Cattle Diagrams - Retail Beef Cuts Chart

BEEF CUTS  

(Courtesy of the Certified Angus Beef® brand)

Beef is divided into sections called primal cuts.

From these large areas, the meat cutter makes smaller portions suitable for individual or family-sized packaging.

Different cuts of beef require unique cooking methods.

A chuck, for example, makes an excellent roast but isn't as pleasing when pan-broiled. With these details in mind, we have prepared the following information for you to use as a guide when selecting and preparing Certified Angus Beef ® cuts.

Chuck

Meat is basically muscle, and the chuck happens to be a heavily exercised area.

Luckily, this area contains a great deal of connective tissue, including collagen. Collagen melts during cooking, making the meat intensely flavorful.

Cuts from this area benefit from slow, wet cooking methods like stewing, braising or pot-roasting.

■Blade Roast - An inexpensive cut which lies next to the ribs; more tender than most chuck; makes an excellent roast.

Alternatively, the roast can be cut into a rib-eye steak, with meat above and below the bone excellent for stir-fry dishes

■Chuck Steak -A good choice for kabobs if well marinated

Rib

Tender and flavorful ribs can be cooked any number of ways. Most recipes call for ribs to be roasted, sauteed, pan-fried, broiled, or grilled.

■Rib Roast - Known as a standing rib roast (bone left in), or without the bone for convenient slicing. Excellent when dry roasted.

A seven-bone prime rib roast can be quite a hefty addition to the dinner table. It is great for a crowd, but for a small family a bone roast will do.

Many butchers will cut a roast to order for you

■Rib Steak -Also cut from the rib section, these tender steaks can be purchased bone-in or as boneless rib-eye

Short Loin

This area boasts extremely tender cuts and can be prepared without the aid of moist heat or long cooking times.

Cuts from the short loin may be sauteed, pan fried, broiled, pan broiled or grilled.

■Porterhouse Steak - A very popular steak cut from the rear end of the short loin; the name originated from the days when it was served in public alehouses that also served a dark beer called porter.

The porterhouse consists of both tenderloin and sirloin tip. The tenderloin is often served separately as filet mignon

■T-bone Steak - Cut from the middle section of the short loin; similar to the porterhouse steak; has a smaller piece of the tenderloin; usually grilled or pan-fried

■Tenderloin - Often considered the most tender cut of beef; responds well to sauces, meaning the meat does not overpower the flavor of the sauce.

It can be cut as the whole strip, or into individual steaks for filet mignon

Sirloin

"The backbone's connected to the - hipbone"- not a song, but a sirloin.

These tender cuts respond well to sauteing, pan-frying, broiling, pan-broiling or grilling.

■Sirloin Steaks - These steaks are available in a variety of boneless and bone-in steaks

■Sirloin Tip Roast - Excellent when dry roasted or marinated

Flank

This meat is lean, muscular and very flavorful. Flank is primarily used for flank steaks and rolled flank steaks. It can also be used for kabobs.

■Flank Steak - This steak has a great flavor, and should be sliced thin against the grain for maximum chewability.

Use to make the classic London broil

Short Plate

This section is best used for stew meat, where its rich, beefy flavor can be appreciated.

Round

The round consists of lean meat well-suited to long, moist cooking methods.

■Top Round - This is the most tender part of the round; it can be prepared as pot roast or cut into thick steaks for braised dishes

■Rump Roast - A very popular cut for pot roast, but can also be roasted at low temperatures

Shank/Brisket

Traditionally used for corned beef, brisket is best prepared with moist heat. Suitable preparation methods include stewing, braising and pot-roasting.

■Foreshank - Excellent stew meat

■Brisket First Cut -A leaner cut of the brisket, for those who want the flavor but not the fat of a brisket pot roast

■Brisket Front Cut -Fork tender and succulent, a Certified Angus Beef ® pot roast made with this cut is truly mouthwatering.

