More Examples of ‘Government Knows Best’

Obama open to a “sin tax” on soda, other products — but what does that mean for health care reform?

A horrible photograph for so many reasons, but note that even though, next to the president, I may look like a manatee in a striped shirt, the federal government still has no right whatsoever telling me what should and should not be stuffed into my pie hole.

According to Agence France-Presse, the president has given an interview in an upcoming issue of Men’s Health magazine in which he claims to be open to a “sin tax” on so-called “fizzy drinks” in an effort to reduce obesity rates in the United States.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen that personal responsibility has given way to a propensity to sue fast food restaurants for making us fat. Now, it appears that the president and his Democrats will take full advantage of the blame-shifting culture currently permeating the nation, and use it to once again expand the size, scope and reach of the federal government.

The most telling part of the piece is the following:

The president — reported to be one of the fittest US commanders-in-chief in decades — stressed that “obviously there is resistance on Capitol Hill to those kinds of sin taxes.

“Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products,” he said.

In addition, “people’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that,” Obama added.

“It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people’s health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful.”

Could the president have made his agenda any more clear? Here, he uses the same sort of moral equivalency test he applies to every issue (Israel/Palestine: On one hand, six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust; on the other hand, Palestinians have been roaming the desert for sixty years in search of a home) to weigh government intrusion in Americans’ daily lives against what he views the proper role of government to be: On one hand, people want to be able to make their own choices when it comes to what they eat and what they drink; on the other hand, however, managing obesity through government intervention would go a long way to reducing health care costs.

This is exactly what I’ve been talking about for months now: health care reform is the federal government’s ticket into each and every aspect of our everyday lives. Just like cap-and-trade would provide the government with unprecedented control over Americans’ homes and garages–remember that, according to presidential candidate Obama, we cannot set our thermostats at 72 degrees and drive around in SUVs and expect the rest of the world to be okay with it–health care reform would provide the government with the means of controlling, by rationalizing downhill health care costs, everything from the food we eat to the speed we drive to the number of children we have to the amount of sugar in our condiments. Oh, wait — on the latter, Congress has already found some sort of authority to regulate that.

That’s right. Somehow, the federal government found the authority in the seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution to regulate the amount of sugar manufacturers can put into ketchup. Add that to congressional injection into the Major League Baseball steroid injection debate, as well as Senate hearings into New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick’s sign-stealing practices, and not to mention government involvement in the age at which Americans can drink and the flush capacity of toilets in American homes, and you see that the government can rationalize itself into nearly every aspect of our lives already. Barack Obama’s assessment that, somehow, health concerns outweigh the role, scope and reach of government defined by our founders is extremely telling when it comes to exactly what the health care debate, the energy debate and nearly every other aspect of this administration’s agenda is really about.



  1. Anonymous says:

    This presidency is driving me to Prozac…. I'd rather have diabetes personally.


    WASHINGTON – Americans who don't get health insurance once the system is overhauled would be fined up to $3,800 under a proposal that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as Democratic leaders cast doubt on prospects for creating a government-run insurance plan.

  3. Gail B says:

    It isn't a matter of whether the government can tax or not tax; it's a matter of whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to overreach its limits.

    Before Obama starts limiting the amount of sugar that goes into a soft drink, he should be thinking about limiting the number of "czars" to zero, as in zero tolerance!

    Good Lord above, when and where does this regime STOP?!

  4. Anonymous says:

    I'm looking for a new country… any ideas?

    (the alternative is revolution, and I don't believe there are enough cognizant minds fight the battle)

  5. Anonymous says:

    "The president — reported to be one of the fittest US commanders-in-chief in decades –"

    He SMOKES, for cryin' out loud. How healthy and fit is that???

  6. Dee says:

    He should observe what people eat. Soft drinks are the least of their worries. No offense to you, Jeff, I was told by my MD to lose weight and I did (it's hard to do), but I have seen many larger people take huge helpings of food and several desserts and then get a diet soda. Maybe he should just tax the entire food industry and lettuce and raw mushrooms would be exempt.
    Jeff, I just think that you are big boned, as they say.
    Thanks again.


