No 606 “En mi opinión” Febrero
28, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
AMENPER: “Burocracia Reguladora” COMO NINGUNO DE NOSOSTROS ENTIENDE QUE ES
LO QUE QUIERE MICHELE VAMOS A ESCRIBIR EN LAS ETIQUETAS UNAS ORIENTACIONES QUE
NADIE ENTIENDA Y ASI NADIE PUEDE
CONFUNDIRSE…
Ok,
aquí tienen esta noticia, no parece tener mucha importancia a no ser que seas
un hipocondriaco nutricional, que hay muchos. Pero para el resto, no le importa
mucho esos cuadros nutricionales que ni los leen. Según dicen esto fue influido por
Michele que quiere que todos seamos saludables y sepamos lo que estamos
comiendo. Como a estos
socialista todavía no se ha inventado una regulación que no les guste,
inmediatamente se ha implementado y habrá que cambiar las etiquetas al nuevo
formato.
¿Qué
significa esto en cubano?, pues chico, coño que
nos jodimos, vas a tener que pagar más por todo en la bodega.
Quizás
le digan que no es así, pero si de algo puedo asegurarles es que los que
hacemos productos nutricionales vamos a tener que subir los
precios.
Para
obtener un precio mejor y competir en precios, hay que hacer cantidades de
etiquetas que se tienen en reserva. Con
estos cambios, no sólo hay que diseñar nuevas etiquetas, mandarlas a imprimir y
ponerla a los productos en inventario. Además hay que desechar las que tenemos
en inventario en el latón
de la basura azul de reciclaje.
Todo
esto sin perder mucho tiempo antes
de que se aparezca el compañero-burócrata del FDA para ver si estamos
cumpliendo con las nuevas regulaciones, y de todas manera nos ponga una
multa.
Como
los empleados les importa tampoco mucho esto, todos los viernes y hay que
darle el cheque como de costumbre, así que hay que subir los precios.
Alguien
tiene que pagar por los caprichos de Michelle y la burocracia, y además pagar
por los aumentos de precios de los productos, y ustedes saben quién es, ese que
ven todas las mañanas en el espejo del baño.
Estoy
seguro que ustedes o no leían las etiquetas o no les interesaba leerlas, o no
las entendían. ¿Y quieren otro secreto? Por lo que dice el artículo
ahora lo van a entender menos. Cuando
un grupo de burócratas de una agencia se
reúnen en una mesa de conferencia, lo que sale de esa mesa, nunca es bueno para
nadie.
SAMITIER: Como En Los Tiempos De Roma...
El Emperador Decide, Si Vives O Mueres...
Se
acaba de anunciar, que Obama ha matado 4
ciudadanos Americanos, con drones en el extranjero.
Nadie se preocupa por
eso! Se
anuncia, después de hecho… Por ser secreto de estado.
Ahora, planifican otro
asesinato, pero
está vez lo anuncian. Por
qué?
Este mensaje, no es
dirigido a los terroristas! Los
terroristas, ya lo saben, que son blancos de los drones.
Este mensaje de Obama, Sabiamente Enviado Por El Periódico NY Times, es
dirigido a nosotros!!
Es una amenaza clara,
contra nuestras libertades!!!
Si aceptamos que el EMPERADOR OBAMA, decida
a quien matar en Pakistán, Yemen o Libia, el proximo paso, es matar en USA con
impunidad.
Ya tenemos los ejemplos de
Clinton y Janet Reno que mataron americanos en Ruby Ridge y Waco con excusas
fabricadas. Pero
esos, fueron asesinados con pistolas y las victimas pudieron defenderse y
mataron a policías.
El gobierno sabe que la
policía no quiere matar americanos, por
eso, quieren usar Drones.
Ahora, la amenaza, es mucho
más peligrosa... Un
Drone armado, dando vueltas en el aire y decidiendo cuando atacar, por
control REMOTO… por gente en NO SE SABE DONDE... nadie se puede defender
contra
este tipo de amenaza.
Si permitimos que un
político, ASESINE
A CIUDADANOS, SIN JUICIO ya
no somos un país de leyes, SOMOS UNA DICTADURA.
Esta vez, ES UN MUSULMÁN, escondido en Pakistán. Pero
mañana, va ser un oponente
político, en su cama, en
nuestro barrio. Con
la excusa, que es
(mejor dicho era) un
terrorista!
Este anuncio, es una
prueba. Obama,
quiere saber si puede asesinar sin castigo político. Está,
es la verdad de este anuncio del NY Times
Abran los ojos. Estamos
rompiendo diariamente la CONSTITUCIÓN y las leyes...
Solo hay que recordar, que
Timothy McVeigh, el que supuestamente puso la bomba en
Oklahoma City, lo puso por lo que hicieron Clinton y la SEÑORITA JANET RENO en Waco!! Lean,
un poquito.
Si Obama quiere matar
Americanos, que le pida permiso al Congreso.
Que el Congreso declare la
guerra contra estos individuos y que los congresistas voten matar a estas
personas.
Sinó, hay que llevarlos a
juicios en las cortes Americanas.
No Puede Haber Asesinatos Extrajudiciales En Una Republica!
Ningún terrorista,
escondido en la montañas
de Pakistán puede hacerle nada a esta Republica!!
Pero matar Americanos, sin juicios, puede destruir nuestra
Republica!!!
Defiende tus derechos ahora
o arrodíllate ante el nuevo Dios en tierra,
el todo poderoso, Rey
Obama, que tiene el poder de vida o muerte.
U.S. Militant, Hidden, Spurs Drone
Debate.
AMENPER: Las Dos Américas y las primaveras
de la Libertad
Cuando
hablamos de la globalización, pensamos en la economía, en las empresas
multinacionales en la interdependencia política entre los países del
mundo. Pero la
globalización desde una perspectiva más amplia es como una osmosis social, en
que las barreras culturales se han filtrado entre ellas por la tecnología.
Este
proceso dinámico hace que el mundo se haya encogido en pocos años. En los
años cincuenta, un asiático podía pensar que Canadá estaba en Europa en la Gran
Bretaña, un ruso pudiera pensar que Colombia estaba en España, un estudiante de
una Universidad en Virginia pensaba que Cuba estaba era un país del tercer
mundo en el archipiélago de las Filipinas, y no estoy exagerando, fui testigo
de esto último, hoy las fronteras culturales prácticamente han desaparecido por
la tecnología.
Por
esto la revolución Cubana, cuando puso a Cuba en el mapa mundial, en los
años cincuenta, no tuvo el impacto mundial que ahora tiene la
rebelión del pueblo de Venezuela.
Cuba
era posiblemente el país comparable a los Estados Unidos por su tecnología de
aquella época, por su cercanía de 90 millas, y por la rica industria azucarera,
pero esto no era conocido en aquellos días.
Hoy
por la globalización todo el mundo sabe de la riqueza de Venezuela por la
industria petrolera.
El
que este país haya sido destruido en un período históricamente insignificante,
pone en evidencia una vez más el fracaso del comunismo, todos pueden ver que el
emperador está desnudo.
Venezuela
es una vitrina de un poder impactante para enseñar lo aburdo de la repetición
de un sistema que se ha comprobado que es la destrucción del país que lo adopta
y ha sucedido en esta nueva era de la revolución tecnológica...
Por
eso estamos viendo lo que ya algunos están llamando la primavera
Latinoamericana, en las protestas de Venezuela, la creciente disidencia en Cuba
y en las elecciones parciales de Bolivia y Ecuador
Por
eso es tan aberrante, que ante esta globalización geográfica cultural, ante
este osmosis intelectual, vemos como nos están tratando de vender este sistema
evidentemente fracasado en los Estados Unidos. ¿Como puede ser posible
que ante la globalización geográfica en que todos conocen la cultura la
política y la economía de cada país, un Senador pronuncie un discurso de media
hora en el pleno del Senado de
los Estados Unidos, predicando las maravillas de un sistema socialista y
abogando por la implantación de este sistema en nuestro país?.
En
sus palabras, “tenemos que aprender mucho de Cuba”- Bueno, creo que sí, ellos
están aprendiendo mucho de Cuba, están aprendiendo como reprimir los medios de
comunicación la centralización del poder en el gobierno federal y como
implantar la igualdad de la miseria en nuestro país.
¿Cómo
es posible que estén haciendo esto? La tecnología es parte de las nuevas armas
del socialismo del siglo XXI. Antes
el proceso socialista era creando miembros de las clases necesitadas,
prometiéndoles que iban a salir de su extrema pobreza.
En
los Estados Unidos no hay extrema pobreza, así que la dependencia se está
creando prometiéndole a cierto grupo, el vivir sin trabajar y que pueden
disfrutar de los mismas cosas que el estrato superior.
A
Karl Marx no se le ocurrió nunca el prometer a la clase pobre de su época que
todos podían tener un teléfono celular y un carro del año, y sobre todo que
iban a tener un ingreso sin tener que trabajar.
Cuando ellos dicen que hay dos américas, demagógicamente están hablando de los estratos económicos que tienen que existir en todas las sociedades.
Cuando ellos dicen que hay dos américas, demagógicamente están hablando de los estratos económicos que tienen que existir en todas las sociedades.
Pero
ellos están realmente creando dos américas, una que es la América que
conocemos, la otra es una américa con minúsculas, una américa de personas que
están formando una sociedad dependiente del estado y de la otra la América de
trabajadores y empresarios que producen y cada día están más exprimidos con impuestos por el estado para
mantener la otra América.
América
se deslumbró ante lo que pensaba que era una demostración al mundo de su
sofisticación social escogiendo a un presidente negro, sin pensar que ese negro
era un simpatizante del sistema socialista. América se encuentra en un invierno
crudo, este invierno es un símil metereólogico del invierno político-social por
el que está pasando américa, pero después del invierno, siempre viene la
primavera. Esperamos con
ansiedad de que nos llegue la primavera Estadounidense.
SAMITIER: Curas Polacos contra la Mafia Homosexual dentro de la
Iglesia...
Las Noticias Que
No Leemos
Curas Polacos, contra la Mafia Homosexual dentro de la
Iglesia...
Dice que hay un Lobby Homosexual.
Que practican una Herejía Homosexual y tienen una Mafia Homosexual.
Pero El PAPA Francisco, dice que no puede "juzgar"...
Desde
cuando No SE PUEDE JUZGAR... Lo primero que el Hombre
Aprende
desde que nace es el CONCEPTO DEL BIEN y Del MAL
que
se atribuye Al pecado de ADÁN Y EVA...
Algo No Cuadra...
¿Quien está equivocado? El cura Polaco o la Curia Vaticana??
Aquí les envió la denuncia del Lobby Homosexual... Usted decida...
Esta denuncia fue traducida del Polaco, por la Universidad
Pontificia
Juan
Pablo II en
Polonia:
SAMITIER: Otra Prueba
Más De que el Congreso De USA
Esta
Totalmente Infiltrado Por Comunistas...
Marco
Rubio Tubo Que Contestar Las Mentiras
Del
Senador (comunista) Por Iowa Que Regreso
De Un
Viaje A Cuba... Alabando A Los Castros...
Aquí
tiene lo que dijo Marco Rubio
Angry Marco Rubio
Blasts Harkin for Praising Cuba
By Courtney Coren
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio gave a scathing response on life in Cuba on
the Senate floor after Sen. Tom Harkin praised the communist regime following a
recent visit there.
Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, visited Cuba for a week and returned with praise for the healthcare system, the infant mortality rate, the literacy rate there and baseball, among other things, which Rubio characterized as naive.
