I Am America- & I Will Eat What I Please

Recently a Los Angeles city council unanimously approved a ban on new fast food restaurants in a 32-sq-mile area covering most of southern L.A. The Councilperson whom proposed the ban said that the measure is an attempt to try to reduce health problems in the district associated with fast food, such as obesity and diabetes.

The ban would restrict any fast food restaurant's such as McDonald's, Burger king, or the like from building new places of business in the area. However, it would still allow some restaurants such as Subway to build and operate within the ban zone (Quick Fact- The most popular sandwich Subway sells {the Meatball Marinara} is worse for you then a Quarter Pounder from McDonald's).

Since when in the Constitution anywhere does it give either federal, state, or local governments the right to police food intake? It doesn't, but by no means do i expect these idiot city councilmen to have an iota's worth of a clue on the slightest bit of Constitutional theory. Most of them probably got no further in government study then social studies in a public high school.

That doesn't change the fact they are clearly overstepping their boundaries here. What about that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing? If it makes someone happy to indulge themselves on a Big Mac, a large Fry, and a Diet Coke, however, absurd that might sound- Let them. It's their right. The government has zero authority under the constitution to regulate food like that. Moreover, their getting eerily close to stepping over our capitalist theory by regulating what business can run where. Giving, perhaps, preferential treatment to certain business over others.

So what should happen? Well McDonald's and Burger King and whomever else the ban effects should take time away from the great ground beef patty war and band together and drop a combined civil suit on these neanderthals that call themselves Los Angeles City Councilmen. They should cite their infringement on free enterprise to a judge. Secondly, the people of L.A., whether they enjoy self gratification of a juicy Big Mac every now and then or not, should stand together and launch a campaign against these councilmen.

I'm sure your asking, "is a few fast food restaurants really that big of a deal?" My answer to you would be most certainly yes. The reason being, because if we let the government meddle where the government doesn't belong we are inadvertently reducing our rights and liberties. Freedom usually isn't stripped away from a people in a day, it's chipped away slowly in hopes that a complacent society wont find the motivation to stand against it's tyranny. Today it might be fast food, but tomorrow maybe they will tell you want brand of medicine you have to buy, or what sports are too "violent," or what movies your allowed to watch, or what music is socially exceptable to listen too. That doesn't sound right, and "We The People' should not give those morons credence to indulge their opinions or vein desires for power.

Obama's "Tough love" Message

The choice words by Rev. Jesse Jackson about Obama got quite the media buzz. Jackson being a highly respected man in the African-American community, speaking negatively about the deemed "saviour" of blacks in politics took a lot of people back and left some liberals scratching their heads. Simply a lot of people where asking "why" would Jackson say that? A lot of pundits struck it up to nothing more then jealousy. I humbly disagree. The reason, I believe, is that Obama (in hopes of actually winning the darn presidency) is slowly floating away from a strictly African-American agenda- that angers people like Jackson.

The truth is Obama has no choice, he has to pander to the independents if he wants any hope of winning. By no means does he want to, I don't think. Simply, he has few other options. So goes politics, and so goes the world.

Obama stating that there's a problem in the black society, that so many young black kids are being raised without fathers is no new revelation. Good men like Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have been saying it for along time. In turn, however, many times these same men are attacked by there communities. Jackson's never been one to teach in responsibility. He's the kinda guy that points a big finger at the stars and stripes and says something like, "look what you've made us become- it should be YOUR job to fix it;" The old "woe is me" type of leader.

Obama can only play that card so much if he wants to gain the independent vote. His "tough love message" was asserted most notably in a fathers day speech in which he stated, "any ol' fool” could conceive a child –- but it takes a man to be father." Was Obama talking down to black people? Obviously not. Was he addressing a legitimate problem in the black community? Obviously, yes.

I agree with Obama that this truly is a crisis in society, there is no doubt about it. However, Obama believes that society has a whole should bear the grunt to fix it, which means the government- which means tax dollars. The Libertarian in me screams against that notion. I fail to see how tax dollars can efficiently persuade fathers to stay home and take care of their children? Can tax dollars keep a teenage boy from impregnating a girl and deciding he wants nothing to do with their kids? No, moreover, such problems were never intended to be handled by the state to begin with.

What we need is more leaders to stand up and encourage the communities. Quit propagating this "rap star" montage of worthlessness. Focus on school, college, and an in betterment of self- not feint hopes of being the next Alan Iverson or Lebron James. Especially not the next Snoop Dog or Jay-Z that glorify drugs and street life. The communities need to change their focus to change their station.

Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up?

Sorry to pick such a cliche for a title, but when it's so appropriate it's hard to relent. It seems that the new daring politician in town is really just the same ole Washington sweet talk. Barack Obama, Mr. Change, has come under some scrutiny recently...not by republicans but by liberals for "flip-flopping" on some issues. In fact, it was reported today that a large number of former Clinton supporters have voiced that they will refuse to vote for Mr.Obama in November.

Obama's pandering to the independent vote has begun to cost him. I suppose he thought that since he was this new politician, running a historic campaign that once he got the Marxist minded left on his side that he could do about whatever he wanted. I mean he's Barack Obama, he was wrong. Many in the left are being reported as being infuriated with the Illinois senator on his move to the middle.

In truth, however, you can't blame him. Predominantly this election is going to be decided by the independent vote. After those religious leaders he called friends caused him such a scandal he had to find away to appeal to the middle. The result, some promises from the rock star candidate on a few issues have changed.

• He stated that he would bring the troops home within 16 months of being elected- Now he states that will not be the case.


• He said he will rework NAFTA for "hard working" Americans- No longer does he plan to renegotiate NAFTA.


• He said I will meet with terrorists like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions- No longer does he think it acceptable to meet with the world's terrorists without pre-conditions.


• He said there will be no retroactive immunity for phone companies that helped the government implement warrant less wiretapping programs-Now he will not oppose retroactive immunity for warrant less wiretapping.

With his most recent announcement that he intends to make federal funding of religiously based organizations a key part of his push to help the needy, he has begun to alienate much of his liberal base. It will be extremely interesting to see how they react to his new found fondness with independent ideology. Will they scream for Hillary?

The 2nd Amendment to Obama

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment.

Whether you own a gun or not, a candidates views on your rights to own one if you so choose should be of some importance still. The history of the Second Amendment was to put in writing an already pre-exhisting right for an individual to possess a firearm. It was placed into the constitution to protect U.S. citizens from a corrupt government in search of absolute power. The fear was that perhaps down the line, a corrupt state might try to disarm it's citizens to impose rule through military force.

The Second Amendment was put in to the Bill of Rights to ensure that freedom could not be stripped away, or prohibited. However, it's no secret that liberals have for a long time been very anti-gun ownership. They don't find the need for an individual to provide some measure of their own security. Only makes sense right? Liberals like for everybody to depend on the State, it's how they get a large majority of their votes. They need people to be dependent, it maintains their power. The liberal will tell you to depend on the rich man for your money, depend on the State for your future, and to depend on the U.N. for your security but what about Independence? Independence to the liberal is "selfishness."

Barack Obama just happens to be one of the most liberal politicians in Washington. He is no centrist as he would have you believe, especially when it comes to your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Here is a list of what Barack Obama think about your liberty under the Second Amendment of the Constitution:

• Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.


• Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.


• Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.


• Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.


• Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.


• Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.


• Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.


• Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.


• Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research."


• Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America


• Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.


• Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military


• Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.


• Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers


• Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions


• Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.


• Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

Barack Obama doesn't care about the freedom's accorded to you and me under the Second Amendment. He cares about one thing and that's his liberal agenda.