    Being told by a doctor that you need to lose weight and being told the same thing by the president are two different matters altogether.

    Good for you, though, either way.

    My lifestyle has become more sedentary. As hard as it is to find time, I'm finally taking some steps to change that. I'm six-foot-three, a big guy to begin with, but the second I got closer to 300 pounds than 200, I knew I had to change things.

    We'll see how it goes.

  8. Claudia says:

    Here is an article that just came across the wire:

    Arguments planned Jan. 11 for challenge to Obama

    Posted: September 08, 2009
    4:42 pm Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    Is this the footprint of baby Barack Obama?

    A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

    In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

    In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party's chairman, also were restored to the case.

    But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz' motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president's still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz' challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

    The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama's eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

    Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

    If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

    The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

    The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief."

    At least Orly has a few hearings lined up and a Judge that seems sympathetic to the fact that she is not the best in her approach or English. I have sent an email to Leo asking and BEGGING him to get hold of her eand HELP her. He is the beest and knows all the right ways to get this one done….. perhaps some of you could do that also, and stress to him how much Orly needs his help.

  9. Linda says:

    I CAN'T STAND THIS!!!!!!!

  10. Gail B says:

    This just in!

    Trial set for Obama's birth certificate dispute!

    Arguments planned Jan. 11 for challenge to eligibility

    A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    (Knock me over with a feather!)

  11. goddessdivine says:

    And this, coming from a guy who smokes. Give me a break. After taxing the "sinful" soda, what's next? Popcorn? Oreos? Hershey bars? Or maybe we'll have a fast food tax. I don't eat a lot of junk, but I like my Pepsi and Reese's Peanut Butter Cup every now and then!

    United Socialist States….here we come.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I gotta say from personal experience, sodas really pack on the weight…. stop the sodas, lose the weight. But holy cow people, do it without the charming Obama-man telling you to.

  13. Anonymous says:


    Just a quick glimpse at the headlines this morning on Drudge should answer that question:

    UN wants new global currency to replace dollar
    China alarmed by US money printing
    Switzerland topples America as most competitive economy
    Obama asks Senate to increase debt ceiling

  14. Anonymous says:

    Why don't he tax snow and crack?

  15. Starys says:

    My theory is that he is raising the tax on pop so that the only thing anyone can afford to drink will be koolaid.

  16. Larry Walker Jr says:

    “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” – Thomas Jefferson

  17. Gail B says:

    Great pic of Obama/Soetoro eating a burger. Kinda reminds me of the pic you showed of Gore and the **** coming out of his mouth!


  18. Anonymous says:

    Dear Claudia and Gail B,

    Please be very cautious about this Orly Taitz suit, respectfully, of course.

    WND even thinks the document is fraudulent.

    There are three scenarios that I can think off the top of my head,

    1) this is the "smoking gun" and watch the legal system work

    2) this is fraud, easily determined fraud, and just see what future legal standing anyone would have

    3) considering an outcome like 2, this could be an O plant playing right into the judicial system for double jeopardy.

    This thing, regretfully, has a stink.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I've struggled with weight all my life… the oldest of seven… raised on the same home cooking and eating habits as the rest… six brother's & sister's… all stick figures like my parents… go figure!

    My son, daughter in law and grandson consume whatever they want, whenever they want, with absolutely no effect on weight… stick figures all of them… they are "trying" to gain weight and can't… go figure!

    So, Obama thinks that a "sin tax" on soda & other products will reduce obesity rates… Wrong!… Perhaps he should concentrate on finding that "short fat bald man" that was delivering milk in my neighborhood back in 1949!

  20. Anonymous says:

    Fittest my foot!!! He smokes for cryin' out loud! Did drugs! And in a bathing suit looks like he needs a training bra! But on the soda thing…I can add 5 pounds in a couple days if I drink the stuff so I don't. I don't need the snot nosed kid to tell me that either! I can't believe the photos he and his big butt wife allow of themselves eating. You never let people take photos of you eating.


  21. Anonymous says:

    IL already does this type of thing on a yearly basis. Just last week they upped the tax on alcoholic (again) and now pop, candy, etc. is taxed at the sales tax level instead of the food tax level. A difference of 6 – 8% depending on where you are. He just wants his piece of the pie too.

  22. Anonymous says:


    I encourage you to keep up the good work on your website and on your waist line.

    I would like to make a comment on this soda tax and on the way American's eat. It isn't just soda that is packing the pounds on American's, it is the good and bad food we eat. They are devoid of any nutritional content and without anything good in them, the body still craves more. Most foods are raised on mega farms who may rotate crops, but if the soil is devoid of minerals and nutrients needed to make the food worth eating, the American public is eating nothing healthy for them. Thus, not only are Americans eating foods laced with corn syrup, processed sugars, they are also getting nothing in them. Then you add the chemicals they put into processed foods…read your labels and if it says "flavorings" this is just another name for chemicals to make the food more palitable. The next sin is the microwave. By microwaving your food you are altering it geneticallly and thus you are eating food the body looks at as poison. Microwaving them in plastic containers will speed up your genetic alteration and your chances of acquiring a major illness. The Russians banned the used of microwaves around WWII because when they entered Germany they found the Germans had been experimenting with microwaves to feed soldiers. The data on what happened to the body as a result lead to the ban.

    I do believe Americans just do not understand how much of our food supply is manufactured, processed and chemically enhanced and does not supply our needs. On the contrary, it may even be contributing to all forms of disease and also to obesity.

  23. Dee says:

    Agreed, Jeff, it is one thing to have your doctor tell you to lose weight and another to have the government tell you. I'm still wee weed up over the government telling me what kind of light bulbs I'm going to have to use.
    Thanks for all you do.

  24. T.I.M. says:

    While the government intrudes far too deeply into our lives, there is a truism that goes for both computers and our bodies (including our governmental bodies): garbage in — garbage out. The bulk of our health problems are self-imposed.

    On another note, my wife, who is not only a manatee collector but uses that name in her email, says you do indeed resemble a manatee in a striped shirt — and that's OK.

  25. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Now that's funny.

    Ahh … the Sea Cow.

  26. jimmy bakes says:

    Obama is the Greatest of them all

  27. DR SNORT says:

    Wonder what the toll of smoking, cocaine snorting and crack cocaine smoking has on an individuals brain cells. Hmmmmmmm.

  28. Rix says:

    I sort of agree with the Usurper on taxing the heck out of soda and sugary drinks. They do horrors to one's health, not to mention waistline circumference, and – unlike fast food – have healthy, reasonably priced alternatives. What I don't and will never agree with, however, is the direction in which the taxed money is intended to be thrown.

  29. Rix says:

    > The next sin is the microwave. By microwaving your food you are
    > altering it geneticallly and thus you are eating food the body
    > looks at as poison. Microwaving them in plastic containers will
    > speed up your genetic alteration and your chances of acquiring a
    > major illness. The Russians banned the used of microwaves
    > around WWII because when they entered Germany they found the
    > Germans had been experimenting with microwaves to feed soldiers.

    There was just too much blatantly incorrect info in this passage to let it stand.

    1) The way microwave works has NOTHING to do with genetics. It is roughly an equivalent of running a strong electric discharge through food which, being a poor conductor, heats up as a result. There is, of course, even less (than zero?) connection between eating microwaved food and altering one's own genetics.

    2) I have lived in Russia for over two decades and never heard of such ban. The only reason microwaves were not available is because the government did not deem them vital or commercially viable (like many other other products widely available in any Western country). I personally knew a family who purchased one on a cruise and openly brought it across the border.

    3) While the potential harm from electromagnetic fields is not studied enough and taste comparison can be debated, microwaves are clearly superior to stoves at least on two health-related counts: they don't consume oxygen in the limited kitchen space and don't burn food into carcinous crisp.

Speak Your Mind