"I heard him also talk about these great doctors that they have in Cuba, and I have no doubt they're very talented; I've met a bunch of them," the Florida Republican said. "You know where I met them? In the United States, because they defected. Because, in Cuba, doctors would rather drive a taxicab or work in a hotel than be a doctor."
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Rubio also addressed Cuba's "wonderful" literacy rate.
"Here's the problem," Rubio said. "They can only read censored stuff. They're not allowed access to the Internet ... It's great to have literacy, but if you don't have access to the information, what's the point of it?"
Story continues below video.
Rubio, whose parents are Cuban immigrants, also detailed Cuba's ties with terrorist nations and dictatorships around the world, including aid that it has offered to North Korea.
"Let me tell you what Cubans are really good at," Rubio continued. "What they're really good at is repression. What they're really good at is shutting off information to the Internet, and to radio and to television and social media ... And they're not just good at it domestically, they're good exporters of these things."
Rubio then described Cuba's ties and influence it has had on the protests currently going on in Venezuela, describing the officials there as "puppets of Havana, completely infiltrated by Cubans."
With the help of an aide, Rubio presented slides taken from the Venezuelan streets of government protestors being arrested, shot, and hit with water cannons, "because they are protesting the government."
"This is the government that the Cubans support, not just verbally, not just emotionally, but with training and tactics," he explained. "This is what they export ... Raul Castro announced that he's there to help them do whatever they need to help them do this."
Rubio continued to question the picture that Harkin painted of "what a paradise Cuba is."
"How come I never read about boatloads of refugees going to Cuba? Why have close to one and a half million people left Cuba to come here, but the only ones who leave here to move there are fugitives from the law and people who steal money from Medicare?"
Rubio referenced a poll that Harkin cited that "more Americans want normal relations with Cuba. So do I — a democratic and free Cuba."
"But you want us to reach out and develop friendly relationships with a serial violator of human rights, who supports what's going on in Venezuela and every other atrocities on the planet? On issue after issue, they are always on the side of the tyrants ... And this is who we should be opening up to — why don't they change?"
Rubio said he plans to present a measure to pursue sanctions against Venezuela.
"We, as the freest nation on earth, are looked to by people in [Venezuela] to stand by them in their moment of need, when they clamor for freedom and liberty and human rights. They look for America to be on their side," he said.
"I would suggest to my colleagues, the next time they go to Cuba, ask to meet with the Ladies in White. Ask to meet with Yoani Sanchez. Ask to meet with the dissidents and the human rights activists that are jailed and repressed and exiled," Rubio concluded. "Ask to meet with them. I bet you're going to hear something very different than what you got from your hosts on your last trip to the wonderful Cuba, this extraordinary socialist paradise. Because it's a joke. It's a farce."
Conservative opinion writer Peggy Noonan called Rubio's speech "a great, myth-destroying statement." And The Miami Herald said it was "the best oration of his political career."
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Related Stories:
Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, visited Cuba for a week and returned with praise for the healthcare system, the infant mortality rate, the literacy rate there and baseball, among other things, which Rubio characterized as naive.
"I heard him also talk about these great doctors that they have in Cuba, and I have no doubt they're very talented; I've met a bunch of them," the Florida Republican said. "You know where I met them? In the United States, because they defected. Because, in Cuba, doctors would rather drive a taxicab or work in a hotel than be a doctor."
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Rubio also addressed Cuba's "wonderful" literacy rate.
"Here's the problem," Rubio said. "They can only read censored stuff. They're not allowed access to the Internet ... It's great to have literacy, but if you don't have access to the information, what's the point of it?"
Story continues below video.
Rubio, whose parents are Cuban immigrants, also detailed Cuba's ties with terrorist nations and dictatorships around the world, including aid that it has offered to North Korea.
"Let me tell you what Cubans are really good at," Rubio continued. "What they're really good at is repression. What they're really good at is shutting off information to the Internet, and to radio and to television and social media ... And they're not just good at it domestically, they're good exporters of these things."
Rubio then described Cuba's ties and influence it has had on the protests currently going on in Venezuela, describing the officials there as "puppets of Havana, completely infiltrated by Cubans."
With the help of an aide, Rubio presented slides taken from the Venezuelan streets of government protestors being arrested, shot, and hit with water cannons, "because they are protesting the government."
"This is the government that the Cubans support, not just verbally, not just emotionally, but with training and tactics," he explained. "This is what they export ... Raul Castro announced that he's there to help them do whatever they need to help them do this."
Rubio continued to question the picture that Harkin painted of "what a paradise Cuba is."
"How come I never read about boatloads of refugees going to Cuba? Why have close to one and a half million people left Cuba to come here, but the only ones who leave here to move there are fugitives from the law and people who steal money from Medicare?"
Rubio referenced a poll that Harkin cited that "more Americans want normal relations with Cuba. So do I — a democratic and free Cuba."
"But you want us to reach out and develop friendly relationships with a serial violator of human rights, who supports what's going on in Venezuela and every other atrocities on the planet? On issue after issue, they are always on the side of the tyrants ... And this is who we should be opening up to — why don't they change?"
Rubio said he plans to present a measure to pursue sanctions against Venezuela.
"We, as the freest nation on earth, are looked to by people in [Venezuela] to stand by them in their moment of need, when they clamor for freedom and liberty and human rights. They look for America to be on their side," he said.
"I would suggest to my colleagues, the next time they go to Cuba, ask to meet with the Ladies in White. Ask to meet with Yoani Sanchez. Ask to meet with the dissidents and the human rights activists that are jailed and repressed and exiled," Rubio concluded. "Ask to meet with them. I bet you're going to hear something very different than what you got from your hosts on your last trip to the wonderful Cuba, this extraordinary socialist paradise. Because it's a joke. It's a farce."
Conservative opinion writer Peggy Noonan called Rubio's speech "a great, myth-destroying statement." And The Miami Herald said it was "the best oration of his political career."
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Related Stories:
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved
HARRY REID CALLS OBAMACARE VICTIMS LIARS
War on Women alert! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just called
a female leukemia patient a liar. He evidently believes countless other
women across the country who have reported unsatisfactory experiences with
ObamaCare are liars, too.
You’d think
Democrats would learn the importance of throwing a blanket over Harry Reid
until they squeak through a tough election. This is not the desirable Face of the
Party for such a… delicate moment. I doubt many imperiled
2014 Democrats – such as Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who dodged her own press conference to avoid
answering questions about ObamaCare – are going to embrace Reid’s tactic of
claiming all the ObamaCare horror stories are false. ”You’re all lying
scumbag tools of the Koch Brothers, now vote for me” is not a winning campaign
slogan. Neither is “I sign off on monster bills I don’t understand, and
that’s why you must return me to Congress.”
Notice that Reid bases his broad claims upon one case, which has become
the focus of much attention for weary ObamaCare defenders looking for something
to rally around. The leukemia patient he refers to is named Julie
Boonstra. Her story has already been “fact checked” about ten thousand
times more thoroughly than anything the current President of the United States
ever said or did. She appeared in an ad made by Americans for Prosperity
– hence Reid’s Koch Brothers fulminations. The ad is sharply critical of
Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), who is running for the Senate, and has been
threatening action against media outlets that run the AFP spot.
Part of Boonstra’s story is indisputable: she was indeed promised, over
thirty times, by one Barack Hussein Obama that she would be able to keep the
insurance plan she liked, but ObamaCare wiped it out, and getting new coverage
wasn’t easy, thanks to the lousy computer system Obama will end up blowing
about a billion dollars of our money on, once the A Team finishes fixing the B
Team’s fixes to the C Team’s unmitigated disaster.
Boonstra’s
more explosive claim is more difficult to sustain. She said her new
Affordable Care Act plan made the medicine she needs to live “unaffordable,”
but the fact
checkers – using
those calculators they kept packed tightly away in mothballs when Obama was
dumping one whopper after another on voters – say her monthly premiums declined
enough to offset the higher out-of-pocket costs. There remain some
questions about the cost and availability of certain medicines. You’ll
notice a lot of phrases like “might,” “probably,” and “could well” appearing in
the fact checks.
Boonstra says this unpredictability is one of the things she finds
distressing about ObamaCare, but let’s be blunt: the AFP ad said
“unaffordable,” not “unpredictable,” and nobody should be surprised by how much
hay Democrats are making out of the difference.
Nor should anyone be surprised that she’s getting the kind of scrutiny
Obama’s human props never receive – if memory serves correctly, the White House
eventually began refusing to identify the props, because even the minimal
interest our mainstream press displayed in verifying their claims proved too
much of an annoyance. The press seems generally content with this
arrangement, politely sparing ObamaCare supporters the kind of treatment Julie
Boonstra is getting.
Fair enough
to point that out, but please, let’s stop acting surprised that such double
standards exist, or waiting for some cosmic referee to throw a yellow flag on
the play. No one who remembers the fate of the plumber who dared to ask
Barack Obama a tough question should be shocked by the cross-examination of
this leukemia patient. She
says she intends to keep speaking out, so in a few weeks we’ll know more about
her than we know about the President of the United States, possibly including
the release of some records she thought were “sealed.”
Yes, conservative groups and unhappy ObamaCare sufferers, you must live
up to a level of rigorous accuracy vastly higher than anything faced by the
people who gave us this multi-trillion-dollar boondoggle. No, it’s not
fair. Stop waiting for fair. It’s not coming.
As for
Reid’s larger “all of the horror stories are untrue” strategy, maybe that is the only way for Democrats
to escape accountability for what they have done. They’ve got to break
America on the rack. They’ve got to make us formally renounce the
evidence of our senses. This isn’t about anything resembling persuasion
or democracy any more – remember, the official Democrat Party position is that
ObamaCare is a super-duper-ultra law that’s even harder for elected
representatives to modify or waive than the Constitution itself, although the
imperial President can do so at will. (That power will be instantly and
completely rescinded if his successor is a Republican, of course.) The
Democrats can’t win by convincing you to like ObamaCare; they win by surviving
the backlash, preventing voters from focusing resistance enough to win a steep
uphill battle for repeal.
The game is
now all about suppressing dissent, forcing everyone to Embrace Teh Suck.
Not long ago, Democrats were swearing up and down that hardly anyone was
losing their insurance; before that, they said Healthcare.gov worked great, its
only real problem being an unexpectedly heavy traffic load caused by its
incredible popularity. They tried claiming nobody would lose their jobs
because of ObamaCare, and when that fiction became impossible to sustain, they
said it was awesome that fewer people
will work because of the ACA – why, that was one of its delightful hidden goals
all along! The will of the public can be subdued by pushing it to accept
things it knows are
untrue. Can Democrats survive 2014 by putting voters on the table until
they swear to God they see five lights?
Update: Further warmth from Harry Reid, who longs
for the days of McCarthyism, provided he gets to be the one deciding who is
“un-American.”
Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that the conservative Koch
brothers are “un-American.” Responding to ads being run by a Koch-backed group
against Obamacare, Reid said the ads go too far and that Charles and David Koch
are trying to “buy” America. “It’s too bad that they’re trying to buy America,
and it’s time that the American people spoke out against this terrible
dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone I can
imagine,” Reid said on the Senate floor. On the other hand, money from that Yankee
Doodle Dandy George Soros is just wonderful, positively
dripping with good-old fashioned patriotic virtue. Not that anyone should
try confusing Harry Reid with facts, but the Koch Brothers are not even in the
top 10 political donors. To be
specific, they’re Number 59. Eighteen of the donors
Egyptian Doctor Files Terrorism Complaint With U.S.
Congress Against Barack Obama
The
Egyptian media is reporting that Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid has filed a complaint
with the U.S. Congress accusing Barack Obama of using U.S. tax dollars to fund
Terrorism in Egypt.
The charges brought against Malik Obama by
Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid and his attorney in Egypt have now been brought to the
attention of tens of millions of Arabs.
Above is a short clip from a 10 O’clock
news broadcast by El-Qahera wal Nas (Egypt and its people).
As it turns out, Dr. Ebeid is now based in
Tempe, Arizona, right in our back yard. He has been demanding for some time now
that Congress investigate Obama and his brother Malik over their heavily
documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Obama’s use of taxpayer
dollars to fund terrorism in Egypt.
To get more details about Dr. Ebeid’s
concerns, read his personal letter to House Speaker John Boehner.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/egyptian-doctor-files-terrorism-complaint-u-s-congress-barack-obama/#U2SS2Hf82Qw64WZs.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/egyptian-doctor-files-terrorism-complaint-u-s-congress-barack-obama/#U2SS2Hf82Qw64WZs.99
Obama
Administration Announces Sweeping Update To Nutrition Labels
by By
MARY CLARE JALONICK
WASHINGTON
(AP) — Those "Nutrition Facts" labels on nearly every food package in
grocery stores are getting a new look.
Calories
would be in larger, bolder type, and consumers would know whether foods have
added sugars under label changes proposed by the Obama administration Thursday.
Serving sizes would be updated to make them more realistic. A serving of ice
cream, for example, would double to a full cup, closer to what people actually
eat.
The
proposed overhaul comes as nutritionists' views have shifted. While fat was the
focus two decades ago when the labels first were created, there is now more
concern about how many calories we eat. And serving sizes have long been
misleading, with many single-serving packages listing multiple servings, so
their calorie count is lower.
The
idea isn't that people should eat more; it's that they should understand how
many calories are in what they are actually eating. The Food and Drug
Administration says that by law, serving sizes must be based on actual
consumption, not ideal consumption.
"Our guiding principle here is very simple, that you as a parent
and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an
item off the shelf and be able to tell whether it's good for your family,"
said first lady Michelle Obama, who joined the Food and Drug Administration in
announcing the proposed changes at the White House. yeah Mama
Mrs.
Obama made the announcement as part of her Let's Move initiative to combat
child obesity, which is celebrating its fourth anniversary. On Tuesday, she
announced new Agriculture Department rules that would reduce marketing of
less-healthful foods in schools.
The first lady and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said one of the
aims of the new labels is to make them less confusing for harried parents
shopping at the grocery store. Hamburg called the revision "a more
user-friendly version" of the current label. But I'm not harried Maggie, I just
don't want to pay more
The FDA projects food companies will have to pay around $2 billion as
they change the labels. Companies have resisted some of the changes in the
past, including listing added sugars on the label, but the industry is so far
withholding criticism. (Not Me)
The
Grocery Manufacturers Association, the industry group that represents the
nation's largest food companies, did not respond to any specific parts of the
proposal but called it a "thoughtful review."
President
Pamela Bailey said in a statement that it is important to the food companies
that the labels "ultimately serve to inform, and not confuse,
consumers" but did not elaborate. Ha Ha
It was
still not yet clear what the final labels would look like. The FDA offered two
labels in its proposal — one that looks similar to the current version but is
shorter and clearer and another that groups the nutrients into a "quick
facts" category for things like fat, carbohydrates, sugars and proteins.
There
also would be an "avoid too much" category for saturated fats, trans
fats, cholesterol, sodium and added sugars; and a "get enough"
section with vitamin D, potassium, calcium, iron and fiber. Potassium and
vitamin D are new additions, based on current thinking that Americans aren't
getting enough of those nutrients. Vitamin C and vitamin A listings are no
longer required.
Both
versions list calories above all of those nutrients in a large, bold type.
The proposed
rules would also overhaul serving sizes for soda and single-serving packages.
Both 12-ounce and 20-ounce sodas would be considered one serving, and many
single-serving packages — a bag of chips, a can of soup or a frozen entree, for
example — would either be listed as a single serving or list nutrient
information by serving and by container.
The
inclusion of added sugars to the label was one of the biggest revisions.
Nutrition advocates have long asked for that line on the label because it's
impossible for consumers to know how much sugar in an item is naturally
occurring, like that in fruit and dairy products, and how much is added by the
manufacturer. Think an apple vs. apple sauce, which comes in sweetened and
unsweetened varieties.
According
to the Agriculture Department's 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, added
sugars contribute an average of 16 percent of the total calories in U.S. diets.
Though those naturally occurring sugars and the added sugars act the same in
the body, the USDA says the added sugars are just empty calories while
naturally occurring ones usually come along with other nutrients.
David Kessler, who was FDA commissioner when the first Nutrition Facts
labels were unveiled in the early 1990s, said he thinks focusing on added sugars
and calories will have a "demonstrative public health benefit." Why Dave?, we don't eat
the labels
Kessler
said the added sweetness, like added salt, drives overeating. And companies
will adjust their recipes to get those numbers down.
"No
food company wants products to look bad," he said.
While
some may ignore the panels, there's evidence that more people are reading them
in recent years as there has been a heightened interest in nutrition.
A USDA
study released earlier this year said 42 percent of working adults used the
panel always or most of the time in 2009 and 2010, up from 34 percent two years
earlier. Older adults were more likely to use it
Obama's 5 biggest mistakes
The
president's Republican opponents will surely spend 2012 hammering away at his
failures. So what exactly are they? By |
As I wrote last week, President Obama can
point to several successes as he runs for re-election. But like all
presidents, he has made his share of mistakes as well. I promised to list what
I think are his five biggest errors. Here they are:
5.
Jamming through health-care reform
In last week's article, this made the list of the president's biggest successes. But it also makes his list of mistakes. The president spent most of his political capital in his first year in office on health care, which he saw as a defining issue of his presidency. Aside from lingering questions over the constitutionality of the law's central provision — the Supreme Court will likely rule this summer whether the government can mandate that all Americans have health insurance — and questions about how much the program may cost, Obama did himself and the Democratic Party immense damage in terms of how the bill was passed. The president and congressional Democrats used divisive, bare-knuckled tactics, shoving the law down the throats of anyone in their way. "Hell no!" cried then-House Minority Leader John Boehner moments before the bill was passed. Anger over the Democrats' tactics helped fuel the rise of the Tea Party and the "wave election" of 2010, in which the GOP stormed back into the House majority. Obama has since complained of steady GOP obstructionism and a "do-nothing" Congress — but in a sense, he created this problem by passing major social legislation without first achieving any kind of bipartisan consensus. That's not how a president makes good policy.
In last week's article, this made the list of the president's biggest successes. But it also makes his list of mistakes. The president spent most of his political capital in his first year in office on health care, which he saw as a defining issue of his presidency. Aside from lingering questions over the constitutionality of the law's central provision — the Supreme Court will likely rule this summer whether the government can mandate that all Americans have health insurance — and questions about how much the program may cost, Obama did himself and the Democratic Party immense damage in terms of how the bill was passed. The president and congressional Democrats used divisive, bare-knuckled tactics, shoving the law down the throats of anyone in their way. "Hell no!" cried then-House Minority Leader John Boehner moments before the bill was passed. Anger over the Democrats' tactics helped fuel the rise of the Tea Party and the "wave election" of 2010, in which the GOP stormed back into the House majority. Obama has since complained of steady GOP obstructionism and a "do-nothing" Congress — but in a sense, he created this problem by passing major social legislation without first achieving any kind of bipartisan consensus. That's not how a president makes good policy.
The
president used divisive, bare-knuckled tactics, shoving the health-care law
down the throats of anyone in their way.
4.
Failing to stop Iran
Over the weekend we learned that the Pentagon wants $82 million to make what is already its biggest bunker-buster bomb even bigger. The bomb is needed, officials say, to dig deep underground and hit Iranian nuclear facilities. This is a tacit reminder that the president has thus far failed to achieve his principle goal with respect to Iran: Bringing its nuclear weapons program to a halt. Obama has hurt the regime with tightened sanctions, but not enough to change its behavior. The president also passed on an opportunity to weaken the regime internally by supporting Iran's Green movement — the massive protests that erupted in June 2009 after an election was rigged to ensure another term for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the time, Obama paid lip service to the Iranian protesters, but said "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs." The protest movement — the true beginning of the Arab Spring — was brutally crushed (remember the video of the young woman named Neda being gunned down?) and the regime marched on. Now the president appears closer than ever to "interfering with Iran's affairs" in a far more consequential way — with military force.
Over the weekend we learned that the Pentagon wants $82 million to make what is already its biggest bunker-buster bomb even bigger. The bomb is needed, officials say, to dig deep underground and hit Iranian nuclear facilities. This is a tacit reminder that the president has thus far failed to achieve his principle goal with respect to Iran: Bringing its nuclear weapons program to a halt. Obama has hurt the regime with tightened sanctions, but not enough to change its behavior. The president also passed on an opportunity to weaken the regime internally by supporting Iran's Green movement — the massive protests that erupted in June 2009 after an election was rigged to ensure another term for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the time, Obama paid lip service to the Iranian protesters, but said "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs." The protest movement — the true beginning of the Arab Spring — was brutally crushed (remember the video of the young woman named Neda being gunned down?) and the regime marched on. Now the president appears closer than ever to "interfering with Iran's affairs" in a far more consequential way — with military force.
3.
Ballooning the deficit
In April 2010, the president launched a much-hyped deficit reduction commission, headed by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles. Obama claimed to take Simpson-Bowles seriously. "Once the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work," he told an Ohio crowd, "I will spend the next year making the tough choices necessary to further reduce our deficit and lower our debt." The commission produced a plan to slash the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade. No sacred cows were spared: Three-quarters of the reduction would come from cutting government services and entitlement programs, and the rest from military cuts and the elimination of tax loopholes. But the president failed to endorse the plan. This opened the door to a series of 2011 fights: The debt ceiling clash between Obama and congressional Republicans, two missed opportunities for a "Grand Bargain" on deficits, the subsequent credit downgrade by S&P, and last fall's badly-misnamed "super committee." One of the president's economic allies, mega-billionaire Warren Buffett, said, "What happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy." The Republicans share the blame for the circus that was 2011, of course, but by tabling the recommendations of his very own blue-ribbon panel, Obama gave some voters — and GOP rivals — an early and perhaps lasting impression that he wasn't serious about making those tough choices.
In April 2010, the president launched a much-hyped deficit reduction commission, headed by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles. Obama claimed to take Simpson-Bowles seriously. "Once the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work," he told an Ohio crowd, "I will spend the next year making the tough choices necessary to further reduce our deficit and lower our debt." The commission produced a plan to slash the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade. No sacred cows were spared: Three-quarters of the reduction would come from cutting government services and entitlement programs, and the rest from military cuts and the elimination of tax loopholes. But the president failed to endorse the plan. This opened the door to a series of 2011 fights: The debt ceiling clash between Obama and congressional Republicans, two missed opportunities for a "Grand Bargain" on deficits, the subsequent credit downgrade by S&P, and last fall's badly-misnamed "super committee." One of the president's economic allies, mega-billionaire Warren Buffett, said, "What happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy." The Republicans share the blame for the circus that was 2011, of course, but by tabling the recommendations of his very own blue-ribbon panel, Obama gave some voters — and GOP rivals — an early and perhaps lasting impression that he wasn't serious about making those tough choices.
2.
Failing to fix the housing market
The bursting of the housing bubble six years ago has cost Americans more than $7 trillion in home equity, and sparked the recession and the near collapse of the U.S. economy. Home prices have continued to fall since Obama was inaugurated, and now stand at 2002 levels. The president can rightly say that the crash began on George W. Bush's watch (Bush's 2008 bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have so far cost taxpayers $141 billion), but after three years, it's fair to ask what the president has done to fix housing. Answer: Not much. Efforts to stem foreclosures and help folks refinance were poorly designed and have fallen well short of expectations. A short-lived tax credit to encourage first-time buyers wasn't extended by Congress, and ongoing waves of foreclosures continue to depress prices. Today, 22 percent of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgages. The problem for the president is that housing is not an isolated issue. It's tied to jobs, and until the labor market heals, housing will continue to grind along. The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Index for November warned bluntly that "the troubled housing market remains weak and won't recover anytime soon." Housing, jobs, and long-term consumer confidence can be a virtuous — or vicious circle. They have been the latter for the better part of a decade already. This leads to what I think has been President Obama's greatest mistake of all.
The bursting of the housing bubble six years ago has cost Americans more than $7 trillion in home equity, and sparked the recession and the near collapse of the U.S. economy. Home prices have continued to fall since Obama was inaugurated, and now stand at 2002 levels. The president can rightly say that the crash began on George W. Bush's watch (Bush's 2008 bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have so far cost taxpayers $141 billion), but after three years, it's fair to ask what the president has done to fix housing. Answer: Not much. Efforts to stem foreclosures and help folks refinance were poorly designed and have fallen well short of expectations. A short-lived tax credit to encourage first-time buyers wasn't extended by Congress, and ongoing waves of foreclosures continue to depress prices. Today, 22 percent of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgages. The problem for the president is that housing is not an isolated issue. It's tied to jobs, and until the labor market heals, housing will continue to grind along. The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Index for November warned bluntly that "the troubled housing market remains weak and won't recover anytime soon." Housing, jobs, and long-term consumer confidence can be a virtuous — or vicious circle. They have been the latter for the better part of a decade already. This leads to what I think has been President Obama's greatest mistake of all.
1.
Overpromising on the economic recovery
How many times have we heard the president say the downturn of 2007–09 was the "worst since the Great Depression"? Here's the rub: Given that it took Franklin Roosevelt 10 years and a world war to fix the Depression, why on earth would Obama compare our downturn to FDR's — but promise to fix it in a fraction of the time? Consider this February 2009 statement to NBC's Matt Lauer: "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition." And why, given the "worst downturn since the Depression," would the administration estimate that unemployment would only hit around 8 percent? The projection, made in a January 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (written by former economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein) also forecast that the president's stimulus plan would create between 3 and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Fast forward just nine months, to October 2009, and the jobless rate hit 10 percent. (It has since fallen to 8.5 percent.) As for job creation, the administration was off as well. It has created 3 million jobs, but it took until the end of 2011 to get there. Because the president overpromised and under-delivered on the economic recovery, he may be right about that one-term proposition.
How many times have we heard the president say the downturn of 2007–09 was the "worst since the Great Depression"? Here's the rub: Given that it took Franklin Roosevelt 10 years and a world war to fix the Depression, why on earth would Obama compare our downturn to FDR's — but promise to fix it in a fraction of the time? Consider this February 2009 statement to NBC's Matt Lauer: "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition." And why, given the "worst downturn since the Depression," would the administration estimate that unemployment would only hit around 8 percent? The projection, made in a January 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (written by former economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein) also forecast that the president's stimulus plan would create between 3 and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Fast forward just nine months, to October 2009, and the jobless rate hit 10 percent. (It has since fallen to 8.5 percent.) As for job creation, the administration was off as well. It has created 3 million jobs, but it took until the end of 2011 to get there. Because the president overpromised and under-delivered on the economic recovery, he may be right about that one-term proposition.
The 10 Biggest Amateur Mistakes By the
Obama Administration So Far
During the 2008 presidential campaign, people
speculated whether someone like Barack Obama, who has never really run anything
or had any major achievements other than winning political office, could handle
a three AM crisis call. Well, as it turns out, Obama has been such a bumbling
incompetent that he probably couldn't handle a trip through a Wendy's drive-in
window without a teleprompter telling him what to order and whether he wants a
Coke or a Mountain Dew. Even though Obama has been in office less than two months,
he has already made more boneheaded errors than most Presidents do in an entire
term.
10) After doing the "We've got to have this
stimulus package passed right this second or the economy is going to
explode" routine so convincingly that not one single soul in Congress
actually had time to read the entire bill before it was signed, Barack Obama
then promptly went on a three day vacation to celebrate before he signed it. If
the bill was so important that no one could even have time to read it before it
was passed, then why wasn't it important enough for Obama to skip dinner at
Table Fifty-Two in Chicago to immediately make it a law?
9) In a juvenile stunt, reminiscent of something a
third grader might come up with, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a button that was supposed to say
"reset." However, incredibly, the word on the button translated to
"overcharge," not "reset." Apparently, despite the enormous
deficit the government is going to run up this year, Team Obama forgot to
budget enough money to hire someone who speaks Russian for the State
Department. If only America could just press a button and reset the entire
Obama presidency so far and start over.
8) When Barack Obama was trying to sell America his
stimulus bill that will put the country more than a trillion dollars in debt, he alerted America that,"Caterpillar's chief
executive…told him the company will rehire some laid-off workers if the
stimulus bill passes." But,
when he was asked about Obama's statement, Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens said, "I
think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we
start hiring again."
7) A large part of Barack Obama's appeal was the idea
of racial reconciliation. The implicit deal was that by putting our first black
President in office, America would prove once and for all that it wasn't
racist, and we could put all this silly squabbling about race in the rear view
mirror once and for all. However, not only has it failed to work out that way,
Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder issued an an insulting challenge on the topic to the American people,
"Though
this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things
racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways,
essentially a nation of cowards."
Maybe someone should ask the poor guy who did an
innocent cartoon for the New York Post that made fun of the stimulus bill and
the rampaging monkey that was in the news why people might be afraid to get
dragged into a debate about race.
6) Typically, Presidents don't pick fights with
pundits and talk radio hosts for obvious reasons. It draws more attention to
their criticisms, elevates their status, and comes across as thin skinned and a
little creepy, much like Richard Nixon's "Enemies list."
But, the Obama Administration hasn't figured this out
-- yet. They've launched attacks at Rick Santelli, Jim Cramer, and most
prominently, Rush Limbaugh. Ratcheting up the creepiness factor a couple of
notches in Limbaugh's case, the President of the United States, members of the
mainstream media, and liberal interest groups are all coordinating an attack on
a private individual for daring to criticize Barack Obama. That sounds more
like something that would happen in the old Soviet Union than in the United
States.
But happily, if you look at the results of the White
House campaign, it has backfired in every instance. Rush Limbaugh is on pace to
make more revenueby the end of March than he made all
last year, there are Santelli inspired "Tea Parties" popping up all
across the country, and every criticism of Obama that Jim Cramer utters is now
linked by the Drudge Report.
5) The first task a new President engages in is
bringing a staff on board. After choosing Joe Biden, who has behaved like he
was kicked in the head by a horse as a child, things have really gone down hill
from there. Bill Richardson quit as Commerce Secretary after coming under
investigation. Republican Senator Judd Gregg accepted, then declined Obama's
offer to be his Commerce Secretary over irreconcilable differences. Tom Daschle
quit after having tax problems. So did Nancy Killefer. Ron Kirk also has tax
problems, but he's trying to hang in there like Hilda Solis and another cabinet
member who gets his own special entry -- and keep in mind, Obama has a
considerable number of positions left to fill. Hey Barry, the word of the day
is "vetting." You should look into it.
4) George Bush spent a lot of time strengthening our
ties to Eastern European nations like Poland and the Czech Republic during his
two terms in the White House. Yet, it took Barack Obama less than two months to
undo much of Bush’s good work with those nations.
Obama wrote a "secret" letter to Dmitri
Medvedev offering to leave Poland and the Czech Republic twisting in the wind
on missile defense in return for Russia's help in stopping Iran from getting
nukes. The problem was that the letter went public even as Russia turned down the deal. So,
in other words, our friends in Eastern Europe were publicly alerted that we
were willing to sell them down the river to the Russians, who they were already
afraid of, and yet we got nothing out of the deal. That's a real "welcome
to the Big Leagues" maneuver from the Russians for our naive, rookie
President.
3) After making a stink by sending back a Winston
Churchill bust, Barack Obama blew off a press conference with British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown -- but, the real kicker was the gifts.
After
Brown presented Obama with a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th
century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute,
provided the wood for the Oval Office's desk), Obama offered up ... 25 DVDs of
American movie classics.
The Brits offered Obama a thoughtful, priceless gift
and he handed them back a bad Netflix queue that was probably picked up at
Wal-mart earlier that day.
2) Choosing tax cheat Timothy Geithner to be his
Treasury Secretary was such an incredible screw up that it deserves it own
entry. It's mind boggling that any Administration would choose a tax cheat to
run the department that's in charge of the IRS. Moreover, in Obama's case, he
has already announced plans for the largest tax hike in American history,
nearly a trillion dollars, and the man in charge of that effort doesn't pay his
taxes? Prediction: a few years from now, if the New York Times isn't out of
business by then, they'll write an article telling you that they're baffled,
baffled I tell you, by the massive increase in the number of people cheating on
their taxes.
1) Barack Obama may be a liberal thriller, but he's
also a stock market killer. Since he came into office, his Bunyanesque new
spending proposals, his plans for a trillion dollar tax hike, his regular
badmouthing of the economy, and his incessant tinkering with banks and the
housing market have caused the stock market to go into a freefall. Granted,
stocks would have likely dropped anyway because of the economic crunch we're
in, but the market wouldn't have already reached the lowest level since 1997 without
lots of help from Obama. As Democratic financial wiz, Jim Cramer, has said of
Obama’s performance, "it's amateur hour at our darkest
moment" and it's "crushing nest eggs around the
nation."
We will protest infront of the
white house and the congress
Washington DC. On May 26 2014,
“Memorial Day” .
“STOP” obama and the congress “STOP”
Are you be one of us to ask?
PRESIDENT, SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES
IF YOU CAN’T DO YOUR WORK RIGTH
IN THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. PLEASE
RESIGN INMEDIATELY.
Washington DC . USA at 6 AM on May 26, 2014
“Don’t be upset be even”
------DECLARACION DE INDEPENDENCIA-------
Sostenemos como evidentes por sí mismas dichas verdades: que todos
los hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su Creador de
ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre estos están la vida, la
libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad; que para garantizar estos derechos
se instituyen entre los hombres los gobiernos, que derivan sus poderes
legítimos del consentimiento de los gobernados; que cuando quiera que una
forma de gobierno se vuelva destructora de estos principios, el pueblo tiene
derecho a reformarla o abolirla, e instituir un nuevo gobierno que base sus
cimientos en dichos principios, y que organice sus poderes en forma tal que
a ellos les parezca más probable que genere su seguridad y felicidad.
-IN
CASE OF GOVERNMENT TYRANY-
“USE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT”
“LA LIBERTAD NO
ES GRATIS”
<IN GOD WE TRUST>
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
Para contribuir con artículos, opiniones, sugerencias o recibir “En mi
opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment