Ban Sprinkles? Aw Hell No!!

Looks like the sprinkles for cakes, donuts and ice cream is going to go the way of other banned stuff if the FDA has their way.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS: FDA MOVES TO BAN CAKE, DONUT ‘SPRINKLES’

Early next year, the FDA is expected to finalize a new regulation intended to eradicate even trace amounts of partially hydrogenated oils, known as trans fats, from our diets. Although the amount of trans fats Americans consume has declined significantly in recent years, the FDA’s quest to completely eliminate a particular type of trans fat threatens to eliminate the noble “sprinkle,” used to decorate holiday treats and donuts. Even a small amount of joy is suspect in the FDA’s brave, new, food-monitored world.~snip~

It's especially galling seeing as how the food police were the ones who foisted trans fats on is in the first place.
(from the article)

At this juncture, it bears repeating that a large reason trans fats used to be so prevalent in our diets was due to the activism of the food nannies at Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The left-wing food scolds, most famous for its reports on “calorie bomb” food entrees, pushed restaurants and food companies to switch to trans fats in the 1980s and 1990s.

Putting sprinkles on baked goods at home is a time honored rite of passage for uncounted toddlers helping out in the kitchen along with icing cookies beforehand of course. The food Nazis' don't seem to have a problem with banning that along with the delightful little sprinkles.

I guess it's not like they have anything else more important to do like maybe doing something about the outbreaks of listeria or other food borne health outbreaks.
How petty do these bureaucrats have to go to justify their continuous growth?

Death and the Tyranny of the Nanny State

While the usual suspects are having a conniption over no charges being brought against the officers who used a choke hold on Eric Gardner resulting in his death, most of the media ignore the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Lessons from Eric Garner’s death and cigarette taxes

 Many people say his death is another case of white police brutality against black citizens. Lost in this public debate, though, is a key question: Why were police arresting Garner in the first place?

    Was he robbing a store or attacking innocent citizens? No, police arrested Garner supposedly for selling untaxed cigarettes. The strong-arm arresting process claimed Garner’s life, all over the sale of 75-cent loose cigarettes or “loosies.”

    High taxes produce underground markets for goods and services, and when these taxes are hiked, smuggling increases. Nowhere is this illustrated more clearly than in New York City.

    In the name of cutting smoking rates, New York has the highest state cigarette tax at $4.35 per pack. New York City piles on an additional local cigarette tax of $1.50 per pack. Since 2006, the cigarette tax in New York state has been raised 190 percent. In response, cigarette smuggling there increased 59 percent. More than half of all cigarettes consumed in New York state are smuggled, according to a 2014 report by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.~snip~

Eric Gardners death is the result of nanny state meddling in the private decisions of individuals.
The leftist busybodies that now inhabit political offices have decided to rule by "let it be written,let it be done" decree without actually thinking about or being responsible for these decisions.
The question really isn't about whether smoking cigarettes is bad for you (it is) it's really about whether the government should be the ones to oppressively regulate it through taxation resulting in a black market situation where the police basically become tax enforcers.
Then enforce the tax with force.
Instead of condemning "white cops" killing a black man people should be wondering why the nanny state busy bodies created the circumstances that led to Eric Gardner's death in the first place.

You also have to wonder what's next, will NYC police officers be wrestling people to the ground who are in possession of 32 ounce sodas?

It's not as absurd as you think.

Some AG's Go After E-Cigs

Government just doesn't know when to give up when it comes to inserting itself into our lives.

Although I gotta say selling nicotine products to minors should be illegal but any other interference directed at adults is really just nanny statism.

 AR Atty General: E-Cigs Need to be Regulated Immediately

LITTLE ROCK, AR-- Forty attorneys general from around the U.S. are urging the FDA to impose more regulatory controls on the sale and marketing of e-cigarettes
Namely, restrict advertising and ban the sale of of the product to minors.  In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, they've ask for an immediate action to treat the electronic cigarettes the same as all "tobacco products" under the Federal Tobacco Control Act.
According to a press release, e-cigarette have been doubling every year since 2008 and, unlike with traditional tobacco products, there are no federal age restrictions to prevent children from obtaining e-cigarettes.
Earlier this year, the Arkansas Legislature enacted Act 1451, which prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in the State but there is no such federal prohibition.
The letter calls into question the practice of advertising the electronic cigarette with primetime commercials and celebrity endorsements.~snip~

You know they've already taxed traditional cigarettes pretty much out of reach of most low income Americans. The cheapest per pack in this area is around $4.12. Thirty days of that and you're looking at around 124 bucks a month.
Then you got the complaints of second hand smoke and the stale tobacco smell, neither of which e-cigarettes have.
So a lot of people who picked up smoking in the past have switched and the various nicotine "juices" are a lot cheaper than a pack of cigarettes. People can pay around 7 to 8 dollars to supply their habit for around a month.
Quite the cut and it's even cheaper than a ounce of pot where it's legal. But then again the politicians want to tax the hell out that also.
Which is really what it's all about.......taxes.
All stages of government, federal on down, seem to think that they have a right to confiscate as much money has possible from the citizens to do whatever they want with it. Because they're so much smarter than the rest of us.
Maybe e-cigs aren't the best place to draw a line against government taxation and intrusion but there has to come a time when we need to push back.
Because when they're done with what is easy they'll come for other things until they can penalize us all for anything they choose.

Learn to Love Your Big Government Overlords!!!

He actually didn't literally say "love your government overlords" but he might as well have.
There seems to be this constant need by Obama and his liberal/commie minions to extol upon us the virtues of big government and the nanny state. Where they do all and know all.
Funny thing is that no one at present realizes the tremendous power government will have once Obamacare kicks in to see all and know all about every facet of you and your families lives.
Yet no one seems to be concerned about that even after all the fuss about the IRS and the NSA leaker.
I fail to understand why people want to turn that much power over to the state, no matter who's in charge.

Sarah Palin, Living Rent Free in Progressives Heads

I've been reading about and watching videos of Sarah Palin's speech at CPAC on postings at Facebook and decided to do a search to see what other news was out there.
One of the places I go to look for headlines is memeorandum where you can usually find that any headline with her name in it is red meat for idiot liberals.
Karl Rove gets maybe one link for discussion, the Palin name has them crawling out of the wood work. At the time I looked there was like 7 links to different blogs. All of them liberal commies of course, most  who's sole purpose is to show how earth shatteringly  snarky and clever they can be. (not very)
I find it kind of sad that out of all the things they can bitch about the one thing that really has them foaming at the mouth is anything Sarah Palin.
All the usual insults are drug out,  she's not very smart, she's a quitter etc. but not really a whole lot of rebuttal about what she says, although I've seen some blags suggest she engaged in a little double entendre when discussing a rack for a four wheeler. I'm kind of like "so-what" about that one but because it was a "Christmas" story they feigned umbrage.

In fact, Palin herself had a gun-themed Noel. Or a sexy-sexy Yuletide, depending on how one read her innuendo.
 “You should have seen what Todd got me for Christmas," Palin said. "It was a metal rack, case for hunting rifles to put on the back of a four-wheeler. Then, though, I had to get something for him to put in the gun case, right? So, this go-round, he’s got the rifle; I got the rack.” (Happy birthday, Baby Jesus!)  

 So commie progressives who normally couldn't give two shits about religion get all up in outrage over their interpretation of her remarks.
Yup....rent free.

What's really going on here is that they fear Sarah Palin and others like her, people respond enthusiastically to her message of liberty and limited government. Liberal commie progressives just can't stand that because it undermines their belief in a all controlling nanny state.
I think it's hilarious the way she keeps baiting the liberal morons out there.
Go Sarah Go!!!!

Turning Our Lives Over to Others

Well lets see... nanny Bloomberg says we can't buy sugary drinks over 32 ounces and we can't buy king size Snickers Bars or decide for ourselves if we can own fire arms or not without being grilled by our family doctors.
It seems the next thing the nosy busy bodies want to do is to make us beg a doctor to get a prescription for a pack of cigarettes.

Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

SALEM, OR (KPTV) - If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

"The State Board of Pharmacy may adopt rules placing requirements and limitations on the sale or transfer of products containing nicotine,"

You know no matter how you feel about smoking you have to wonder when they will come after your particular vice. Like coffee or chocolate.
At any time these busy body's can come along and quote some study that will find something bad about nearly anything.
While smoking maybe an easy example to hate on it is just a gateway vice to go after many others.
Be silent on this one and you shouldn't expect others to defend your freedoms to decide for yourself later.

Nanny Bloomberg Restricts Baby Bottles



Cue the "running amuck" video ....Mayor Bloomberg is at it a

again.

NYC mayor wants hospitals to lock up baby formula to encourage breast-feeding

The nanny state is going after moms.
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.
Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.

Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

There's no doubt in my mind that breast feeding is good for baby's but does government have to poke their nose into something as trivial as counting baby bottles?
I know my wife was exhausted after labor and getting a break just to get some rest was really appreciated.

I suppose with NYC having full employment and a minuscule crime rate Bloomberg doesn't have a whole lot to do.......oh wait!
They have neither of those things.
I think it's time for Nanny Bloomberg to occupy himself with running the city.

More Nanny State Madness

From where else, (No not San Francisco....... this time) but New Yorks nosy mayor  Michael Bloomberg .

Mayor Bloomberg Seeks Ban On Large Sugary Drinks In City Eateries

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is on the verge of taking serious aim at sugary drinks, as he wants to ban such beverages larger than 16 fluid ounces from nearly all dining establishments in the city.
The city’s proposed ban on sugary drinks would apply to service in nearly all restaurants, movie theaters and street food carts and it is part of a Health Department aim to reduce obesity.
The ban, which if approved would be the first of its kind in the nation, would take affect in March 2013.
Diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based beverages like milkshakes and alcohol would be exempt from the ban and it would not affect sales in supermarkets or bodegas.
However, corner stores and all other establishments that receive a letter grade on food service from the Health Department would have to follow the ban.
The Health Department is not seeking City Council approval to move forward with this plan, but the city's Board of Health would have to sign off on it, something that is considered a foregone conclusion.
The New York City Beverage Association was already fighting back Wednesday. A spokesman for the group says in a statement, “There they go again. The New York City Health Department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top. The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates. It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity

You gotta wonder what it is exactly that this control freak thinks he's getting out of this, other than making it harder for business to survive in a government controlled environment.
Lets look at this another way, so these drinks can only be purchased in 16 ounces or less, what's to keep someone from buying 2 then?
So what's next?
Bloomberg gonna put a limit on how many can be purchased at a time?
If people didn't want super sized drinks then they wouldn't buy them, it's that simple and one of the reasons that businesses are hurting is government telling them what lawful products they can or cannot sell.
Bloomberg wants to fight obesity he can pay for an education campaign, the way not to do it is to regulate small business into the ground.

The Theft of Choice

Once again the busy body nanny staters have limited our ability to decide for ourselves.

King-Sized No More

Mars Inc., the manufacturer of Snickers, is phasing out chocolate products that exceed 250 calories per portion as part of an agreement with Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA). Founded in 2010 in conjunction with the Let’s Move! program, First Lady Michelle Obama’s government initiative aimed at shaping up the nation’s youth, PHA has a mandate to “monitor and publicly report on the progress” of partners such as Mars and, more generally, to “make the healthy choice the easy choice.”

You know, I don't eat a Snickers bar very often, and I used to be able to decide for myself just how big my craving for one was and buy accordingly.
Just like when I eat ice cream, when I want ice cream I want real cream and real chocolate with real whipped cream, that's the whole idea. To be able to occasionally indulge myself with a treat that is everything I imagine it to be.
But these choices are slowly being taken away from me....from us.
Maybe it might seem  minor, but it seems like almost everyday there is some "minor" thing government is sticking it's big nose into.
So the result of all this is that eventually the government is going to own all of our liberties, where we'll lose the abilty to decide what to eat, where to go,what we can or cannot do to eventually telling us who to vote for.

You can't have just a little freedom, it's all or nothing, and one of the worst reasons to take it away is "for your own good".
Adults can decide for themselves and their families and I for one am not ready to abdicate my ability to choose to the almighty government and their petty little minions.

November can't come soon enough.