A few days ago Roland Martin, of CNN fame, added one more example of Palin's inane ideas to the public record . Surely by this time we all know that Palin is an embarrassment to the body politic: unlike Biden, Hank "Guam May Tip Over" Johnson or Sheila Jackson Lee. Well, let's laugh at Palin's stupidity one more time. After all, who can't use a good laugh every now and then?
It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of politics to find something wrong with first lady Michelle Obama's effort to curb obesity in America's kids.
What did Palin say that was so stupid?
And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.
Palin is truly out of the mainstream here. Martin is so correct: who can pay attention to this Kim Kardashian of politics when obesity rates have "tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese." Palin must be crazy to think that the parents ought to decide. Obviously the parents don't know what they're doing. The government must step in to save the children. They're our future after all.
ROLAND MARTIN :
This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is.
Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, air quality and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.
There's a lot wrong with your arguments Roland. I'll mention two things. First, let’s focus directly upon your statement of government standards. You would see, if you cared to look, that water and air quality were improving before the EPA was founded. Take a look at the same graphs and you will not see a change in the slope of the curve; thus showing that the value of the EPA is debatable.
Second, the fact that government has a role in upholding contracts (that what one says is in the food actually is) and in making certain that a person/company does not damage another person's property (pollution) has nothing to do with the government forcing people to eat good food.
Nobody is against a plain and simple "education" message. Nobody is against the first lady saying "brush your teeth," or "read to your kid every night," or "don't eat too much," or "eat more fruits and vegetable." What we're against is government intrusion; what we're against is the rise of Euro-socialist nanny state where laws and government power is used to enforce such a standard.
We have a social contract here: I promise not to kill you and take your stuff, if you promise not to kill me and take mine. We entered no such arrangement whereby I promise to stop you from eating too many Twinkies if you promise to stop me from eating too much meat.