The Montana GOP Hypocrite of the Week Award Goes to…

…Henry Kriegel of Bozeman.  For leading a bunch which calls itself “Americans for Prosperity” while pushing policies reminiscent of a North Korean prison camp, Henry Kriegel is this week’s winner. Many happy returns of the day.

Kriegel demands in the Great Falls Tribune that the U.S. government let kids go hungry.  To back up his argument, Kriegel turns to some of the most laughable junk science this state has seen in decades, writing:

More than 47 million Americans are now on food stamps — a 70 percent increase during Obama’s first term. It is also rife with abuse. Former Montana state Rep. Tom Burnett has analyzed the misuse of food stamp funds. Burnett claims that $16 billion of the $80 billion spent annually on the food stamp program is used by recipients to buy sweetened beverages alone — items like Sobe, Gatorade and Red Bull — not the staples of meat, vegetables and slow carbs.

Burnett, a former state lawmaker, is no scientist nor research analyst.  He’s a TEA Party crackpot obsessed with cutting food for hungry kids in need.  His self-styled “report,”Hunger in America: The Myth, [word doc] reads like it came straight out of a North Korean propaganda ministry.  It calls for an end to food assistance programs and offers such advice to needy parents as “No whining,” ‘Gather wild berries,’ and in a moment of unintended irony, advises that not being hungry “kills.”

The “information” that Kriegel sites is from Burnett’s blog.  Burnett supposedly compiled this himself by wandering around asking a gas station clerk or two “Do people buy x junk food item with food stamps?” with that wild look in his eyes.  The busy clerks were probably quite eager to get the strange personage out of their store so they could get back to work.

Using logic Kim Il-Sung would have been proud of, Burnett writes that hunger doesn’t exist because he hasn’t seen it:

No advocates parade a line of emaciated children at any school or playground. They just can’t be found.

But that’s not the only reason Representative Burnett has come to the conclusion that no one is really going hungry.  He also bases his case on pictures of fat people he found on the Internet, which he actually includes in his article as “evidence.”

Burnett believes that  kids should be “self-reliant.” If they don’t have enough to eat, they should learn to scavenge and glean food from the garbage to survive. That’s exactly how things work in North Korea, where citizens are forced to scavenge for rats to eat, and chip their own frozen feces out of toilets to use for fertilizer to grow their own food.  (Talk about self-reliance.) Kids in that country are so malnourished that many suffer from stunted growth and serious intellectual disabilities for life.

In fact, as Blaine Hardin wrote of the situation in North Korea, because of what is known as the “eating problem” there, severe malnutrition has caused severe problems. One quarter of those who apply to join the military in North Korea are disqualified for intellectual disabilities – think what that does to  a country’s prospects for prosperity.

And so Mr. Kriegel, sergeant of the TEA Party junk-science spin squad, we salute you as the Montana GOP Hypocrite of the Week.  When you are finished trying to stop hungry kids from getting something to eat, maybe you can write an article about the qualifications, scientific standards, and academic research principles employed by Tom Burnett that would pass muster in a high school classroom.  It wouldn’t take very long to write.  It would be blank.

Share

39 Comments on "The Montana GOP Hypocrite of the Week Award Goes to…"

  1. Well said!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 4:47 AM at 4:47 AM |

      I agree. Very well said. But tommy burnutt is a great example of compassionate mormonism! Yep. They’re “christian” alright! Right, tommy? Jesus would WANT them young’uns to starve to death so as to teach’em a good lesson ’bout self-reliance!

      “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
      Steven Weinberg

      Little tommy burnutt LIVES this statement! He’s one f*cked up dude! Call him home, Jesus, before he screws up even more!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 6:14 AM at 6:14 AM |

        I am remiss. I should have included the entire quote. It’s worth a read. It very much describes a dipshit like tommy burnutt!

        “Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God’s will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

        • I’ve never seen the entire quote before. You gotta love Weinberg. Thanks, Larry!

          • This is a good quote – re Tom Burnett – the man is clearly warped from his own terrible childhood. He wrote a book–and you can see from his blog and that “report” that his own parents had more kids than they could afford to feed and so he didn’t get enough to eat at some point during his life. Instead of this experience giving him compassion for others, it warped him to the point it has become an obsession. This is the result.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 6, 2013 7:59 AM at 7:59 AM |

              I would simply offer up a challenge to guys like burnutt. Please list TEN, only TEN, just TEN great mormon humanitarians!

              I can think of lots of great Christian humanitarians right here in Montana! But I’ll be damned if I can think of ONE mormon humanitarian!…..except for the great, kind tommy burnutt!

              bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 6:17 AM at 6:17 AM |

    And as far as creepy kriegel goes, he shares the same policy as that of dipshit daines! Walk softly and carry a Big Kockh!

    bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!

    americans for prosperity. BWHHAHAHAHAHAAA!