 

California To Pass “Gender Bill”

This is the sort of thing that makes California look like a land of stupidity!

Only in California can a young boy decide that he's really a girl when he is young and still developing mentally.

And yes, with the help of the politically powerful Gay Lobby - the state is now coaxing kids to be what they are not!

A new California State Law will allow students to choose if they are boys or girls - and give them access to girls and boys locker rooms and bathroom facilities.

Yes, believe it or not, it won't matter how you were born - male or female - California wants to give freaks and predators access to our kids.

Though this California liberal insanity will probably pass and subsequently become law, presently, under California law, men are not allowed in the women’s locker rooms and shower areas, for obvious reasons.

These are places where women are partially or wholly undressed and completely vulnerable, and that’s true whether the guy is planning on getting a quick peek or is hoping to engage in even more nefarious behavior.

Nevertheless, the California Senate is currently contemplating – and will almost certainly pass – a bill from California assembling that allows boys to announce that their gender identity is female for purposes of athletic programs, an announcement that gains them full access to girls’ locker rooms at elementary and high schools.

AB-1266 has passed through the California assembly - and since it is a completely Democrat controlled state legislature they didn't need a single Republican vote - and is now waiting for a California Senate vote.

It’s supposedly intended to amend California Education Code section 221.5 "Sex Equity in Education Act".

As currently written, California Education Code section 221.5 states that no elementary or high school students can be barred from classes or forced into classes because of their sex.

The proposed amendment, however, adds a whole new dimension, by letting the students define what their sex is with regard to sports and then giving them access to whatever locker room they prefer.

As insane as this sounds, a pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

To put this another way, a guy, complete with guy biological equipment, can announce that he’s really a girl and then gain unlimited access to the girls’ locker room.

That locker room, of course, is the place in which adolescent girls take off their clothing to change before and after athletic activities.

Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom has spoken to several girls who fully understand the possibilities for abuse.

Taylor says that his organization has spoken to numerous public school girls who feel very vulnerable when they think about a boy announcing that he’s a girl and walking into their locker room.

With this California Law, and don't kid yourself, it will be a law, a boy could choose to be on the girls’ swimming team or a boy could choose to be on the girls’ basketball team based upon his own desire to identity with that sex.

So in other words, so-called "Gender Liberation" for a small minority of people means a high risk potential for a majority of girls.

Yes, a psychologically screwed up individual can claim he is gender-confused and gain access to our children's locker rooms and bathrooms.

As one writer put it, "we continue to believe that people whose brain and body have different gender identities should be treated with compassion. That does not mean, however, that their rights should trump the rights of the majority."

Reasonable accommodation is reasonable. Unreasonable accommodation, however, becomes bullying."

And yes, I agree. This is utter bullshit! There is no reason for this to be taking place in our schools - even in ass backwards California!

It's no wonder more and more people are pulling their kids out of public schools to home school their children.

Besides the drugs and the violence, besides the lack of education, besides the liberal indoctrination which is apparently the top priority for so-called "educators," now California parents will have to worry about the privacy and safety of their children even in the school locker rooms and bathrooms.

Potential predators will have access to our children because the liberal maniacs in the State capital in Sacramento have gone crazy with their forced social-engineering for the worse!

That's how I see it!

Did the NSA target Conservatives as Terrorists?

Was the NSA used to treat Conservatives as Terrorists Suspects?

These are sad days for America.

Especially when a citizen has to ask if anyone has questioned who specially did the NSA gathered records from? Who did they go after?

Did the National Security Agency target Conservatives as "terrorist suspects"?

It's an easy question. Yet, I don't hear anyone asking it.

Back in 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she knew about an intelligence assessment which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

At the time, politicians were saying that the report raised significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans.

Napolitano defended the report, which said "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration policies.

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement at the time.

When this took place, Napolitano insisted that the Department of Homeland Security was not planning on engaging in any form of "ideological profiling."

She said, "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."

She went on to say, "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not - nor will we ever - monitor ideology or political beliefs."

The Washington Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued the April 7th, 2009, nine-page document titled -

"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

At the time, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said, "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans."

Mr. Thompson’s letter to Napolitano said,

"I am particularly struck by the report’s conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.' "

He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for “the next several months.”

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report.

How about opposition to radical Islam, environmental extremeist, ObamaCare, the running of guns in Mexico illegally, the IRS treatment of Conservatives, gun-control, over-taxation, over-regulation, giving billions of tax dollars to foreign countries not friendly to the United States yet cutting services for Americans?

Would opposition to these issues warrant us being investigated by Homeland Security and the NSA?

It certainly is a "red flag" for the IRS, the EPA, and a host of other government agencies.

The 2009 report also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

How did we know that these are the people that the Obama administration haven't been targeting all along? We don't, but its more than possible that that is the case.

The assessment was the first Homeland Security report under the Obama Administration  that examined threats based on political conservative affiliation. 

At the time, even the ACLU said, "Certainly, the right-wing report is focused far too much on rhetoric and things people say and things people think rather than on criminal activity and the people involved in criminal activity. There is plenty of crime out there for federal, state and local law enforcement to worry about. They don’t need to invent threats that they have no factual basis for supporting."

The American Legion, an organization that I am proud to belong to, said that the report unfairly stereotypes veterans.

Back then, Napolitano and the agency she heads characterized men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists.

So now, we need to know, did Homeland Security and the National Security Agency conspire against a single segment of the American population since 2009 when Obama took office?

As offensive and unacceptable as that was, one can't help but wonder if conservatives and returning veterans have been targeted by the Department of Homeland Security and the NSA.

On this weekend’s “Fox News Sunday,” Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul suggested taking the government to court over its tracking of private citizens’ phone records.

According to Paul, going after specific individuals with a search warrant was reasonable. However, he said "trolling" billions of records was not acceptable.

"My suspicion is, and a lot of this is classified — the other side gets to promote their case and we don’t get the information — but my suspicion is that this gentleman was targeted because they suspected him for being a terrorist," Paul said.

"I have no problem if you have probable cause and you target people who are terrorist and people who they are communicating with, and you get a warrant. But we’re talking about trolling through billions of phone records."

For me, I want to know, who did those phone records belong to?

Was their search based on someone's political conservative ideology and affiliations with the Tea Party and other Conservative groups and individuals?

Did they in fact use that Homeland Security report back in 2009 and run with it?

Remember, this has been going on a long time now!

I cannot find another time in our nation's history when so many government agencies and employees at every level have been so driven by the liberal ideology.

Yes, their venomous hate for conservatives has corrupted their sense of reason.

But corrupt or not, we need answers as to who the NSA targeted and why? Was it because they are conservatives?


Story by Tom Correa

Associated Press Article About Obama Presidency

 AP: Mounting Controversies Are All About Trust  

by Liz Sidotti, Associated Press   

"As a candidate, Barack Obama vowed to bring a different, better kind of leadership to the dysfunctional capital.

He'd make government more efficient, accountable and transparent.

He'd rise above the "small-ball" nature of doing business. And he'd work with Republicans to break Washington paralysis.

You can trust me, Obama said back in 2008.

And - for a while, at least - a good piece of the country did.

But with big promises often come big failures - and the potential for big hits to the one thing that can make or break a presidency: credibility.

A series of mounting controversies is exposing both the risks of political promise-making and the limits of national-level governing while undercutting the core assurance Obama made from the outset: that he and his administration would behave differently.

The latest: the government's acknowledgement that, in a holdover from the Bush administration and with a bipartisan Congress' approval and a secret court's authorization, it [the Obama administration] was siphoning the phone records of millions of American citizens in a massive data-collection effort officials say was meant to protect the nation from terrorism.

This came after the disclosure that the government was snooping on journalists.

Also, the IRS' improper targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status has spiraled into a wholesale examination of the agency, including the finding that it spent $49 million in taxpayer money on 225 employee conferences over the past three years.

At the same time, Obama's immigration reform agenda is hardly a sure thing on Capitol Hill, and debate starting this week on the Senate floor is certain to show deep divisions over it.

Gun control legislation is all but dead. And he's barely speaking to Republicans who control the House, much less working with them on a top priority: tax reform.

Even Democrats are warning that more angst may be ahead as the government steps up its efforts to implement Obama's extraordinarily expensive, deeply unpopular health care law.

Collectively, the issues call into question not only whether the nation's government can be trusted but also whether the leadership itself can.

All of this has Obama on the verge of losing the already waning faith of the American people.

And without their confidence, it's really difficult for presidents to get anything done - particularly those in the second term of a presidency and inching toward lame-duck status.

The ramifications stretch beyond the White House.

If enough Americans lose faith in Obama, he will lack strong coattails come next fall's congressional elections.

Big losses in those races will make it harder for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, especially if it's Hillary Rodham Clinton, to run as an extension of Obama's presidency and convince the American public to give Democrats another four years.

Obama seemed to recognize this last week.

He emphasized to anxious Americans that the other two branches of government were as responsible as the White House for signing off on the vast data-gathering program.

"We've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight," Obama said. "And if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here."

The government is an enormous operation, and it's unrealistic to think it will operate smoothly all of the time.

But, as the head of it, Obama faces the reality of all of his successors: The buck stops with him.

If the controversies drag on, morale across America could end up taking a huge hit, just when the mood seems to be improving along with an economic uptick.

Or, Americans could end up buying Obama's arguments that safety sometimes trumps privacy, that his administration is taking action on the IRS, and that he's doing the best he can to forge bipartisan compromise when Republicans are obstructing progress.

Every president faces the predicament of overpromising. Often the gap can be chalked up to the difference between campaigning and governing, between rhetoric and reality.

As with past presidents, people desperate to turn the page on the previous administration voted for the Obama they wanted and now are grappling with the Obama they got.

From the start of his career, Obama tried to sculpt an almost nonpartisan persona as he spoke of bridging divides and rejecting politics as usual.

He attracted scores of supporters from across the ideological spectrum with his promises to behave differently.

And they largely believed what he said.

Back then, he held an advantage as one of the most trusted figures in American politics.

In January 2008, Obama had an 8-point edge over Clinton as the more honest and trustworthy candidate in the Democratic primary.

That grew to a 23-point advantage by April of that year, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls.

Later that year, the Post-ABC poll showed Obama up 8 points on Republican nominee John McCain as the more honest candidate.

Obama held such strong marks during his first term, with the public giving the new president the benefit of the doubt.

Up for re-election, he went into the 2012 campaign home stretch topping Mitt Romney by 9 points on honesty in a mid-October ABC/Post poll.

But now, that carefully honed image of trustworthiness may be changing in Americans' eyes.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted late last month found 49 percent of people consider Obama honest and trustworthy, a dip from the organization's last read on the matter in September 2011 when 58 percent said the same.

He also has taken a hit among independents, which used to be a source of strength for him, since his second-term controversies have emerged.

Now just 40 percent say he is honest and trustworthy, down from 58 percent in September 2011.

Obama has waning opportunities to turn it around.

He's halfway through his fifth year, and with midterm elections next fall, there's no time to waste.

If he can't convince the American people that they can trust him, he could end up damaging the legacy he has worked so hard to control and shape - and be remembered, even by those who once supported him, as the very opposite of the different type of leader he promised to be."

--end of article.

I received this article with a note that said, "See, even a liberal journalist with the AP is onto Obama!"

Liz Sidoti is the national politics editor for The Associated Press, and after reading her article, I don't see that she is onto Obama in any way, shape, or form.

I see this as an "Obama Supporter" putting out an her explanation as to how its everyone else's fault that these things are taking place and not Obama's fault at all.

She is very worried about the President's legacy.  

She comes off as an ardent supporter just trying to tell President Obama that he needs to get it together - and that his time is running out before the 2014 election when the Democrats want to take back the House.   

In her article, she's spreading the blame for things all around, listing Congress and the courts, while purposely ignoring that this is solely an Obama administration problem.

Why is this solely an Obama administration problem? Because it is solely their doing!

The Republicans in control of Congress did not authorize the investigating and political attacks on Tea Party organizations and other Conservative groups and individuals, it was Democrats in positions of power that did these things.

Either it came from the White House, or from Democrats in high positions, but they were the ones who have over-stepped their authority and broken the law. They are at fault here no matter how hard a political supporter like Liz Sidotti wants to whitewash it, or spin it, or get you to think.

Facts are facts, Democrats ordered these things to take place, and articles like this which try to deflect the attention away from the Obama administration and place it on others does nothing but try to deceive the American people.

Liz Sidotti says "the IRS' improper targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status has spiraled into a wholesale examination of the agency," as if that were a bad thing! 

The IRS should be investigated from top down to make sure that no White House can ever use any agency of the government against the American people.

That huge fact seems to be lost on Ms Sodotti. She's more worried about the Obama legacy.

Why is it so important to her that she get a message to the President to turn things around?

It's because she is worried about 2014 and subsequently 2016 elections, which she believes is an "extension of Obama's presidency."  

Why is she worried about the President turning this all around as soon as possible?

She said Obama needs to "convince the American public to give Democrats another four years."
She knows that Obama and the Democrats need to take Congress, the House of Representatives, back in 2014 so that they can put an end to all of these Congressional investigations, she's saying Obama doesn't have much time to turn things around.  

And yes, that's exactly what Democrats are hoping for. Victory in 2014 means an end to the investigations into their wrong doings.  

A win during next year's mid-term election for the Democrats means they can do whatever they want and no one will be in any position to investigate anything they're doing!  

Abuse of power? They'll be able to say, so what!  

Intrusive government? They'll say, big deal!  

Government over-stepping its authority? They'll know no one's there to stop them! No one!  

As for AP writer Liz Sidotti?   

Remember that she is not a conservative by any means - and is in fact a Liberal Obama supporter.

Does this mean that the Associated Press is no longer in the pocket of the Obama administration? No. Not by any means.

It just means that this one AP writer, Liz Sidotti, wrote a slightly-negative piece about the President's troubles. That's all! 

Out of this, she may be invited to the White House to meet with the President and be reassured that they will win back the whole Congress next year.

The administration will probably reassure her that that is the reason this administration has been working so hard to stifle the Tea Party and other conservative organizations from educating Americans on the issues.

And yes, as an Obama supporter, Liz Sidotti may be soothed by their strategy.

She'll try to explain to the administration that was just trying to give them advice in her article. She may even take an oath of allegiance to Obama while she's at the White House.

What she doesn't realize is that the Obama administration does not trust anyone, even someone who may claim to be a loyal supporter.

The Obama administration will probably have her credentials looked at; there may even be pressure put on the AP to fire her if she acts up again.

It's almost certain that her phone records and e-mail may be seized and searched; that her finances will most likely be looked at; that she will most likely be investigated and audited by the IRS; that the FBI will probably red-flag her "file."

The FBI or Homeland Security may want to search her home, and will most likely want to know who she associates with.

And yes, if she does not cooperate with the Obama people and show them that she is still a team player and loyal supporter, she will most likely be put on Obama's Enemies List.

This article may ruin her career; this may stop her from covering important stories or gaining access to information that she previously could have had.

Her family's safety and security may be at risk over this. And yes, she may feel all sort of other forms of reprisals from the Obama administration.

Don't think so?

Wake up! That's what the Obama administration does.


Story by Tom Correa