government that knows what's best for us and will force us to make the right choices because those will be the only ones left to make.

Winn [no relation to Steve, I think] argues that kid's meals shouldn't come with a side order of diseases or flavor.

The bill still allows parents to order alternatives, but they will have to ask for it, and if they do, they will be monitored and recorded for additional child abuse behavior, such as super-sizing, which will carry significant legal penalties.

Please consider following Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.



Tweet

"Michelle: "Shut up and eat what I tell you to eat"

In a perfect world, Michelle Obama and her husband would be living in a small town somewhere in Iran or Indonesia. Anywhere but here, in the land of the free.

The First [so-called ]Lady is now going beyond the law and has become America's Dietician in Charge. She has made the official decree of what kids in schools and daycare centers may or may not be allowed to eat. In other words, she has become America's Momma, and overruling the actual mommas of our children. 

Hypocrisy on a bun

Michelle Obama is America's food Nazi and judging by her generous frame, one can surmise that her knowledge of what children should be allowed to eat, does not apply to her. Even if it did, she has no legal authority to tell schools and daycares that receive federal assistance what they can serve and what is restricted. 

But if they don't abide by her demand, they lose their funding, and that's political blackmail.

Mrs. Obama has an inordinate interest in food, it seems, and she has made her focus on that and vacations while her husband rules the country. 

Mrs. Obama is imposing a regulation whereby daycare centers can serve juice only once a day, ban fried food, and discourage the use of honey in yogurt. Cereals such as Lucky Charms, Trix, Cap'n Crunch and Frosted Flakes will be banned and if found in the cupboards of a cafeteria the administrative staff of the school or daycare will receive 10 years in prison and share the same cells as transferred Gitmo "detainees."

All meats will be substituted with tofu. Any child found with a meaty stool will be expelled and their parents will be deported to Mexico on an illegal alien exchange program.

There will be unannounced "spot inspections" of the children's stools for any indication of these cereals or honey and parents of those "caught with the goods" will be forced to undergo junk food deprogramming initiative or face 5 years in prison.

But seriously, do we need more rules, more laws, more regulations that erode our freedoms? Do we need a nanny state forcing parents to allow the government to raise their kids? Do we really need the Democratic party?


Tweet

Banning Choice

16 oz. can get you "Five"

Michael Bloomberg is banning the sale of 16 ounce soft drinks in restaurants in order to help fight obesity in New York City. In order to stay fat, gluttons will have to order two 8 ounce soft drinks to keep up the forbidden calories, but I suspect they might go for a couple of 10 ounce drinks just for spite. Maybe they'll have to ban all soft drinks. Just as long as they leave marijuana alone, Bloomberg is okay with it, like he is with donuts as he celebrated "Donut Day" in New York right after making the soda ban announcement.

Now there is talk of banning other fattening foods like popcorn. What about ice cream and those deadly high in fat, low in satiation, croissants? What about sugary cereals and donuts (what will the cops do)? What about things that help us maintain our portly figures like television and public transit--we should be forced to walk or bike to work.  And since the reason for the fight against obesity is ostensibly for health reasons, why not ban low SPF sunscreens and only allow 40 or higher SPF's to be sold? How about banning tight jeans for men as they inhibit the reproduction of viable sperm cells? Milk is high in cholesterol so why not ban it too? And second cups of coffee should land you in jail for nothing less than a month, while candy should land you in the slammer with serious hard time.


I say we ban toilet paper too, because it is a fact that in over 95% of all cancer-related deaths in western society, the deceased was a regular user of toilet paper--the correlation is indisputable.

Bloomberg: "King of New York" 

Or maybe the best solution is to get rid of politicians like Bloomberg, a little man with a big ego who thinks he has the right to tell us what we can or cannot eat because he knows it's for our own good. Or maybe he's just into the power surge he gets when he dictates from his bully pulpit.  He wants to be your mommy just like Obama wants the government to be your nanny. Why is it that the rich and powerful want the rest of us to share our wealth and be dependent upon the government in aspects of our lives that is none of their damned business when they aren't willing to give up what they have?


Socialism doesn't bring the lowest up to the socio-economic middle, it brings the middle down to the bottom, while the rich stay rich and powerful. And a nanny state doesn't help you, it makes you dependent and weak as it weakens the nation where everyone is a winner and nobody is a winner--except for the politicians and the real people in power who put them there--the Soro's of the world.


Please tell me what you think in the comments section.

If you want a great read about modern day terrorism and suspense, my latest novel, Jihad Joe, is now available both in soft cover and as an Ebook--see the links below. 

Jihad Joe Soft Cover     

     

click here for ebook version  

Conservatweets ebook free download

Tweet