Comments on: Washington can’t meet the Cheerios Standard

By: Michelle Malkin » And next: A Fine Print Czar

Michelle Malkin » And next: A Fine Print Czar — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:12:30 +0000

[...] Washington can’t meet the Cheerios Standard Posted in: Barack Obama, Subprime crisis Send to a Friend Printer Friendly comments [...]

By: Michelle Malkin » Obama’s $1,300 car tax

Michelle Malkin » Obama’s $1,300 car tax — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:03:09 +0000

[...] have some Cheerios-level truth-in-labeling on President Obama’s risky $1,300 car tax, shall we? Posted in: Enviro-nitwits Send to a [...]

By: Michelle Malkin » Your stimulus dollars at work

Michelle Malkin » Your stimulus dollars at work — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:16:03 +0000

[...] wrote last week that the porkulus package couldn’t pass the Cheerios standard of [...]

By: The Hell of Obama’s Proposed Healthcare System for America « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Mon, 18 May 2009 10:50:27 +0000

[...] reading: Pursuing Holiness: Railroaded Into Nationalized Health Care Michelle Malkin: Washington can’t meet the Cheerios Standard and http://www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com and “Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits” [...]

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:49:42 +0000

Monday morning links…

Invasion of the Lionfish (photo). Sheesh. But they are highly edible.
The Alinsky explanation for the O and the Dem agenda. Dino
The humiliations of the modern Dad. Dr. Helen. Lucky Glenn.
Moslems call for Jihad in NYC. No wonder they have a lo…

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:54:21 +0000

Way off topic but too important to ignore. The Vice-Bozo has revealed the location of the super-secret 9/11 bunker reserved for officials including himself.

So the super secret location of the vice president was…wait for it…the vice president’s residence?

That is simply stupid.

By: Pasadena Phil

Pasadena Phil — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:42:22 +0000

Way off topic but too important to ignore. The Vice-Bozo has revealed the location of the super-secret 9/11 bunker reserved for officials including himself. This guy just can't be trusted to keep his mouth shut about anything.

By: The Obama administration doesn’t meet the standards of breakfast foods « Urbin Report

Sun, 17 May 2009 19:41:56 +0000

[...] Obama administration doesn’t meet the standards of breakfast foods Michelle Malkin has a very informative article detailing how our Dear Leader’s administration …. Here are some of the highlights: The White House claims 150,000 jobs have been “created or [...]

By: Kalifornia Kafir

Kalifornia Kafir — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:11:40 +0000

Sorry, I just can’t get excited by this. Mobama’s speech is the standard feel-good graduation blather that I hear year after year. I remember the speaker at my own graduation making the same plea to serve the community by taking public/social service jobs that don’t pay enough to support a single person let alone a family. This wise advice came from a Levi Strauss executive who was making over $250,000 per year. Finish your speech hypocrita so that I can get my diploma and start the party. How many people do you know changed their career or life plans based on some graduation speech? Anybody that dumb deserves their fate.

P.S. – This is the first four-year graduating class at the new Merced campus. I don’t begrudge the University and the students wanting to make it special. Now, if they intend to spend this much $$$ every year on graduation, then I have a problem.

By: BOB

BOB — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:35:24 +0000

OK, I knew if would happen sooner or late…wrong thread!

Assume the above comment is in the Michelle Obama talks one.

By: BOB

BOB — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:32:12 +0000

Would giving back be….like, not taking a couple of unnecessary Air Force One trips, or maybe buying a $40 pair of shoes and donating the rest of the money to someone who can’t afford shoes?

Nah…giving back is talking and taking.

By: Mach1Duck

Mach1Duck — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:47:01 +0000

States Soverency, repeal the 17th Amendment. If nothing else, that would put a ‘term limit’ on the Senators.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:32:44 +0000

TRUTH in government…from politicians …now that would be SOMETHING. I am only 65 but I am pretty sure I will not live to see the day. Remember Algore’s one truth…”no overriding legal authority”. There is no legal reason for them to even consider telling the truth.

By: Latte Links (5/16) | Caffeinated Thoughts

Latte Links (5/16) | Caffeinated Thoughts — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:00:34 +0000

[...] Michelle Malkin – Washington Can’t Meet the Cherrios Standard I think it’s time we applied the same advertising standards to Washington’s legislative products that the feds apply to breakfast foods. The Food and Drug Administration rapped General Mills this week for making misleading claims about the benefits of Cheerios. The food manufacturer says the whole-grain O’s are “clinically proven to lower cholesterol.” The FDA demanded packaging changes to ensure truth-in-labeling. (Read the rest) [...]

By: SupportandDefend

SupportandDefend — Sat, 16 May 2009 06:28:28 +0000

RWR,
I get the gist of the Ms. Malkin’s editorial – that the Dems/Obama administration is being (at the least) disingenous or (more likely) deliberately lying about their programs and policies – and their effects.

My point is this: 1. did General Mills actually make a false claim about the effects of Cheerios or not, 2. did the FDA wrap them for “truth in advertising” or does the FDA basically agree with the claim but is distorting the definition of “drug” to include foods that are healthy for you?

If the answer is that the Cheerios claim is true and the FDA threatened to impose its regulatory scheme on Cheerios because of it, then the Cheerios story doesn’t fit the lede of “truth in advertising” for a parallel to the rest of the editorial. That is what, if Ms. Malkin has the time, I would like to have clarified. Honestly, I’d like to have my facts straight before I make other decisions, claims, etc. based upon them. I’m not in anyway attacking Ms. Malkin, I’m just not clear on the facts.

That being said, if, in fact, the Cheerios claim is true, then the Cheerios story is more about the expansion of Government through redefinition, as is common with the leftist/statist progressives. If the Cheerios claim is true, then this story fits more appropriately in a story about the expansion/warping of Eminent Domain into a power by which all levels of government can expropriate property for any reason, or for a story on the gross misinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause to give the “Federal” (increasingly, Central) Government the power to regulate matters within a state, locality, or even for individuals. To me, this is the larger point of the Cheerios story, the way I understand it. Which is why I respectfully asked for clarification.