Obamacare Food Labeling Regulations Are Absurd

How many different ways are there to make a Domino’s pizza?

 

The answer might interest you. It might also interest the Food and Drug Administration — at least, it should.

 

The nation’s franchise restaurants are about one month away from the imposition of new nutritional-labeling rules dreamed up by the Obama administration, another gift of the grievously misnamed Affordable Care Act. For outlets of brands with 20 or more locations, that means posting signs in the shop with calorie counts for every item on the menu and for every variation on that item. 

 

That’s probably not such a big deal if you are, say, Raising Cane’s, and your menu ranges from one chicken finger to 100 chicken fingers. It’s a little different if you are a pizza shop, because pizza has a lot of variables. 

 

A lot.

 

“We did the math,” says Tim McIntyre, an executive at Domino’s and chairman of (not making this up) the American Pizza Community, a thing that exists. “With gluten-free crusts to thick to hand-tossed to pan pizza, multiple sizes, cheeses, toppings . . . there are about 34 million possible combinations.” He does a pretty good deadpan delivery: “That is difficult to put on a menu.” 

 

That’s going to be a big sign.

Read more:

Obamacare Food Labeling Regulations Are Absurd | National Review

Hump Day Hunnies

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

By Paul Pauker

The media's daily outbursts about the danger to democracy posed by the current administration, while highly amusing, omit a key piece of information.  The United States is not a democracy; the United States is a republic.

However, a common argument today claims that democracy as defined in modern times is not significantly different from republicanism as defined in the founding era.  For example, the historian Ralph Ketcham argued, "The founders would not have been opposed to the modern connotations of the word 'democracy,' nor would they have used the word 'republic' to mark out a distinction from those connotations."  But this is demonstrably incorrect.  Moreover, the widespread acceptance of the word 'democracy' to describe America is not a trivial matter.

For the most part, the founding fathers were strongly opposed to both monarchy and democracy.  A monarchy was defined as rule by a king while a democracy was defined as rule by the people, and the powers of a king or the people could either be limited or unlimited.  Nevertheless, the interest of the majority, like the interest of a king, is not a legitimate standard for determining whether something is right or wrong.  Rather, the legitimate standards for a government are the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence; in particular, the principle that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of individuals.

The founding fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of a republic, defined as rule by representatives of the people.  And the United States is a republic with a constitution that deliberately restrains democracy by limiting majority rule, on the national level, to a few areas where the federal government has been granted a small number of specific powers.  In other words, the U.S. Constitution imposes severe limits on the power of both the people and the representatives of the people.  The Constitution was designed to provide the federal government with only those powers necessary to ensure an effective union of the states, while simultaneously upholding the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, the founding fathers, including George Washington, were adamant that -- regardless of public opinion -- the Constitution can be changed only with a constitutional amendment.  

Read more:
Articles: A Republic, If You Can Keep It

U.S Navy & USMC | U.S MilitaryPower

Traditional Marriage Would Truly Shock Our Ancestors, But Not For The Reason You Think

By Lisa Douglas


Ahh, marriage. It evokes visions of a sweet young couple, standing side by side, loving each other while dreaming of being surrounded by many children until their last, dying days. Your family probably hopes and prays that you will be blessed with such a beautiful union...yet history shows they should be careful what they wish for!

Biblically, a traditional marriage has been defined by “a state instituted and ordained by God for the lifelong relationship between one man as husband and one woman as wife.”

However, your ancestors hoped for in a “traditional marriage” isn’t quite the roses and white picket fence that they believe it to be. Even though the definition of marriage as “an agreement between two people” has never changed, if you take a look into history it seems as though the idea of traditional marriage has.

Here are 15 surprising facts about marriage in the old days that may leave traditionalists shaken to their core.

People didn’t marry for love.

In “traditional marriage," love was considered a childish notion that had no place in a marriage. A conservative once predicted that marrying for love would destroy the institution.

In ancient Rome it was believed to be inappropriate for husbands and wives to be in love; Seneca, the philosopher, said that there was nothing more impure than a man loving his wife like a mistress. The advice in the 1700s was to get married to someone you could tolerate—progress! But it wasn’t until the 1920s that people started marrying for love en masse, coining the term “love marriage."

Read the rest here:
Traditional Marriage Would Truly Shock Our Ancestors, But Not For The Reason You Think

Articles: The Liberal Media War on Thomas Jefferson

By Don Fisher, Jr.

The Lying and Corrupt News Media never lets the truth get in the way of a good character assassination hit piece.

On Tuesday, March 7, the CBS Evening News, anchored by news reader Scott Pelly, continued the liberal lie that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with slave Sally Hemings.  Even though DNA evidence has proven that Jefferson was not the father of her children, it’s too salacious a story for the liberal media to leave alone.  In the CBS story, reporter Chip Reed claimed that the Jefferson/Hemings liaison is “…widely accepted by historians…,” which is just code for “we don’t have proof of this, but we want to run with it anyway.”

The Jefferson/Hemings lie is demonstrably false, but it has everything the dishonest media need.  Accusations of sexual impropriety against a powerful, beloved, white male: check.  Victimization of a poor, black, female slave: check. Innuendo and urban legends as proof: check.  With those boxes checked, they’re good to go.

This libelous accusation dates back to 1802 when discredited political journalist James T. Callender invented the preposterous notion that President Jefferson not only fathered many children with Hemings, but kept her as a concubine as well.  There was zero proof then, but that didn’t stop Callender or Jefferson’s other detractors from running with this salacious gossip.  Then, in 1998 when modern DNA proof cleared Thomas Jefferson, but pointed to his brother Randolph, the liberal news media recanted and apologized for spreading lies.  No, of course they didn’t.  I was just fooling with you.  Instead, they doubled down on it and spread the lie in an attempt to shape popular opinion into the provably false belief that Jefferson sired bastard children with one of his black slaves.

Read more:
Articles: The Liberal Media War on Thomas Jefferson

Friday Funnies