Michelle Obama’s Whopper: Abortion? Sure! Salty Food? NO!

Kathryn Jean Lopez reported in The Corner, “Last night, Michelle Obama explained that her husband ‘believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care.’”

...or I will make you.

The First Lady was, of course, speaking about the Most Important Issue of this election: access to contraception and abortion. (What, you thought it was the unemployment rate, religious liberty, the economy, or the upheaval in the Middle East and the threat from Iran? Psht. Why do you hate women?)

K-Lo took the opportunity to point out the anti-choice, anti-freedom activities of the Obama administration happening under the authority of Obamacare.

But there’s another problem here. See, the other day Obama expressed her desire to “impact the nature of food in grocery stores” as part of her agenda to end childhood obesity in one generation.

Not only does she not seem to know that “impact” is a noun and not a verb, but she puts the lie to her own concern for protecting women’s ability to choose, while also affirming the notion that Dems think We the People “belong to the government.”

Think: the self-same individuals that Michelle Obama insists are “more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care” will be among those choosing which foods to put into their own mouths and their children’s mouths. Are food choices not related to “our bodies and our health care”? If they are, why the double standard? Either women are capable of choosing good foods for themselves and their children at the store, just as they are capable of making good decisions regarding abortion and contraception; or women cannot be trusted to make healthy decisions about the food they eat (among other decisions more, erm, visceral?) so we must limit the choices available.

Unless she wants to start arguing that abortion is *good* for women, like eating your vegetables and limiting portion sizes.

But she maintains at one and the same time: a) women should be able to choose abortion; b) women should not be able to choose foods with “too much” salt.

And she sees no problem with pushing both sides of that odd pair because she believes we all belong to the government.

If this election hinges on nothing else, it should hinge on the notion that one party thinks we all belong to the government (in any sense), versus the other party that believes “the politicians work for us.”

1,406 views

Categories:Uncategorized

16 thoughts on “Michelle Obama’s Whopper: Abortion? Sure! Salty Food? NO!

  1. Randall says:

    Well, what do you expect from the Democrat Party of Death (TM). Abortions for all, trans fats and >24 oz of soda for none. If the fascist libs had their druthers, this would be the last generation of Americans to walk the planet… but boy would they be (government-enforced) healthy! By the way I’m amused that Newsweek is the only liberal rag willing to talk to the Broccoli-Farmer-In-Chief, it is my bird’s favorite cage liner after all.

  2. Ollie Sol37 says:

    Sister Campbell, you say the US Catholic Bishops say the Ryan budget failed a basic moral test and apparently it failed your test too. Well well ok let’s change the budget let’s address your legitimate complaints let’s get it right. But I don’t understand how that means tossing the whole Republican party under the bus by switching parties and going with the Democratic Party, the party that gives the sacred right of marriage over to homosexuality thereby defiling, degrading and debasing that most sacred of institutions. The Democratic Party that supports abortion on demand and supports planned parenthood which are mainly responsible for the 50 million infants now dead and whose blood screams out from the grave. The world that know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know that the act of a man putting his penis in another mans butt for sexual pleasure is wrong at least according to my Catholic bible and according to the doctrine of the Catholic faith–that would be the one headquartered over in Italy in Rome, where they use to throw those same people to lions and kill them for sport. Homosexuality is fine with Obama he said so and it is fine with his political party they support it and so does Rachel Maddow a huge leader in gay rights cause, her and her girl friend her mate and a great deal of the main stream media and TV, etc. That political party supports that the infant, the fetus, be ripped out of the womb and put into the trash. The important thing for them is that a women has a right to control her own body and do with it whatever she pleases including killing her own child. That right is held strict by the Democratic party. With his Health Care Plan Obama has stabbed religious liberty through the heart. And with your speech at the DNC you just gave your support of all of these things.

  3. The Truth Revealed says:

    Tom Crowe watched TV for a while yesterday instead of crusading against abortion rights! He even spent 20 minutes two days in a row devoting himself to another cause! And there was that nap . . .

  4. John says:

    “Impact” can be a noun or a verb. As a verb it can be used with an object or without. Mrs. Obama used the word “impact” correctly.

  5. teej says:

    As far as I can tell, the point that she is trying to make is that in a lot of inner city areas (in particular) there are very few options that a woman has when it comes to providing her family healthy food. They should have those options. The woman steps out of her house and there is a McDonalds, a 7-11, a burger king… no safeway and certainly no whole foods (http://forecast.diabetes.org/magazine/your-ada/bringing-healthy-fare-big-city-food-deserts). She is not arguing that “women should not be able to choose foods with “too much” salt,” (as though Obama is going to propose a law banning salt in foods); she is merely arguing that woman ought to have the realistic option not to have to choose foods with too much salt because there should be other available options. In a lot of places, that is not as easy an option that I am guessing that you and I know that I have.

    I dare risk posting a liberal news media outlet that actually highlights her point in her own words: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bringing-healthy-food-city-14816632

    To sum up, her argument is that a lot of people don’t have the opportunity to buy healthy food because of where they live. Your attempt to bring abortion into this isn’t relevant. For all that is bad about her position on abortion… this is just an apples and oranges kind of argument that you are making… and tired…

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      So the woman has to drive past the restaurants you mention and perhaps drive as many as 20 minutes (or even perhaps more) to get to a decent grocery store. Like they do in so many other parts of the country. And somehow that laziness is supposed to mean the government has to step in? Further, many of the fast food joints are offering healthier alternatives without Nanny Bloomberg requiring them. Somehow the choice on the part of the woman to buy herself and her kids bad food is merely a matter of poor options within an easy drive that justifies government activity to coerce the markets? I’m still not seeing the justification. ———— Her views are all of a piece, and the logic of my argument is sound. You may not like it, but that means nothing.

      1. teej says:

        Michelle’s argument is that people who live in the inner city don’t have the choice to feed their family good, healthy food. why? Because when you live in the inner city there is such a thing as a food desert: safeways, whole foods, giants, they don’t go there because there is no market value for them. therefore, moms and pops who live in those parts of town don’t have the choice to feed their family, their children, themselves, healthy food (they have 7-11s). Parents should be able to have that option to feed their children healthy food, right? or maybe not… please let me know. (PS… I love your reference to laziness. It might be on par with your general worldview about the poor, but there are a lot of the people of whom she is speaking don’t have cars to drive 20 minutes anywhere).

    2. faith & reason says:

      Apples to oranges? Of course, abortion is relevant! Let me put it very simply for you, and I am so frustrated that everyone cannot see this clearly, if you are not allowed to be birthed, you do NOT have any LIFE. If you are aborted by your mother (God help us all) you do not have a chance at any type of a life, not even a poor inner city life. No life. Period. It is hypocritical and disingenuous for the First Lady to talk about limiting the eating habits of women and children to healthier, less salty foods while supporting the unlimited ‘rights’ of women to kill their babies in the womb. The Obama camp really was much smarter when they were limiting her.

    3. Antonio A. Badilla says:

      Teej,

      What’s the problem with Tom’s comments? Isn’t it true that Mrs. Obama worries about salt because it isn’t healthy but she could care less about the unborn and what an abortion does to the health of a woman who goes through it? Is it not true that the Dems make Pinocchio look good when, in reality, they despise God and the Jews and they made it clear in their platform, and when they felt the heat, they reverse their decision with Villaraigosa claiming the majority at the Convention believed God and the word Jerusalem belong in their platform because the Dems were offending millions to whom the words God and Jerusalem means a lot? Isn’t true that many liberals would die to see a puppy hurt but don’t give a hoot about the unborn being butchered because to them “murder” is a woman’s right? Isn’t true that the Dems have to change the subject when asked the question, “Why are 23 million people in this country without a job?,” and they change the conversation to “Well, Romney is not revealing his taxes,” as if anyone cares. The point is that the hypocrisy of the Dems runs deep and I hope this country wakes up on November 6, only 61 days from now, and throw the Pinocchios out of office.

    4. Tiffany says:

      I am not sure about legislation to limit salt intake, but what about caffeinated, sugared beverages in New York? Citizens cannot make good choices about the drinks they consume? We need legislation to limit our choice of drinks?

  6. Kayla says:

    Um, “impact” can be used as both a noun AND a verb. You know, among other stupid things said in this article.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Thank you so much for that insightful comment, Kayla.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.