Hitler’s Valet Confirmed Hitler was a Vegetarian and a Non-Smoker

NAZI OBSESSION WITH FOOD, HEALTH…AND CONTROL Hitler’s personal valet and SS officer, Heinz Linge, wrote that Hitler “was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking” and “was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian.”

Hitler’s personal valet recounted Hitler’s household routine, eating habits, and health obsessions (i.e., vegetarianism, anti-smoking): The man I had first met in the summer of 1934 had been a dominant personality exuding a spellbinding charisma. The one whom I burned and interred under a hail of Red Army shells was a trembling old man, a spent force. Born in Bremen in 1913, I was a former bricklayer who joined the Waffen-SS in my home town in 1933. I was never much interested in politics, but a year later I was dispatched with two dozen other comrades to Hitler’s country seat at Berghof – the most widely known of his headquarters and a place he spent much time before and during World War II. A year after that, I was selected to serve on Hitler’s household staff and became his personal valet shortly after the outbreak of the war in 1939. Just once to be in the presence of Adolf Hitler was then the wish of millions. But life with the Fuhrer was not without its trials. My job was to sort the morning papers and the first foreign dispatches – placing them on a chair outside his bedroom. I would wake him at 11 o’clock. Hitler would rise, fetch the post and read it in bed – beside which there would be a tea-trolley with books, newspapers, his spectacles and a box of coloured pencils. I was responsible for keeping him stocked with writing materials and spectacles (he never liked to be seen wearing these in public, as he thought it a sign of weakness). I always carried a spare pair of glasses when we travelled, as he often broke them while toying with them in his hand, ruminating over a problem. After his morning reading session, Hitler always followed the same routine – he would shave, remove his white nightshirt, lay it on the bed, bathe, take the clothing ready on the clothes-stand and dress. Hitler always dressed himself and he did this to a stopwatch, my presence being as a kind of referee. At his command ‘Los!’ I set the watch going and the dressing race began. The quicker he finished, the better his temper. Standing before the mirror, eyes closed, he required my help only for the bow-tie, which also had to be done in record time. He counted the seconds and as soon as I said ‘finished’ he would open his eyes and check in the mirror. The hairdresser and tailor were also required to work at the double. Hitler’s characteristic lock of hair, which always lay across his forehead – and his moustache – attracted a lot of friendly amusement among the population. He knew this and took great pride in both. As far as the staff were concerned, his moustache was also a clue to his mood. If he was sucking it, he was unhappy and this was a warning to us. It was often difficult to understand Hitler. On the one hand he pandered even to the most unimportant things, while on the other he was excessive and unfeeling. He might show the most fatherly concern for a female secretary who had stubbed her toe but be utterly ice-cold when issuing orders that sent thousands to their deaths. The ‘privilege’ of experiencing his concern was not necessarily an enjoyable affair. Frequently, he tried to convince me how unhealthy it was to smoke. As his personal servant, I had no option but to listen. Forty minutes after waking, Hitler would take breakfast in the library – a frugal affair, only tea or milk, biscuits or sliced bread and an apple. During breakfast, he studied the menu card for lunch. Two vegetarian courses, (both including the obligatory apple) were provided for him to choose from. Hitler had long eschewed meat, but if strangers came to lunch, his food was carefully arranged in such a way that the absence of meat was not obvious at first glance. Because Hitler was such a late riser, it might be that the midday meal, usually attended by a dozen guests, would not be served until 2.30pm, by which time many of those invited would have satisfied their appetites by eating elsewhere. Hitler’s meals were prepared lukewarm after an operation on his vocal cords – following a gas attack during World War I – left his voice sensitive. His diet consisted principally of potatoes and vegetables, a stew without meat, and fruit. Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol. However, he found drunkenness repulsive and gave up beer in 1943 when he began to put on fat around the hips. He believed the German people would not want to see a corpulent Chancellor. Dinner was a much smaller affair, with only a few guests present, beginning at around eight. Again, of course, it was vegetarian, with Hitler believing the ‘most disastrous stage in human development was the day when man first ate cooked meat’. He was convinced that it was this ‘unnatural’ way of living that ‘cut short’ human life span to 60 or 70 years. By Hitler’s calculations, all animals whose nutrition was natural lived eight to ten times as long as their period of development to full maturity. He was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian. Such a view exasperated his physicians, who constantly tried to persuade him to change his diet, keep regular hours, sleep normally and take exercise. From what he told me, I knew that since the end of World War I he had suffered stomach trouble. Sometimes the gripes caused him to double up when he thought no one was looking. In the ten years I knew him, he was constantly worried about his health, and his physical decline began early on. At the end of 1942, when the fighting at Stalingrad reached a threatening stage, his left hand began to tremble. He made a great attempt to suppress this and hide it from outsiders by pressing his hand against his body, or grasping it firmly with the right. Then in 1943, he seemed almost to become an old man overnight. By the end of 1944, he was moving without agility – bent both forward and sideways. If he wanted to sit, a chair had to be placed for him.

Catholic Group Calls Voters to Oppose Obama this November (Video)

CATHOLICS REJECT OBAMA’S WAR ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Video by CC2W.org as seen yesterday on the Hannity show.

From the video: Forcing the Church to buy insurance that goes against her teachings is a violation of religious freedom. “When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental, one shrudders to think what lies ahead,” said Cardinal Dolan. Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? Marriage. Life. Freedom.

RELATED - 43 Catholic Groups Sued Obama for Violating their Freedom of Religion…the Media Failed to Report - $9 Birth Control Pills at Target, Walmart — proof we don’t need Obamacare’s contraception mandate - Senate Fails to Stop Obamacare’s Attack on Religious Liberty - How Democrats Manufactured the Fake War Against Women and Birth Control

Media Bias: 43 Catholic Groups Sued Obama for Violating their Freedom of Religion…the Media Failed to Report

MEDIA WITHHOLDING INFORMATION TO PROTECT OBAMA

Media Research Center reported: You’d think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS, and NBC don’t judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it, or doesn’t it, advance the re-election of Barack Obama? If it doesn’t, it isn’t news. On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a “religious institution” can be defined under their ObamaCare law. Never has the Catholic Church – or any order, for that matter – undertaken something of this magnitude. It’s truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while “CBS Evening News” devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event. [...] Even when CBS mentioned the suit ever-so-briefly, like so many others, they deliberately distorted the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit when it is much broader, a religious freedom issue – and they know it. [...] Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops used the word “horror” to describe what Team Obama is mandating. On the only broadcast show to give Catholics some coverage, CBS This Morning anchor Charlie Rose asked Dolan if the White House misled him on this issue…The cardinal said “I worry, Charlie, that members of his administration might not particularly understand our horror at the restrictive nature of this exemption that they’re giving us, that for the first time that we can remember, a bureau of the federal government seems to be radically intruding into the internal definition of what a church is. We can’t seem to get that across.” RELATED - Cardinal Dolan and 40 Other Catholic Dioceses and Organizations Sue Obama Administration - Massive Religious Lawsuit Eclipsed on CNN by ‘Stroller Brigade’ Protest of About 100

Nutella to Pay $3 Million to Stupid Parents Who Failed to Read Food Label

FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS & STUPIDITY ARE DESTROYING AMERICA

Heritage reports:

But ignorance is bliss — very bliss — and in the case of Uninformed Moms vs. Nutella, it was worth $3.5 million in a class action lawsuit settlement. This latest example of the U.S. legal system run wild comes to us from California where two mothers filed suit against Ferrero USA, Inc., the maker of Nutella — a spreadable, chocolate-flavored hazelnut product. ABC News reports that one of the plaintiffs — Athena Hohenberg of San Diego — sued the company because she was confused into thinking that Nutella is a health food, and she was “was shocked to learn” that Nutella “was the next best thing to a candy bar.” [...] Now, the company is settling for $3.5 million — or anywhere from $4 to $20 per person in the class. The thing is, if you take a look at a jar of Nutella, you’ll quickly see for yourself that the product isn’t that healthy. According to the government-mandated nutrition label, two tablespoons contain 200 calories, 11 grams of fat (3.5 grams saturated), and 21 grams of sugar. It doesn’t take a nutritionist to realize that isn’t healthy. [...] Unfortunately, when companies are hit with frivolous lawsuits and they have to pay out, the money comes from their bottom line. That means less money for innovation, investing and expanding — and that means fewer jobs.

Forbes correctly points out:

Many healthy eating advocates see the outcome of this lawsuit as a turning point in the battle against nutritionally defunct fare. As for me, I see this simply as the sad, unfortunate endorsement of the fact that Americans have really become incapable of making sound, and reasonable judgements about our own sustenance.

ObamaCare Will Add $527 Billion to Deficit – Medicare Trustee Study

MORE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF OBAMACARE ObamaCare will add as much as $527 billion to federal deficits while adding $1.2 trillion to federal spending between 2012 and 2021 according to the new study ‘The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act’ by Charles Blahous, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and Public Trustee for Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

STUDY’S ABSTRACT: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) enacted in 2010 will significantly worsen the federal government’s fiscal position relative to previous law. Over the years 2012–21, the ACA is expected to add at least $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits while increasing federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion over the same period and by increasing amounts thereafter. These adverse fiscal effects are not everywhere understood because of widely circulated analyses referencing scoring conventions of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Medicare Trustees, which compare the health care reform legislation to a baseline scenario that differs from actual law. Moreover, there is substantial risk that the ACA’s costsaving provisions will not be enforced as currently specified. To avoid worsening the federal fiscal outlook, legislative corrections are required before the ACA’s provisions become fully effective in 2014. Roughly two-thirds of the law’s subsidies for health insurance exchanges must be eliminated to avoid worsening federal deficits and the entirety of their costs eliminated to avoid further increasing federal health care financing commitments.

NET BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF OBAMACARE ($ Billions): The table and figure below show projected net budgetary effects of the ACA (Affordable Care Act or Obamacare) under pessimistic (and probably most realistic) scenario. The study on page 41 explains that the “net worsening of the federal fiscal outlook under the ACA is substantial. Under the pessimistic scenario (which is, as previously noted, by no means a worst-case scenario), it exceeds $100 billion annually by 2021. This is especially sobering in view of the high hopes placed in the ACA, as it indicates a significant risk that in the ACA’s second decade alone it would worsen the federal fiscal outlook by over $1 trillion.”

Net Budgetary Effects of ObamaCare ($ Billions) SCENARIO 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012-21 Pessimistic Scenario Relative to Prior Law 18 37 9 –23 –59 –106 –95 –92 –101 –116 –527

(Graph by Inventors Business Daily)

STUDY’S KEY FINDINGS: Over the coming decade (2012-2021), the ACA is expected to increase net federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion, and to add more than $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits over the same period, and increasing amounts thereafter. The ACA’s fiscal effects are often misunderstood because government scorekeeping conventions contrast with enacted law. The ACA relies upon substantial savings already required under previous law to maintain the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund. These do not represent new net savings, available to be spent without widening the deficit, but substitutions for spending reductions that would have occurred by law in the absence of the ACA. These cost-savings provisions have the effect of extending and expanding Medicare’s future spending authority. The ACA also uses the same cost-savings to finance new health entitlement spending. The ACA’s total new spending thus well exceeds its cost-savings provisions. This is not a mere matter of presentational “double-counting” but of evaluating the actual change in law upon the ACA’s enactment. By law, as distinct from prevailing scoring conventions, the ACA has unambiguously worsened the federal government’s fiscal position. Moreover, several of the ACA’s provisions may not be enforced as currently specified. Among these, the costs of new health exchanges may be significantly higher than projected; the rising projected revenues of provisions such as the “Cadillac-plan” tax and the new 3.8-percent surcharge on incomes over $200,000/$250,000 may not fully materialize; the cost-saving recommendations of IPAB might be legislatively overridden; and the CLASS program—previously scored as saving $70-$86 billion over its first 10 years—is no longer expected to be implemented. [...]

OBAMACARE’S DOUBLE COUNTING GAME: “The health care bill of 2010 was said to provide two major benefits. First, the bill promised to find savings in the government’s biggest health insurance program, Medicare, and use those savings to reduce the deficit. Second, the bill promised to expand health care coverage to uninsured Americans. Sounds pretty good, right? But how does the government propose to pay for both? Here’s where the math becomes fuzzy. Research from “The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act” shows how this just doesn’t add up.”

MORE Links to the study: Full research paper, brief summary, chart, and video.

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary and its Negative Effects

Obama did not throw one of his lavish parties to celebrate today’s two year anniversary of his beloved health care reform. Americans did not celebrate either. Obamacare’s far-reaching negative effects are coming into focus and the worst is yet to come. Many provisions of Obamacare will conveniently become effective after the 2012 election. Here are some examples of Obamacare’s negative impact:

Obamacare adds to premium increases: “Americans are paying more for health insurance every year, a concerning trend that is already getting worse under Obamacare—even though the most costly provisions don’t kick in until 2014.”

See entire slideshow here.

The Impact of Obamacare: It grows dependence on government. Obamacare expands government control over health care by expanding Medicaid and creating new government exchanges. By the year 2020, more than 50 percent of Americans will be enrolled in a government-run health care program. It hurts jobs and the economy. Obamacare may be the cause of a slowed private-sector recovery. After it was signed into law, job growth in the private sector stalled. Also, Obamacare contains 17 new taxes on Americans that will total $502 billion between 2010 and 2019. Several of these will hit the middle class. It threatens Americans’ existing coverage. Despite President Obama’s promise, “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan,” there are many provisions in Obamacare that will cause Americans to lose existing coverage. Some estimates show the loss of employer coverage will be as high as 35 million people. It undermines state authority. Obamacare pushes approximately 20 million additional people onto state Medicaid rolls…26 states have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate and forced Medicaid expansion. Obamacare Kills Jobs: Employer mandate. Obamacare requires all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a $2,000 penalty for each employee after the first 30 workers. The employer mandate creates incentives for businesses to avoid higher costs by, for example, hiring part-time employees instead of full-time employees, since businesses will not be penalized for failing to provide health insurance to part-time employees…Businesses can also avoid penalties by keeping the number of employees under the mandate threshold of 50, which further discourages creating new jobs. New taxes and regulations. Obamacare adds tons of taxes on employers. These additional costs reduce the ability to hire workers and could even prompt layoffs. One particularly damaging tax will be the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices…[which] could result in job losses in excess of 43,000 and employment compensation losses in excess of $3.5 billion…Taxing capital reduces economic growth and investment. Future costs and regulations are unpredictable. A recent study found that 33 percent of business owners cited new requirements in Obamacare as either the biggest or second-biggest obstacle to hiring… Obamacare Inflicts Harm on all that it Touches: - Obamacare rips vast powers from the hands of individual patients and their families, and it vests control in Washington bureaucrats. - The costs are far greater than the Administration claim — heading as high as $2.134 trillion with millions Americans dependent on government for their health care. - 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits [CBO] - Individual and employer penalties related to the mandates could hit $221 billion [CBO] - Seniors will suffer as Obamacare robs savings from Medicare in order to fund new government spending while threatening seniors’ access to care and ending Medicare as we know it. - Obamacare makes extreme cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to receive their Medicare benefits through a private health care plan of their choice. And it puts a group of 15 unelected officials in charge of finding cuts in Medicare to meet new spending limits. - Young Americans will suffer as well…they ultimately will face higher premiums, perverse incentives to stay uninsured, and the burden of paying the extraordinary costs that the law brings with it. - Families will pay higher taxes. - Businesses will face new mandates and costs. - Investment income will get hit with new taxes, discouraging investment and harming economic growth. - Americans who purchase medicine with Health Savings Account or Flexible Savings Accounts will face new limitations. - Those who purchase medical devices will face higher taxes. - Marriage is penalized as a result of the new subsidy scheme. MORE - Obamacare’s Top 5 Broken Promises

Sebelius to Kids: Don’t Call Others ‘Jerks’…Tell Them: You’re Being a Jerk

BULLY SEBELIUS ADVISING KIDS AGAINST BULLYING Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is helping Obama impose Obamacare on all Americans against their will, hosted a screening of the Cartoon Network’s new film, “Stop Bullying: Speak Out” at the Stuart-Hobson Middle School on March 15, 2012, in Washington, D.C. (Click image for video)
CNSnews reported: Immediately after showing middle-school students a new video from the Cartoon Network that admonishes children not to call people names like “stupid,” “fat,” and “jerk,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the students they could do a lot of good by telling some students they were “jerks.”It “can make a huge amount of difference,” she said. Sebelius’ remarks came in response to a question from CNN’s Don Lemon, who served as moderator of a panel discussion following a screening of “Stop Bullying: Speak Up.” [...] Sebelius said: “I think, very important, is for kids to understand how powerful you really are. You might feel like you’re not big enough, not strong enough, not–don’t have enough tools. But just saying, ‘Stop it! You know, you’re being a jerk!’–walk away, get away from this person can make a huge amount of difference.”

FLASHBACKS Obama: “Argue with Neighbors, Get in their Face”

Obama to Citizens: Send in all Fishy Emails Opposing Obamacare Obama White House: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

Obama Mocks Tea Party Protesters…and Lies

$9 Birth Control Pills at Target, Walmart

AMERICANS WITHOUT INSURANCE HAVE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL Democrats are loving their manufactured Birth Control War, but facts get in their way. Democrats claim that Americans don’t have access to affordable contraception. However, Target and Walmart offer a month’s supply of birth control pills (Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec) at $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives. One more proof that we don’t need Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
From their own websites: - Walmart $9 birth control pills for 28–day supply (PDF) - Target’s $9 birth control pills for 28-day supply (PDF) They also offer $4 prescriptions for 30–day supply or $10 for a 90-day supply for other generic drugs. Their low-cost prescriptions are available to everyone, no insurance required. FLUKE LIED That means Georgetown law student and reproductive rights activist Sandra Fluke lied at the Democrats fake hearing when she said, “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school [about 3 years].” But at $9 per month, the total cost for birth control pills would be just $324 for the three years of law school.
MORE - $9: Price for a Month’s Supply of Birth Control Pills at Target 3 Miles from Georgetown Law - Walmart and Target Have Been Offering $9 Birth Control Since 2007 - Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month