Now that we have nationalized health care, the meddling begins:

From today's Rush Limbaugh show:

Quote:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits. The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources. U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

We can't let this happen. Following is the letter I sent to the FDA. They say they're not actually regulating salt ... yet. But I don't want it to happen at all.

Carrie

============================================================

My name is Carrie, and I'm a concerned citizen from Michigan. I am writing to ask your agency not to issue any federal mandates on the amount of salt in processed foods or restaurant meals. I believe such regulation is both unnecessary and would be a major burden to food producers. I think about the implications of this and my head starts to swim.

Salt is not dangerous in any way. It is a mineral that is required by our bodies. If we get too much of it, our body systems eliminate it as waste. Plus, it tastes good to a lot of people, so what's wrong with that? I happen to like bacon, pepperoni, ham, breakfast sausage, processed cheese, canned spaghetti sauce, tomato paste, potato chips, salty nuts, boxed macaroni and cheese, taco seasoning, barbecue sauce, and popcorn. I love garlic salt on toast and I use popcorn salt on popcorn as well as sea salt with my meals. Regular iodized table salt is good, too.

What follows is a true story. I have added extra salt to most of my foods since I was a child. My mother and father were always taking the salt shaker away from me. Then, when I was a patient at Mayo Clinic, it was discovered that my body does not assimilate salt as readily as normal people. My doctor said, "Just eat as much as you want. Your body will tell you when you've had enough and eliminate the excess." He also told me that salt in no way causes high blood pressure. It only aggravates the condition in those who already have it. I eat much more salt than the U.S. RDA, but I have no trace of either hypertension or heart disease.

Requiring lower levels of sodium in most foods would be harmful to my health, even if you don't prohibit salt shakers on the table. Besides which, you can't just add table salt to a meal and get the flavor you want. Any chef knows that. I tried adding salt to a pepperoni pizza one time, and it was plain awful. I could barely eat the thing. Now I just get a double helping of pepperoni when I can. Different ingredients create different flavors, and may add sodium on top of it. But that's part of the art -- may I say, process -- of creating a food item. People who create recipes know what tastes good, and if other people like their product, they buy it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

What gives your agency the right to tell me how much salt in any food product is too much? What gives your agency the right to dictate to every food producer and restaurant in the country how much sodium they can serve their patrons? I would argue you do not have that right. You are neither my mother nor my doctor. It's totally OK to have regulations about what the sodium content must be to be advertised as "low salt" or "sodium free." Those already exist. Have all the classifications you want!

Here's the thing: if I want to eat a Personal Pan Pepperoni Lovers pizza from Pizza Hut, which contains 1,760 mg of sodium, I should retain my liberty to do that. I don't want the FDA telling Pizza Hut how much sodium their food may contain. Two years ago Frito Lay brought out low salt versions of its snack foods like Ruffles Potato Chips. I don't want the FDA to tell them they have to further reduce the salt content of their regular chips, though. You have no right to do that. Urge (but don't require) food producers to offer low salt options, sure. Educate consumers about low salt diets, sure. But stay out of our way at the restaurant and the factory! Let them make the products they want to make. They're hurting no one.

I recognize that I may make zero impact with this e-mail against the gallons of ink that are being spilled by well-meaning advocates on the other side. Nevertheless, I had to offer my point of view. I reiterate: Many people in the world may need less salt. There will always be options for them. Some of us need a larger amount of salt. People like me deserve options, too. Restaurants and food producers never advertise "extra salt," you know. But they do advertise much "low sodium" stuff. Let the people who need less salt buy the low sodium stuff, and leave me alone with the regular stuff, okay?

Full disclosure, yes. Inflexible restrictions, no way! Let consumer freedom rule the day!

Yesterday, at the T.E.A. Party in Midland, I carried my "CHOICE" sign from the Center for Bio-ethical Reform, dramatically displaying the horror that is legalized abortion. I received several positive comments about the sign (and negative comments about the practice of abortion, and I'm convinced that this is one choice that haunts the women who make the wrong one all their lives.

Then today I read an article about Sarah, who is my age. She had an abortion about 20 years ago, after being involved in sex outside of marriage. Her boyfriend still did not stay with her, and now that he is married with children and Sarah remains single, she feels victimized and wonders if she made the right choice.

"[T]he child we conceived together will always bind us," she said. Notice that it is not a clump of cells to her, or even a problem to be dealt with. It's a child, and at a heart level she knows it.

"I wondered what would have happened if we'd had our child together - would we have married and spent the last 20 years together? Our child would now be turning 19 - the same age we were when I had the abortion. He or she could have been at university themselves. Would we have had a second child?"

My heart breaks for Sarah. She went for sex when commitment was most important. God designed the commitment of marriage to come before physical intimacy, and the children that come from that commitment are the greatest blessing. Nevertheless, even if she had given her child up for adoption, I bet she would not be so sad today.

Are you pregnant out of wedlock? Please don't kill your child. Choose life, and choose adoption. It's the best choice for both your lives.

The illusion: We have total religious freedom in America.

The reality: Christianity is censored in so-called public schools, and the Supreme Court has said that's OK.

In October 2004 a mother was invited by her son to an "All About Me" event, and attempted to read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible.

According to the Rutherford Institute, the principal "informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the 'separation of church and state.'"

And now, according to this story from World Net Daily, the Supreme Court has refused to hear this mother's appeal. If you ever needed proof that you should homeschool your children, look no further.

While this Christian mother was not allowed to read from the Bible, another parent was allowed to read a book about Judaism and teach the class a dreidel game. Why won't the Supreme Court support and defend the Constitution of the United States in this case?

The world may never know.

Hearing about this story on today's Rush Limbaugh Show really got my dander up.


I am so glad I don't live in New York, otherwise the mayor would be getting a polite but forceful phone call from me.

Here's a salient quote from the story:

"The plan, for which the city claims support from health agencies inother cities and states, sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt inpackaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years.

"Public health experts say that would reduce the incidence of high blood pressureand should help prevent some of the strokes and heart attacksassociated with that condition. The plan is voluntary for foodcompanies and involves no legislation. It allows companies to cut saltgradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable toconsumers."

Yeah, some voluntary program that "allows" companies to cut salt gradually over five years.

Dr. Thomas Farley, the city health commissioner, doesn't know what he's talking about when he says reducing salt from those sources would save lives. For those of you who don't know this story, I was advised by physicians at Mayo Clinic to add as much salt as I wanted to my food because I wasn't getting enough out of it in the first place. And my blood pressure is perfectly normal, thank you.

The Mayo specialist put it to me this way, "Salt doesn't cause high blood pressure. It just aggravates hypertension if you already have it." I am living proof that is true, and it really irritates me when nanny state politicians want to micromanage every little thing in our lives.

On Fox News Channel tonight, I even heard Suzanne Somers say that ordinary table salt is dangerous for you. Baloney! She actually said that salt producers take all the nutrients out of salt when they process it. That's only true in the sense that table salt eliminates the trace elements that cause minor variations in color and flavor. It is certainly not true that the human body cannot process regular table salt. Again, I'm living proof!

Here are the facts on salt direct from Mayo Clinic's web site.

Just wanted to link to this article for easy reference:

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics

A salient quote from the piece:

"The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity."

Illusion: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress know how to fix the economy.

Reality: They don't. Let's stop sending them to Washington to do the exact opposite of what needs to be done, huh?

Glenn Beck explained on the air today how Barack Obama and liberals like him are setting out to fundamentally change the United States of America:

1. Build a structure. - For example, Democrats are meeting behind closed doors to remake one seventh of our economy, the health care system.
2. Make it complex. - The health care bill is splashing around the 2,000 page mark. How many legislators are actually going to read the whole thing before voting on it?
3. Avoid debate. - Democrats are scrambling to find 60 votes for the bill so Republicans who have legitimate concerns about what they're about to do won't be able to have any debate on what's in it. So much for "bipartisanship."
4. Move quickly. - That's all we hear from Obama and the Congressional leadership, "This can't wait any longer." Undue haste cannot make for good legislation.

In order to do that, they have four strategies:

1. Indoctrinate. - Continually tell people that health care is a right, and that health insurance companies are the enemy.
2. Bribe. - Senator Ben Nelson, are you listening? Political favors are being granted to more than just him, though. Scary.
3. Silence or shout down the opposition. - Al Franken, are you listening? Speaking as a citizen, I object to your objection.
4. Destroy. - Liberals don't really care about the Constitution, the democratic process, or honesty. Their policies will destroy this country, so why are so many people in favor of it?

Search me.

Star Parker puts it beautifully in her column: "

America's unique success comes from freedom and limited government. Government's responsibilities are laid out clearly in our Constitution, which we choose to ignore.

"National security is a job of government. Designing health-insurance policies and forcing private citizens to buy them, running car companies, bailing out banks and subsidiziing homeowners who can't pay their mortgages, is not."

Hooray for me!

I locked in my first show of the year today. I'll be doing my first baby shower in Swartz Creek, MI.

What kind of magic do you do for a baby shower? I'm going to have to do a little thinking on this one, try to come up with a couple of tricks having to do with babies. Maybe some sort of prediction.

If you're interested in adding a little magic to your next special event, consider inviting me to share some impossible things! Visit my web site and learn more about me.

"Well, now, let's see. I know how to treat the poor. My taxes go to pay for  the prisons and the poorhouses; the homeless must go there." - Ebenezer Scrooge, The Muppet Christmas Carol.

A recent year-end Barna report revealed that only 4% of self-identified Christians believe that poverty is an issue that is primarily the responsibility of the Church. Yet, an overwhelming majority of self-identified Christians (81%)contend that spiritual maturity is achieved by following the rules inthe Bible.

Here are some:

MATTHEW 25

Caring for the poor is not primarily the responsibility of government, but of God's people. We are not commanded to lobby the government to increase everyone's taxes to provide for the poor. We are commanded to sacrifice out of what God has blessed us with to take care of those who are less fortunate.

Effective Care for the Needy

Followers of Christ have the potential to be among the world’s most effective agents for social service. They have the example of Christ to follow. They have the motivation of doing compassionate work in His name. They have the structure, community life, and pooled resources of their congregations. And they have the model of the early church, which provided standards for the systematic, ongoing care of widows (1 Tim. 5:3–22).

We can learn a great deal about delivering services to the needy by carefully observing the principles that Paul set forth for Timothy and the believers at Ephesus. For example:

1. The care described here was regular and ongoing for people who were “taken into the number” (1 Tim. 5:9), that is, put on a list of continuing recipients of the church’s support. Presumably, the church was to give short-term support to people who needed help until they could get back on their feet, but not to able-bodied people who refused to work to support themselves (compare 2 Thess. 3:10).

2. The care was for “widows who are really widows” (1 Tim. 5:3). The Old Testament described a widow as a woman who had no one to support her and therefore depended on the protection of the community (Ex. 22:22–24; Deut. 14:28–29; 24:17–22; 26:12–13). If a widow had able-bodied children or grandchildren, she needed to depend on them for provision, not the church (1 Tim. 5:4).

3. A widow who was “taken into the number” incurred certain responsibilities in order to maintain her eligibility for the church’s charity. For example, she needed to be frugal lest someone reproach her for living an extravagant lifestyle and the fellowship for supporting it (1 Tim. 5:6–7). Likewise, she needed to meet certain criteria related to her earlier life and character (1 Tim. 5:9–10). The point was not to keep a widow out of the program, but to ensure that she served her fellow believers in every way she could if she was going to receive support.

4. Younger widows were expected to remarry and, as was common for that day, bear children (who presumably would care for their parents in old age). Again, the church needed to avoid offering long-term support to someone who had other options. To do so might contribute to wantonness, idleness, and gossip (1 Tim. 5:11–14).

These instructions to Timothy mirror principles about systematic aid found elsewhere in Scripture. For example, Paul told the Corinthians that financial support should go only to the truly poor. Likewise, the aim of providing care is to give people enough food, clothing, and other aid for survival and health. It is not intended to give anyone a free ride, even less to underwrite an inflated standard of living (2 Cor. 8:13–15; 1 Tim. 6:6–10).

First Timothy 5 specifically addresses the care of widows, but its principles apply to a much broader range of human need. By using this and other biblical texts to develop social programs, believers can effectively render care in a way that honors the name of Christ and provides real help to needy people.

Thomas Nelson Publishers: What Does the Bible Say About-- : The Ultimate A to Z Resource Fully Illustrated. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson, 2001 (Nelson's A to Z Series), S. 419

Don't be a modern-day Scrooge and say, "My taxes go to support the unemployment system, the welfare system, food stamps, SCHIP, and everything else, so those who need help can go to Obama for it." Quite the contrary, Christians ought to be the primary resource for those who need benevolent assistance.

Most Americans think that knowledge of the history and principles of the American Revolution is important.

So far, so good.

Most Americans think they know a lot about the history and principles of the American Revolution.

That's the illusion.

Only three percent of adults gave themselves a failing grade on the subject before they took an actual quiz on it given by the American Revolution Center.

Nearly 83 percent of them actually failed the the test. They answered only an average of 44 percent correct out of 27 questions.

That's beyond sad. That's pathetic.

I took an abbreviated 10-question quiz, and I scored 90%. One of my right answers was a guess, but only one. Check out the PDF of the quiz by clicking the link above and see how much you thought you knew about history.

Hope the phrase "don't know much" doesn't apply to you.

Puppetry is a form of magic, encouraging people to suspend their disbelief that a sock can have personality.

What a delight it was to see the Muppets guest starring on Extreme Makeover Home Edition last night. In case you missed it, see if it's still here.

As a big Muppet fan, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and I think the Muppets took the perfect tone. It's awesome to hear Dave Goelz still performing Gonzo, and the other character performers are really starting to get their classic characters correct. My only quibble is with Bunsen Honeydew, who sounds -- I don't know -- less pedantic and pseudo-scientific than he used to when Jerry Nelson was performing him.

Hey Bunsen, stop calling Beaker "Beakie." He may be unprofessional, but he's still your assistant.

Thanks to Disney and ABC for putting this together, and thanks to the Muppets for continuing the hilarity. You cannot leave the magic!