Mrs. O’s Healthy Food Wasted

September 25, 2012 7 Comments

There appears to be a nationwide student uproar over Michelle Obama’s absurd dictations on school lunches. According to Mrs. O’s guidelines, high school students are allotted only 200 calories more than an elementary student. One teacher posted a picture of a sad “cheese” filled bread stick with a dollop of tomato sauce, three apple slices and some raw spinach. This apparently met the guidelines for a high school lunch. Students are outraged, particularly athletes. A You Tube video titled ‘We Are Hungry’ has gone viral. In one Massachusetts school, students are selling black market Hersey’s syrup by the squirt. Yes, it’s come to this, sweets are now on the black market.

From day one, Michelle Obama’s insistence that children be served healthy food has been met with one thing: Wasted food. Last year the government mandated snacks at a number of urban schools. These included raw radishes and green onions. Teachers collected the food to take home for their families, otherwise Mrs. O’s healthy food would have gone to complete waste. Now that the Agriculture Department’s full list of regulations is in effect, everything from how many tomatoes can be on a salad to a ban on candy bar fundraisers, food is being wasted by the case. One school estimates four boxes of peaches were wasted on a single day.

In short, kids aren’t eating the healthy, largely meatless lunches that Mrs. O wants them to eat. The result? Kids are hungry, they aren’t getting anywhere near the calories they need to get. Especially so for athletes and kids who work. Food is being wasted, thrown away for no reason other than kids don’t want to eat Mrs. O’s healthy mandated food. Meanwhile the band can’t sell candy bars for their fundraiser and lunch ladies have to count how many tomatoes are on a salad. These are just the silliest regulations, the regs number in the dozens of pages.

This is so typical of government. Some do gooder decides the country has a problem so she uses government to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Government issues endless regulations, increases costs and then expects everyone to put up with it. Meanwhile, the little people don’t like being limited in their options and they don’t like the food the do gooder wants them to eat. So they don’t eat the government mandated food and instead turn to the black market. Of course the black market food is worse for kids than whatever the cafeteria was dumping on their plates before.

This all begins though with a do gooder who wants to use the power of the state to force everyone to live as she sees fit. This is the danger of the all powerful state, it limits personal freedom. The way to combat fat kids isn’t through mandated one size fits all school lunches. The kids have already proven themselves resourceful enough to create a black market for sweets. Thus Mrs. O has done nothing to combat fat kids. Instead, she’s wasted government money and parents money on school lunches that aren’t big enough for growing high schoolers which contain food no one wants to eat.

When kids are throwing out all of their healthy food, nothing has been done to combat the supposed problem Mrs. O thinks the country has. After all, the kids will just turn to the local kiddie capitalist selling squirts of Hersey’s syrup, candy and doughnuts from his locker. Make no mistake, if it’s happening in one school it’s happening everywhere. Perhaps if Mrs. O got out of the city for a change she might see that the problem with fat kids really has nothing to do with school lunches. It has to do with lifestyle choices, it has absolutely nothing to do with lunch. Rather than solving the problem, Mrs. O has arguably made things worse. Why would kids spend their lunch money on a lunch they won’t eat when Johnny is selling candy bars and hits of chocolate syrup from his locker?

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

An Incomplete Grade For A Failing President

September 5, 2012 4 Comments

Michelle Obama tried to make the case that her husband’s job isn’t finished yet and that he needs another four years to finish it. This seems to be one of the themes of the Democrat Convention. President Obama the other day was asked what grade he would give himself for his first term. He said he gave himself an incomplete, apparently the First Lady ran with that. She isn’t the only one, deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said an incomplete is a “totally awesome” grade. These people really believe that Obama’s grade is an incomplete and worse they think his grade is ‘totally awesome.’

The truth of course is anything but. Obama seems to believe he’s lowered college tuition during his term, that would be news to college students. Unemployment is up during Obama’s term, as is the national debt. The national debt in fact is up over $5.3 trillion, it topped $16 trillion yesterday. Median income dropped from $54,000 to $50,000 during Obama’s term. Yet Obama thinks he earned an incomplete for one term in office. It is almost shocking how arrogant and out of touch such a grade is. We have 46.7 million people on food stamps, Obama thinks this earns an incomplete. Obama has been giving the same stump speech for four years, the country is in a worse position now then when he took office and he has the unmitigated audacity to say he earned an incomplete.  

Over the weekend David Axlerod and several other Democrats couldn’t answer the question ‘are people better off than they were four years ago?’ The obvious answer is no and these guys all know it. They looked like complete fools dancing around the issue. This is an important question, in fact it’s an important moment in the campaign. If the Democrats cannot argue that we’re better off than we were four years ago, how exactly can they argue for another four years of Obama? Why wouldn’t people want to make a change after four years of massive debt, higher taxes, less freedom, more unemployment and more food stamps? If the Democrats cannot argue why Obama should be elected, their only pathway to victory is to declare Mitt Romney unsuitable for the White House. It seems they’ve gone that route over the summer, it’s their only way to win.

If we aren’t better off than we were four years ago and David Axlerod and the Democrats more or less admit it, how then can Obama earn a ‘totally awesome’  incomplete? What fantasy land must he live in to believe that he’s earned an incomplete. Can you imagine the press letting a Republican off the hook with self grading like Obama’s? Can you imagine the press reaction to an entire convention built around a grade of incomplete? Yet that’s exactly what we have at the Democrat Convention. The First Lady made the case last night that her husband deserves an incomplete and thus four years to complete his transformation of America.

It is of course absurd for Obama to suggest he’s earned an incomplete grade after four years in office. Unemployment is up, prices are up, the economy is stagnant, his economic policies have failed and he has no new ideas for his second term. His own campaign can’t say yes when asked if the country is better off than it was four years ago. 

His first term is almost complete, it deserves an actual grade. Obama can’t give himself a F, D or C and expect to get re-elected. He also knows he’ll get attacked in the extreme if he gives himself an A and slightly less extreme if he gives himself a B. He doesn’t want another ‘you didn’t build that’ moment so he gave himself an incomplete. It feels planned in light of the First Lady’s speech, Obama’s team must have anticipated a grading question and decided to run with an incomplete. The question for voters though is do we want a man who thinks the last four years earn an incomplete to be allowed to complete a grade with another four years? In short, if the grade in four years is a D or F, do we really want to allow Obama to complete the job?

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Expensive Shirts Expose Media Bias

July 31, 2012 11 Comments

Last weekend Michelle Obama wore a $6,800 shirt to a royal Olympic function. The New York Daily News gushed over the shirt declaring she’s supporting commerce. The Washington Post declared the shirt fit for a Queen. This is the same Washington Post which groused that Ann Romney’s $990 shirt worn last May was ”tone deaf” and indicative of the Romney’s being “out of touch.” The Post even wondered how many t-shirts Mrs. Obama could buy at Target to equal the price Mrs. Romney paid for one shirt. Mrs. Romney couldn’t buy seven of her pricey shirts to equal the one Mrs. Obama wore to her Royal event.

We conservatives are constantly declaring the benefits of capitalism while we attack the Obama’s socialism. We are quite right in supporting capitalism and one of the things that capitalism stands for is choice. We should not begrudge Mrs. Obama’s or Mrs. Romney’s choices. They’re both worth millions, if they want to spend a lot of money on ugly clothes, that’s their business and not ours. That we might make different choices with our money or that we might make different choices if we had the kind of money they have shouldn’t take away from their right to make the choices they’ve made. There is nothing inherently bad about an expensive shirt, whether it costs $6,800 or $990. We should refrain from declaring our preferences to be “right” while others are tone-deaf, evil or bad.

The issue here is of course media bias. Ann Romney has been savaged by the media because she wore an expensive shirt and she’s been attacked for having expensive horses. As if any of this is any of our business. Meanwhile Mrs. Obama wears a shirt valued at seven times what Mrs. Romney wore and she’s praised as royal worthy. She jets off to Spain, on the taxpayers dime no less, and no one in the mainstream press says anything. If Mrs. Obama paid for her Spanish getaway herself, none of us should have had any problem with it whatsoever. It’s none of our business. That taxpayers had to fork over a fortune changes that analysis.

At the end of the day Mrs. Obama is not the President and if Mitt Romney wins then Mrs. Romney will not be the President. They’re just the President’s wife, nothing more. If they buy expensive clothes, ride expensive horses or go on expensive, privately paid vacations what’s  it to us? These people all have the money to pay for these things, why should we in the middle class impose our personal preferences on them? Why is the media imposing their own odd preferences on either one of these women? How can it be that the same newspaper declares an expensive shirt worn by a Republican wife is tone deaf while an expensive shirt that costs nearly seven times as much worn by a Democrat’s wife is royal worthy? That the Washington Post has the audacity to mention Target in the same sentence as Michelle Obama perhaps takes the cake.

What we’re seeing here is media bias at its worst. Republicans are rich and distant from the people, when they spend money it’s the elite strutting around being tone deaf. When Democrats spend nearly seven times as much as the Republican on a nearly equally hideous shirt it’s royal worthy and to be praised. The media did the same thing to Sarah Palin in 2008, they attacked her clothes and the expense of those clothes while pretending Mrs. Obama shopped at Target. The media has a narrative and we can see it in how Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama are treated by the mainstream press.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Losing Media Narrative

May 15, 2012 3 Comments

Obama told graduates of far left Barnard College not to believe the media and its sensational and scandal stories about his administration. The wink and nod of it all is that the leftists graduating all know to believe every positive story in the media about Obama. They know such stories were placed there by the administration and a supportive press. Anything negative is simply not to be believed and is to be attacked. Perhaps even reported to the President’s own website Attack Watch which encourages Americans to report anything negative said about Obama.

It’s been a tough couple months for Obama politically. Lately conservatives have been vetting Obama, albeit 4+ years late. But it isn’t just conservatives, the mainstream press is reporting on several negative stories as well. An Obama supporter allegedly offered to pay Jeremiah Wright to keep quiet during the 2008 campaign, Obama even encouraged Wright to keep quiet and take the money. A college girlfriend alleges Obama was aloof and arrogant. When she told him “I love you” he said “thank you.” This is the same girlfriend who Obama wrote in one of his books whom he had a fight about race relations with outside a theater in New York. She denied the story and Obama later admitted the story was a “composite” girlfriend. In other words not true.

The Obama as homosexual sexual harasser story is back again. Two men who worked with Obama when the President was editor of the Harvard Law Review allege Obama sexually harassed them. A third claims he was sexually harassed in 1991 when Obama worked for the University of Chicago. Not to be out done, Mrs. Obama has gotten into the act with reports out this week that she’s been feuding with Oprah. Apparently the First Lady doesn’t like self made black billionaires, especially ones who have trouble losing weight.

Whether these stories are true or not and whether they’re relevant misses the point. The point is that Obama is losing control of the media narrative about him and he’s worried about it. That’s why he’s telling leftists to ignore the stories. Especially the ones that are probably true, namely the Jeremiah Wright story and the Oprah story. The other two can be denied by the President and no one will care. But it will surprise no one that Obama tried to silence Wright, a man who remains a campaign liability because of his racist, anti-American, anti-Christian sermons which Obama willingly sat through for 20 years. The Oprah story reveals the anti-capitalist nature of President and Mrs. Obama. Even a self made black woman isn’t acceptable for the redistributionist Obama’s.

While the sensational and scandalous Obama stories can be amusing and while it’s even more amusing to watch Obama scramble and attack the media which put him in power it’s better to look at what Obama has directly said and done. We know his record, it doesn’t need repeating. The other day when speaking about the Constitution Obama said “What made this document special was that it made it possible for those who were left out to fight their way back in – a constant forward movement. We look forward, not backward.” In short, Obama reveals he’s a far left progressive as that is the “living” Constitution of the liberal Supreme Court justices who believe abortion is protected by the Constitution and who believe the words don’t really matter.

Obama is losing the media narrative. His campaign and his administration have had two difficult months with bad news and bad weeks causing them to lose focus on their message. Obama cannot afford to lose the media because if he loses the media his disillusioned base won’t come to vote in November. That in the last week the media has focused attention on the sensational, particularly with Wright and Oprah, means that Obama isn’t able to focus his attention on riling his base up. That’s why he’s on the attack. For us conservatives, we would be wise to keep an eye on the sensational stories but we should keep a closer eye on what the President actually does and says.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Mrs. Obama Claims Winning Isn’t Important

March 16, 2012 3 Comments

The Summer Olympics will be put on in London later this  year. We’ll be stuck with two weeks of boring sappy stories presented by the insufferable Bob Costas plus loads of media created drama over sports no one would otherwise care about. It is though an amusing sporting diversion between the end of the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the beginning of NFL and college football training camps. Michelle Obama is apparently going to lead the American delegation to London. She spoke about it this week. In doing so she piggy backed, perhaps unwittingly, on the coordinated leftist attack on self made men.

Mrs. Obama told a group of school children the following:

The true spirit of the Games isn’t confined to just the two weeks of competition in the summer. It’s not just about who wins the Gold, right? You’ve heard that before. It’s not just about who wins the medals, right?….

That’s not what the Olympics are about. Instead, the Olympic Games are about commitment, right? It’s about determination, and, most importantly, it’s about teamwork — teamwork, right.

One wonders why anyone would work so hard to get to the Olympics if their goal isn’t winning. As former New York Jets coach Herm Edwards once incredulously said “you play to win the game.” If you aren’t playing to win, what in the world are you doing? This isn’t beer league hockey or softball we’re talking about, we’re talking about serious sporting activities that require an incredible amount of time and personal dedication.

It is in Mrs. Obama’s second comment that we see her attack the self made man. She believes the Olympics, and presumably sports in general, are all about teamwork. This fits in with the leftist position that there is no such thing as a self made man. Just type in “myth of the self made man” in a search engine and you’ll come across hundreds of attacks on the self made man. Mrs. Obama obviously believes the leftist lie of the self made man myth, which is why she doesn’t even pause before attacking it in front of school children.

The fact though is that all sports, even those involving teams, are sports of dedicated individuals. A coach can be the best coach in the world but if he doesn’t have talented players who are personally dedicated he doesn’t have a winning team. A swimmer may have a very good coach but the fact is that if the swimmer doesn’t desire to win or doesn’t desire to put the work in to put himself in position to win then the talent of his coach is irrelevant. Sports require individuals to dig deep within themselves to achieve success. Games aren’t won or lost on the field, rink or court. They’re won or lost in players minds. Athletes either have the desire to put in the work or they don’t. It’s all upstairs which dictates what they do in the gym.

The left is forever attacking the self made man in order to tear down capitalism and promote socialism. Their goal of course is to convince people that they cannot make it on their own and those that did make it didn’t do it on their own and thus owe society for their success. Mrs. Obama clearly believes this nonsense. But it’s vitally important that we understand what she’s doing. She isn’t just attacking the idea that winning matters, she’s attacking the idea of individualism. Winning doesn’t matter to her (keep in mind in the left’s mind capitalism is all about winners and losers) but teamwork does. Winning is made irrelevant, working as a collective exalted.

Winning does matter in the Olympics, whether the leftists at NBC or the White House want it to or not. If you’re going to the Olympics and your goal isn’t to win then we must wonder why you’re wasting your time and other people’s money entering the competition. Tell Jesse Owens that winning doesn’t matter, tell Michael Phelps who made millions winning gold that winning doesn’t matter. Winning is what sports are all about. Especially so when we’re talking about Olympic level sports. But even if we’re talking about sports played in elementary gym class, winning matters. You develop an attitude of winning when young, the left is forever trying to discourage winners from winning in order to protect losers from having the opportunity to learn how to win. Mrs. Obama and the left continue this sad trend to this day.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , ,

Why Is The Federal Government Involved In School Lunches?

November 16, 2011 2 Comments

Absurdity has gripped Washington. This isn’t a shock to most people but it’s become more absurd recently. We all know Michele Obama has spent the last three years pushing the typical far left health food kick. Controlling what people eat has always been a goal of the far left, Hitler, Stalin and the EU have all sought to control people’s diet. That Mrs. Obama believes it’s her responsibility to target American children in order to ”get their palates adjusted” is no surprise. The far left not only wants to control our diet but they’re going to target children. This again is typical of the far left, Mrs. Obama is behaving just like one would expect a leftist to behave.

The real kicker though is the Republican Congress. They’re pushing back against the Obama administration’s healthy school lunch programs. The GOP Congress wants pizza and french fries to be included in the school lunch program. They want tomato paste to remain a vegetable, whereas the Obama administration wants it labeled something else. The Republicans have some very good points. Children don’t eat the healthy food they’re given the end result of which is a lot of waste. The House GOP doesn’t want Washington to dictate what children eat for lunch.

These are all good points but they miss the overriding question. Why is the Federal government involved in school lunches at all? The Federal government spends billions subsidizing school lunches and regulating what all children eat at school. Why? How is this any of the Federal government’s business? The Federal government has no business subsiding school lunches, which of course means subsidizing large food manufacturers and distributors. The GOP Congress is being swayed not just by the absurdity of the Obama administration’s position or on principle. The GOP Congress is being swayed by tomato farmers, salt manufacturers and frozen pizza manufacturers. You can bet that the Obama administration and Democrats are being lobbied by whatever large farming conglomerate is providing all of the supposedly healthy school food kids don’t eat.

This is a perfect example of Washington gone wild. This is not a Federal issue. There is no constitutional basis for the Federal government to declare what is and isn’t acceptable in a school lunch. In fact, education is an entire area that the Federal government has no constitutional basis to regulate. Schools lunches are at best a state and local issue. In reality, they’re something that parents should be responsible for, not the government. Why exactly are government schools in the food service industry in the first place? The fact is, parents should provide their own kids lunch. Brown bagging lunch would save taxpayers a fortune.

But of course Republicans won’t take a principled stand like this unless they’re running for Congress the first time or at a Tea Party event. Once they get to Washington they’re swayed by lobbyists, just like the Democrats. The only difference is that the big government proposals the Democrats offer are in lock step with what they believe. The GOP has to pretend to support a small Federal government in order to get elected. It makes their regulation of school lunches, however lax in comparison to the Obama administration’s, all the more insidious.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Harvard Elites Want to Take Fat Kids From Their Parents

July 13, 2011 6 Comments

The Journal of the American Medical Association is advocating states removing fat kids from their home. This is an incredibly dangerous proposition that would give the state near dictatorial powers over parents. Michelle Obama is running around the country demanding children eat what she considers healthy, her recent 1,700 calorie lunch notwithstanding. Some schools are handing out scallions and radish slices as snacks because of Mrs. Obama’s meddling. The AMA is taking it one step further, advocating the government remove fat children from their homes.

A Harvard doctor argues the following:

Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children’s Hospital Boston, said the point isn’t to blame parents, but rather to act in children‘s best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can’t provide.

State intervention “ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting,” said Ludwig, who wrote the article with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and a researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

“Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child,” Murtagh said.

There are any number of problems with this sort of elitist attitude. First, the doctor presumes to know what is best for everyone, as though it’s any of his business. Apparently his education  entitles him to make declarations about our lives. Not only that, if you don’t think properly or if you don’t behave as the state sees fit, the good doctor wants you to be re-educated. So not only will your child be ripped from you but you’ll also have to be re-educated as well. Once you accent to the government position, then they may let you have your children back.

This issue has nothing to do with fat kids or the alleged obesity epidemic in this country. This is a matter of freedom to parent as parents see fit, free of government intrusion. It’s none of the state’s business what I serve my children for dinner. Unfortunately Mrs. Obama and various medical elitists believe it is their business and they’re willing to use the power of the state to coerce parents into serving what they want kids to eat. Don’t do as the nanny state wants and they’ll take your kids. Make no mistake, the government will make that abundantly clear to parents. You can bet they’ll be using the government schools to push this agenda.

There is only one way to protect your children from the state and ensure your freedom to serve your children what you want for dinner. Homeschooling is the only way to keep the prying eyes of the arrogant government out of your dining room. It’s seriously come to this in America, we have to worry about our kids weight because the government might step in and rip them away from us. How have we gotten to the point where we have lost this much freedom?

If we cannot serve what we want for dinner, we aren’t a free people. At the end of the day, this is what Mrs. Obama and the elites want. They want to dictate to us every aspect of our lives and use the power of the state to enforce their dictations. This is what the Obama’s believe in, they’ve not hidden this from view. We must fight back against this nonsense. I don’t care how fat kids are, it’s none of the government’s business. It is not their place to set weight restrictions on children and parents.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

Fascist Obama Seeks To Control Agriculture and Food

June 22, 2011 Leave a comment

Not content with taking over 16% of the economy via Obamacare or taking over the auto industry, President Obama has now set his sights on another 16% of the American economy. This time Obama seeks to command and control the food industry. His plan is two fold. First the President wants massive regulations placed on agriculture which he is attempting to put in place via his new Rural Council. Second the Obama administration is attempting to place massive regulations on the food industry all in the name of the children.

Many conservatives are stamping their feet over Obama’s Rural Council because it likely has ties to the UN’s Agenda 21 plan. Whether it has ties to the UN or not is of no concern for the purposes of this entry only. The purpose of the Rural Council is to give the government the power to regulate our “food, fiber and energy.” After all, Obama’s executive order claims the government has an “important role to play.” By important role, leftists always mean top down control. These guys are looking at government spending on rural areas and regulating agriculture so that it becomes, in their eyes, “sustainable.” This no doubt suggests a move towards organic, which means higher prices for consumers and massive regulations for producers.

Once the food is made, Michelle Obama has her own set of regulations she’s pushing at the Federal level. She wants to require all food producers and restaurants to retool their recipes so that they contain only as much sugar as she approves, otherwise the government will restrict the ability to advertize. It’s bad enough that the Federal government believes it is their right to create such restrictions for frosted flakes and Coke. But Mrs. Obama’s regulation doesn’t just touch those items, they touch nearly every food item that is advertised in any way. Even so-called healthy food like oatmeal, popcorn, yogurt and milk would be touched by these regulations.

The goal here isn’t to combat fat kids, the goal is to regulate the food industry from Washington. It will be DC that tells you how to bake your bread and frost your flakes. They’ll approve your recipe and allow you the dear privilege of advertizing your product. We’re talking about a food industry which employs 20 million Americans and spends trillions on advertizing. These regulations wouldn’t just affect the food industry, it would affect the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood to the local minor league baseball team and even your kid’s little league team.

It is very clear the Obama administration desires all decisions be made in Washington, preferably by them. This isn’t just socialism, it’s fascism. It’s what Franco, Mussolini and Hitler did. Private industry was allowed to remain in place but it took its orders from government. Fascism is a product of the left, a step between the current democratic socialism of Europe and Communism. It has never been a product of the right, such would have insulted all three of the major fascist players in Europe. Which is of course why Stalin called them right-wing, in addition to his habit of calling all of his opponents right-wing. We shouldn’t get caught up in the racism of Hitler or world war two. Fascism as an ideology doesn’t bring about a holocaust, death camps or war.

Obama is a fascist because his actions as President line up with fascist ideology. He’s a leftist who will allow us to keep our businesses so long as our businesses completely conform to his demands from DC. He’s setting up a fascist health care system wherein doctors and hospitals take their marching orders from DC. Now he’s after another 16% of the economy. He wants farmers to take orders from DC and he wants the food industry to take its marching orders from DC. Farm the way Obama tells you to farm and you’ll be fine. Retool your recipe to suit the administration and he’ll let you keep your business and advertize. This is fascism.

 

Filed under economy, Obama Tagged with , , , ,

Food Tyranny in Chicago: Brown Bag Lunches Banned

April 11, 2011 2 Comments

Michelle Obama’s dreams of tyrannical food control are coming true at some Chicago government schools. It seems homemade lunches are banned at more than a few Chicago government schools. Unless a child has an allergy he is stuck eating the slop that the government school hands out at lunch. His parents have no choice. The government school lunch costs $2.25 if the Federal government isn’t subsidizing it. Not surprisingly the politically connected school lunch company Chartwells-Thompson stands to make a fortune if more schools ban parents from sending their kids to school with a homemade lunch.

The arrogance of the government schools is sort of incredible. They apparently believe it is their responsibility to make sure children eat what they consider to be healthy food. According to one principle:

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

Since when was it the job of the government schools to protect children from themselves? Since when was it their job to step in and prevent parents from determining what their kids eat for lunch? It’s this sort of power that government should not have over students or anyone and yet most turn a blind eye when the government schools declare that they alone will determine what kids eat for lunch.

What’s going on in Chicago does little more that set children up for a lifetime of servile dependency on the state, which is exactly what the socialists at the government school want. They want children to grow up depending on the government to determine what is best for them. They want them to grow up with only the choices that the government decides to bestow on them. What these socialists don’t want is for children to have free and unfettered access to choices that the school or government doesn’t approve of.

One of the goals of the government schools has always been to train the next generation to rely on the state. The schools have always been viewed as the way for socialists to change the next generation. This dates back to Dewey and Mann, the founding fathers of modern government schools. Parents have long been seen as an impediment to radical socialist change dating back to the very beginning of modern government schools. So it should come as no surprise that the next government school movement, the control of food, views parents as the problem and thus seeks to isolate parents from their kids. Ironically the government schools will try to deflect blame for poor test scores by blaming parents when all along they have tried to keep parents away from any serious decision making at the schools.

It is none of the government’s business what our children eat. It is therefore none of the government schools business what parents choose to serve their kids for lunch. Even if we agree that a lot of parents give their kids unhealthy food to eat, that is not cause for government to step in. Parents have an inalienable right to raise their children and thus feed their children as they see fit. Haughty government bureaucrats do not know better than parents and should not be allowed to substitute their judgment with the force of law.

Michelle Obama’s food campaign is dangerous because it seeks to turn know it all government bureaucrats into absolute authorities on healthy eating. Those bureaucrats in turn will substitute their judgment for that of parents. Every time the left gets up in arms about something like food it leads to less freedom for parents and more government control in the lives of children and families. That is exactly what is going on in Chicago today. Mrs. Obama may be jumping for joy in one of her frumpy designer outfits but what she wants costs the American people in freedom. Parents alone should be free to determine what their children eat for lunch. Government needs to steer clear of usurping parental authority.

Filed under Education, Food Police Tagged with , , , , , ,

President’s Menu Runs Afoul of First Lady At Super Bowl Party

February 7, 2011 1 Comment

While Egypt burns President Obama hosted a star studded Super Bowl party at the White House yesterday. Mrs. Obama must not have been invited because the menu included bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings with sides of German potato salad, twice-baked potatoes and assorted chips and dips. This in addition to various beers from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The government should really do something about unhealthy Super Bowl parties. In fact, government should require Super Bowl parties to  have carrot sticks and apple slices rather than chips.

While the President is eating unhealthy food outside the view of his wife, Mrs. Obama is in negotiations with the National Restaurant Association concerning portion size and children’s meals. Why ever its the business of government to get involved in restaurant menus is beyond me. Government ha s no place ordering restaurants to serve certain foods nor do they have any place telling restaurants how much they may serve. Menus and serving sizes are a private matter between the restaurant and their customers. Government has no business regulating the subject nor does it have any business trying to intimidate restaurants as Mrs. Obama is attempting to do right now.

What’s particularly amazing is the whining Mrs. Obama is doing about children’s meals at restaurants. She’s clearly trying to intimidate restaurants into serving the sort of children’s foods that she approves of. Mrs. Obama’s threats have some weight to them, this administration is not afraid to regulate even if they don’t have a mandate from Congress.

The funny thing is that if Mrs. Obama paid attention to restaurant children’s meals she would see that they already offer her beloved carrot sticks and other supposedly healthy options. I know this because I have three small children. Most restaurants offer fruit or vegetables rather than fries. Most offer at least one healthy main course such as grilled chicken. All offer milk instead of pop. This is the case even at fast food restaurants. McDonald’s offers apple slices, Wendy’s offers orange slices and so on.

Restaurants are offering these healthy children’s menu items not because government has mandated them or because they fear government regulation. Restaurants offer these items because their customers demand them. Since restaurants are in the business of making their customers happy, they bow to our demands in order to make a profit. Mrs. Obama is years late, most restaurants have been offering these healthy kids meal options since long before her husband became President.

It’s up to parents to decide what’s best for their children. Government has no place stepping in and dictating what sort of food my children are allowed to eat. When I take my kids to a restaurant, I’m the one paying the bill and it’s up to me what they get to eat. Sometimes it’s a special night out and they get fries. Other times, they get vegetables or fruit. It’s up to me, as the parent, to make that choice for them. Because restaurants cater to their customers, they have afforded us those options all with out government regulation. Imagine that.

The arrogance of Mrs. Obama and other foodie do gooders is sort of incredible. These people believe that they know better than us and therefore should have a say in what we eat. Worse, they want to use the force of government to dictate their self absorbed preferences on the rest of us. I dare say that Mrs. Obama would be better off focusing on what her husband eats at the White House rather than sticking her nose into the private ordering habits of Americans at restaurants.

Filed under Big Government, Obama, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers