Michelle Obama’s Food Police Take on Global Warming


The political establishment of the Eastern Rome was consumed in complex rhetoric — what historians would later call “Byzantine debate.” Just days before the city fell to the Islamic armies that were surrounding its walls, a rabid debate was splitting the lawmakers and their respective intellectuals. “What is the sex of the angels? Are they males or females?”

Fortunately we are a far more rational people. We focus on issues of genuinely serious importance. Like how to build nutritional food guidelines to include Global Warming.

At a closed-door meeting Friday, administration officials and their advisers will plot to insert the global warming agenda into dietary guidelines mandated by Congress.

The Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments are updating the guidelines for publication next year.

By favoring foods activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for what you eat. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the dietary guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps and military diets.

For the first time, “sustainability” is part of the agenda in drafting the guidelines. Other agenda items include “immigration,” “global climate change” and “agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.”

At a January meeting, committee member Miriam Nelson emphasized the importance of addressing “sustainability” of food to make sure it has the “littlest impact on the environment.”

Kate Clancy, a visiting scholar at the Center for a Livable Future in the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, was invited to advise the committee at a recent meeting and warned that it would be “perilous” not to take into account global warming.

So now it turns out that diet is just a front for the same old environmental activism. That means less food, more expensive food and more food bureaucracy.

Is there any chance Michelle Obama would consider switching her focus over to debating the gender of angels? It would be just as pointless and a lot less harmless.

  • herb benty

    Arrogant intellectuals thinking they can control the Earth’s environment like a wall thermostat, which translates to the real goal of controlling you and me. The devil has never been busier than he is now all over this dying world.

  • truebearing

    “I would like one globally warmed cheeseburger, please, with goat cheese and organic onions. For my drink, I’ll have a glass of warm water, pumped by the electricity generated by a windmill in need of constant repair. Do you have hemp napkins?”

    “That will be 45 dollars, please.”

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Maybe what we should do is threaten to boycott foods labeled as “low carbon footprint.”

      Or promise to burn a pile of coal every time we eat something with the stupid label on it. I’m stocking up on coal as we speak.

      • truebearing

        Then they’ll throw you into a reeducation camp until you can’t remember anything except that Obama is a god and if you don’t worship him, you’re a racist that deserves either death, or life in prison in a cell lined with nude photos of Lena Dunham and Sheila Jackson Lee.

  • liz

    You mean “less harmful”. Good point, tho.
    I think all these idiots forcing Agenda 21 on the rest of us should be shipped to their very own fantasy island where they can live in caves, eat grass, use leaves for toilet paper, and engage in all the sustainability they want.

  • Phuckit

    Why does this hideous koon wield so much power?

  • CaoMoo

    Maybe they should do a study of all the CO2 these jerks expel int these closed door meetings rambling off their diatribes and ban them from speaking. Their carbon footprint must be enormous.

  • CaoMoo

    And why are their federally mandated dietary guidlines in the first place that sounds way unconstitutional unless the supreme court wants to call it a tax

  • General P. Malaise

    they are male. I thought everyone knew that.