    Carrying water for the Big Kockhs!

  3. Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 10:41 AM at 10:41 AM |

    The basic question remains, can people purchase sweetened drinks with food stamps? A quick google search takes us to the Harvard Law School site, which suggest yes you can:

    http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9414581

    So Burnett and Kriegel are correct. I, personally, am outraged that people can use food stamps to buy this crap, and other processed foods, and think that food stamps should be limited to purchase healthy foods. What’s so wrong about that?

    • Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 3:16 PM at 3:16 PM |

      Well, Burnett may be correct that food stamps are being used to buy sugary sodas, but his $14 billion estimate is a tad higher than the $2 billion estimate from researchers at Yale:

      http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/10/02/food-stamps-buying-billions-in-soda/

      I am inclined to believe the Yale numbers.

      • Drunk, you and Henry watch Fox News http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/02/1212606/-You-want-to-know-how-Fox-News-misleads-its-viewers-Here-s-how

        As for the Depression not being so bad, when my Great Grand mother died. in the 1990’s she was still stashing can goods all over the house and talking about the Depression…….

        • Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 9:32 PM at 9:32 PM |

          I do not see the relevance in your argument, Lynn. Since when have I attacked Great Depression relief measures? I am attacking our current government subsidizing of sugary crap drinks.

          Truth be told, I am a firm believer of Keynsian economic philosohy and agree with Paul Krugman that we should have spent al lot more on stimulous measures in 2009 to get the economy going again (contrary to Rob Kailey’s pissy little remarks). I fail to see the relevance to these issues and getting fat peopel off soda.

          • Wow. Wasn’t that a hollow comment. You seem really confused about what you advocate, D for D, so kindly let me clarify for you. I’ll use a numbered list, just ’cause I know it will kinda annoy you.

            1) “Big Government” does not mean Keynsian spending measures. It means relying on ever larger government bureaucracy to promote and administer often onerous regulation for the questionable ‘benefit’ of us all. In case you missed it, which you did, that’s exactly the hill you plant your flag on with the nanny-calls for controlling how food stamps are used.

            2) Our government *does not* subsidize “sugary crap drinks”. It provides a means for people to buy food they otherwise would not be able to afford. That is not a subsidy to PepsiCo. You do see the difference, right?

            3) We weren’t discussing “fat peopel”. We were discussing poor people, people who have to choose between buying toilet paper and buying food. If your problem is “fat peopel”, I suggest that’s where you spend your effort. If you think all poor people are fat, then let your bigotry shine clear. Say so. At least then we can have an honest conversation.

            4) If my comments were so “pissy” and “little”, then why haven’t you responded? You advocate shifting the burden of cost from your paltry taxes that support food stamps to the business community and the regulation thereof. That hardly seems like a “little” complaint.

            5) (I saved the best for last.) Think about what you’ve written for a second. Your call to save ‘2 BILLION dollars’ won’t. That isn’t what you’ve called for at all. The money won’t be returned to the Treasury, as you’ve simply assumed that it would be. It would just be spent differently. Instead of sodas, it might be spent on a better brand of Mac’n’cheese, or perhaps candy bars, or maybe even real (dare I say it) sugar to sweeten the water. You’ve started down a really slippery slope I don’t think you can control. You don’t like your tax dollars spent on sodapop. Fine. What’s next? Flank steak at $7.99 a pound should be prohibited when discount hamburger will do? (The joke to that is that flank steak used to be the cast-off cut that the poor got because the rich were eating sirloin tip.) Hot dogs are cheap, but they aren’t healthy. Prohibit them or not? ‘Let’s limit food stamps to only fruits and veg. But seriously, Arugula? Iceberg is in season, you poor dip spending MY MONEY! You are only allowed to buy that.’ Face it D for D. What you are calling for will end up costing us a helluva more than just $100M, and it still won’t return one dime to the US Treasury. Unless … You really do favor what Burnett calls for. Let the fat poor bastards starve, or dumpster dive. That $5 a year you get back when food stamps are cut is what is really important right?

            You can’t have it both ways. Either you want the money, or you want to control people’s health decisions. I, for one, would really like to know which it is? Or is asking that question just ‘pissy and little’?

            • Health decisions should at least be informed. Sugar is the underlying cause of obesity and diabetes. Food processors and fast food chains push it relentlessly. Most of the aisles in our grocery store are loaded with sugar-intense products, and keep in mind that starch is just delayed sugar – it takes the body a little bit longer to break it down to components.

              To call for individual choice without mention of good information on which to base choices is counterproductive and does nothing to address a serious problem.

              • Most certainly true, and as is your usual it is completely beside the point of the discussion, Mark. The problem faced by those on food assistance isn’t that they don’t have the right knowledge to eat healthy. It’s that they don’t have the money to buy enough food in the first place.

