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

Mom shamed by school for cake in daughter's lunch box

First they nastygrammed about a kid's school lunch, then they nastygrammed about his dirty underwear. When will it stop?

An Australian nastygram has gone viral.

A mother, who obviously loves her 3-year-old daughter, put a slice of chocolate cake in her school lunch bag. How horrible!

The cake set off an alarm, flagging the delicious desert as a violation of the school's mandatory healthy foods policy. The cake was flagged in the shuddersome "Red Food Category," which lists foods "that may contain excess energy (kilojoules), saturated fat [Michael Moore], added sugar and/or salt."

The mother discovered how terrible she was when her daughter returned home with a note from the teacher that was topped with a sad face and said: "Your child has chocolate slice from the Red Food category today. Please choose healthier options for Kindy."

'Kindy' refers to kindergarten in Australian.

A friend of the warned mommy, Melinda Tankard Reist, (who is also an author and advocate for women and girls) went on Facebook to support her friend. She posted a photo of the note and wrote: "My friend (mother of 8 healthy children, what follows relating to no. 7) received this today from her 3 year old's kindy. I told her to put in two slices tomorrow and tell them to get lost."

The post received hundreds of shares and over 800 comments.

One commenter wrote: "I'm quite sure the mother knows it has sugar . . . the mother is NOT in kindergarten . . . the teacher is chastising the parent here! Plus makes the child feel bad . . . shame on the teacher . . . it's not every day I am sure."

Another wrote: "Perhaps tell them that they are breaching our privacy by looking. Quote privacy legislation--no right to judge my lunchbox."

Today it's the lunch boxes . . . tomorrow, our skivvies. It must end now!


Tweet

Banning the Ban

The New York Nanny City soda ban has been thrown off the books with a judge declaring it arbitrary and capricious. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's breasts must have dried up now that the city dwellers will not depend upon him to tell them how much of something they can have. You may remember how he made it ridiculously difficult for new mothers to use baby formula for their newborns as Bloomberg wanted them to nurse their young, just like he wants to nurse us.

"I made them an offer they can't refuse"

It's a victory for individual rights but I suspect it will be short-lived because Bloomberg's Napoleon Complex provides no room for losing. I suspect the little jerk will take the banned ban back to court and fight it tooth and nail with a modicum of hair-pulling.

When you're a billionaire, and Bloomberg certainly is, you have all the money you really need. What's left is power. And Mickey B. wants all the power he can get. If he really cared all that much about the health of New Yorkers, he would provide them all with free gymnasiums--the billionaire can afford it. But instead, he wants to screw over businesses, corporations, and individuals who just want to be allowed to function independently from another's demands.

How Obama-esque of Bloomie.

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

Fast Food and Furious

I never thought it would happen in America--a country where kids used to stand in class and recite the Pledge of Allegiance--you know, the "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," pledge. Where the government respected the rights of the individual and did not treat its citizens as children. Where we were responsible for our own choices: we could smoke cigarettes and get cancer, and all cigarette companies were required to do was inform us of the risk. Where we could have a McFat Burger with fries, an apple pie made with palm oil for dessert, and a slurpee to wash it all down. It was our choice. We could even have public Christmas displays in our shopping malls.

Now we are no longer allowed to use the name of God in our pledge, and many schools are not even allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. So to whom do we give our allegiance? I think the answer is obvious: to the rules and regulations of government.

The dietary dysfunction of our First Lady has now become her obsession with us, and we must obey her rules. McDonald's burgers are out and what she deems as health food is in. There are school districts in the USA where school cafeterias are no longer allowed to serve certain foods because it is making the kids obese. Some of these privately owned cafeterias had to close up business, and the kids now go to area pizza parlors for lunch. Now there is talk about restricting fast food restaurants from operating near schools.

What about the rights of parents? Don't they have the right to make decisions about what their kids eat, and let's face it, there are times when a parent doesn't have the time and/or energy to cook a lean cuisine meal for junior, and fast food fits the bill for those occasions. So the government has become the Nanny State, where the responsiblities of child-rearing have been removed from the parents and placed in the hands of our lawmakers. How wonderful is that? How Big Brother-ish are we becoming? 

Unions protecting the least competent

When government begins to dictate the minutia of our lives, they can more easily dictate the more important aspects of them too. A government that does this is rightly called a dictatorship. And this is what liberals seem to want because they believe the masses do not have the ability to care for themselves. It reminds me of unions who take care of incompetent workers by making it almost impossible for management to fire them--think teacher's unions, for example.


I believe our next election is going to be a referendum not only on Obama and his socialist policies, but on the Nanny State in general and how people are fed up being lied to and shown feigned caring for by BIG GOVERNMENT.


Liberals hate the wealthy in this country because they demonstrate success in spite of government interference in their lives.

Tweet