                • Quite an oversimplification. The information they need is simply not available to them. Food science is funded these days by food processing companies, so that the role of sugar, well known in other countries and even here in the mid-20th century, is hidden. Nutritionists, like economists, are poorly schooled and detached from reality. Money makes it so.

                  We could use a program like food stamps to make healthy non-starchy non-sugary food affordable, but again, money in politics makes that impossible. We could subsidize healthier foods than corn, but money in politics makes that impossible.

                  Like so much else that is wrong with our country, it is large pockets of concentrated wealth that are making a mess, and because that same wealth owns our political system, we are unable to make headway.

    • In direct answer to your question, it’s socialism at it’s most obtrusive. ‘Tell you why. Retailers, those who sell food and necessities, pay real cash money for the products they sell. To the user, food stamps are simply scrip. To the retailer, they represent real profit dollars. Dividing food into ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ puts the onus (and costs) on retailers to manage what can and cannot be purchased (more than the current system already does.) For instance, hamburger is okay, Hamburger Helper is not? Expensive dairy cheese is certainly more healthy than cheap processed American cheese stuff. So the cheap stuff is to be disallowed? Are retailers to process their sales by body weight of the purchaser’s children, or total cost of the grocery bill?

      Food stamps are limited to food items (baring alcohol when some craft brews have more nutritional value than some processed food does.) What you call for here crosses the line into social engineering, the idea that society gets to decide how people are fed to the benefit of society tax dollars, pushing the burden of financial responsibility onto those who just want to make a buck selling groceries.

      • Jennifer Davies | June 4, 2013 5:30 PM at 5:30 PM |

        Exactly – and for someone that doesn’t have a car and doesn’t live close to a grocery store, the fact is they are going to get a lot of their food from the nearest gas station–what else are they supposed to do? In Helena, if you want to take public transportation to go to the grocery store, its a 3 hour round trip because of the bus schedule. What if you have kids – you either have to take them on that three hour ordeal (with lots of waiting) or walk with them to the gas station sometimes.

        • Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 9:19 PM at 9:19 PM |

          If that’s the best answer you can come up with, that people relying on food stamps need to get their groceries from the Town Pump, then this country is hosed beyond belief and I (who until this moment has never voted against any school levy) am going to vote against any charitable measure ever again and wish that Eugenics from the 1930s would become fashionable again.

          Simply, simply pathetic. Lets just give up on life, and slurp on our government paid 44-oz. Big Gulps until they wheel us into the hospital where Obamacare will take over until we die. I am disgusted that I was once a New Deal Democrat, and disavow you liberal socialists as a betrayer of the American work ethic.

          Denny, come back! You can win in 2014, if this garbage from the left is the best they can offer.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 11:01 PM at 11:01 PM |

            Let’s be clear on one thing, dude. It was NOT the left that destroyed this country. Read your history. The nazis in this country took over through crime.

            • Jennifer Davies | June 5, 2013 12:25 AM at 12:25 AM |

              I’m trying to figure out if this is a “parody account” of a dem pretending to be a knuckle-dragging Rehberg supporter for laughs and to highlight the GOP bizarre thought process or if this is an actual GOP-er demonstrating his beliefs. Anybody?!

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 5, 2013 7:08 AM at 7:08 AM |

                I think someone stole the real drunks for denny’s handle. That’s all. The real drunks for denny was good.

  4. Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 10:53 AM at 10:53 AM |

    I see that liberal do-gooder Mayor Michael Bloomberg agrees with me:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/politics/30food.html?_r=0

    The defense of the soft drink industry is laughable. “If we tell people what they can or cannot eat, where does it end?” Its pretty easy to tell what is processed crap and what is not, and no, we aren’t telling you, you can’t eat it, you just can’t pay for it with taxpayer dollars.

    Back in the 1980s, I lived in Pennsylvania where they have a sales tax. The sales tax authority did an excellent job of identifying healthy foods that were exempt from the tax, and taxing processed foods and beverages. As Bob Dylan would say, “Yes this can be verily easily done.”

    • Something of a fan of big government, then, aren’t you? There is a great hue and cry about the IRS dictating our health care already. The IRS dictating our food choices? Yeah that would fly …

      • Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 9:22 PM at 9:22 PM |

        If being a fan of big government means we spend $100M to eliminate $2B of spending on crap, which causes a net effect of $10B saved on health care costs paid by the taxpayer for eliminating diabetical hospital bills, then yes, I am a fan of big government.

        • Any foundation for those ‘savings’ figures, or the claim that such government regulation of behavior would only cost $100M? Have you consulted PepsiCo and Coca Cola to see if they’d be okay losing $2B in sales so that you could save $5 a year? Just asking …

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 6, 2013 6:16 AM at 6:16 AM |

          Drunks, I used to like your comments, if this is really you, for I too like a little drinky now and then too! But I don’t think that this is the REAL Drunks for Denny!

          Anyway, there’s a frickin’ REASON that many food stamp recipients eat junk food. Well, actually there’s lots of reasons. But this is a salient one. Food deserts! Ever heard of them? Many folks have NO access to healthy food choices. And yet the gubmint continues to provide HUGE subsidies to the corn industry! Why not the veggie industry?

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 6, 2013 6:18 AM at 6:18 AM |

            Oops! Forgot the link. Hard of us in Montana to understand this type of thing.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 6, 2013 6:21 AM at 6:21 AM |

              I wonder if compassionate mormon tommy burnutt is gonna go HELP them folks in the inner city with THEIR food choices?! Or simply whine about it? Tommy is simply a little whiner! He’s had his seer stones up his ass once too often me thinks! Seer stones up the ass provides one with a very, very narrow world view, depending on how big one’s ASShole is! Tommy’s seems to be quite narrow!!

  5. Corporations and religion, what a combo, huh? Processed foods should be severely limited which would ANGER Agri-Business like Con (yes, CON the public) Agra and then ‘Religion’ justifies torturing, starving raping slaves and their families in the name of God??!! I would FORCE this a-hole (I reserve that term for a holy few) to read Charles Dickens and recall Scrooge’s immortal words,’are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?’ Force this a-hole and others to volunteer at a rescue mission and family centers, and not only children go hungry, but seniors who must choose between Max Baucus endorsed Big Pharma drug profits and a box of Kraft (another purveyor of high calorie, low nutrition fodder) ‘mac and cheese’? Maybe if the food was shaped like an assault rifle then the baggers would endorse feeding hungry kids? How about the ‘baggers’ rabid attacks on Meals on Wheels’? HAVE THEY NO SHAME when they starve WWII and Korean War combat veterans who rely upon medicare, MEDICAID and very modest government help they EARNED?

  6. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 6:02 PM at 6:02 PM |

    Maybe Drildo the Dildo could answer this question for us! Why, Drildo, why? Are the Big Kockhs REALLY that hard up for money???

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/rep-mcdermott-wonders-why-tea-party-groups-applied-for-taxpayer-funded-subsidies/

  7. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 8:53 PM at 8:53 PM |

    Never been to Zortman/Landusky? Never seen the Golden Sunlight Mine at Whitehall? Well then, take a look at this video. THIS is what we stopped with I-137! And God said this is good!

    http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/no-more-excuses-end-mountaintop-remova

  8. Drunks for Denny | June 4, 2013 9:26 PM at 9:26 PM |

    Zortman/Landusky did and Golden Sunlight still does, provide(s)(d) jobs that paid for people’s livelihoods and bought their homes, and kept them from having to get food stamps to buy Big Gulps as the rest of your pathetic ilk seems to want to do. What is your point?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 9:36 PM at 9:36 PM |

      bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!

      Jobs?!! Really, dipsticks for Denny? Do you even KNOW the costs to clean up Zortman/Landusky? CAN it even be cleaned up?? Have you been UP there to see the “clean up”??

      Sorry, Dipsticks for Denny, you’re clueless, dude. I’m not. LEAVE the debate now or forever get your ass handed to you!

      You see, Dipsticks, in the final analysis, it would be have been CHEAPER and more COST EFFECTIVE to have paid them workers to stay home! (they ain’t miners. miners go underground. they’re earthmovers!) But now, the government has incurred costs WAY beyond any benefit to the state! HOW much was that Pegasus bond again? Do you even KNOW, Dipsticks? HOW much in fines did Pegasus pay for violations of water quality? Do you even KNOW?? And just HOW much did they pay in taxes over the twenty year course of that mine?! And HOW much profit did they get??? And HOW much is the taxpayer left on the hook for to TREAT this site in perpetuity?? Do you even know what that means???

      Go away, dude. Go away. You’re outmatched, outwitted, and outgunned! Jobs my ASS! Economic development must make economic sense. And this don’t!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 4, 2013 9:45 PM at 9:45 PM |

        “and kept them from having to get food stamps to buy Big Gulps as the rest of your pathetic ilk seems to want to do”

        BTW, the offer still stands for you he man types, Dipstick. Come to work with me for just ONE day, only ONE day, really, just a SINGLE day, and see how long you last, you pathetic inbred! You wouldn’t make it ’till NOON! And hell, I’m an old man! You lose again. What is your very physical job again? Suckin’ offin’ the Big Kockh brothers? HEY, lips can get carpal tunnel TOO ya know!

        bwhahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaa!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 6, 2013 8:33 AM at 8:33 AM |

      GOD SAVE THE BIG KOCKS! If peasants must go hungry, that’s a small price to pay! And ‘sides, it’ll teach’em to be good Mormons like tommy burnutt!

Comments are closed.