Fight the NannyState …
A school administrator from Indiana has told Congress that students in his district are trafficking in illicit goods on school property, thanks federal law.
And they’re doing it right out in the open in the schools’ lunchrooms.
“Perhaps the most colorful example in my district is that students have been caught bringing — and even selling — salt, pepper and sugar in school to add taste to perceived bland and tasteless cafeteria food,” said John Payne, president of the Blackford County School Board of Trustees in Hartford City, Ind.
“This contraband economy is just one example of many that reinforce the call for flexibility (with the rules),” he said, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon.
Flexibility, my ass. The Federal government has no business in local school lunches.
Of course, if Michelle could make “healthy school lunches” a LGBTQQLMNOP issue, then those kids can be stopped cuz DIGNITY!
*************************************
Now preschools and even adult daycare centers are being targeted.
If the U.S. Department of Agriculture has its way, first lady Michelle Obama’s vision for what Americans should be eating will affect more federal programs.
The department is seeking to overhaul rules related to the Child and Adult Care Food Program, a program similar to the National School Lunch Program, except for day-care providers.
Day care centers are eligible for reimbursements from the federal government, provided there is compliance with their rules.
The USDA wants more vegetables and less sugar served to children and adults in day care centers.
“Grain-based desserts, such as cookies and cakes, would no longer be reimbursable, and children younger than 1 would no longer be offered juice,” the Lansing State Journal reports.
Facilities that deep fry food on-site could no longer participate in the program. “Prepackaged fried foods,” like chicken nuggets, would be allowable, so long as they are served “infrequently.”
The effect could be sweeping.
According to Mlive, at least 30 states “require day cares to use the program’s nutrition guidelines to receive licenses.” The program also feeds about 120,000 elderly or disabled adults each day.
It boils down to two Presidents that screwed the whole thing up for everybody… Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.
Before Lincoln, people would say “The United States are…”, but after, it was “The United States is…”. Rather than a voluntary confederation of sovereign political entities, it became a massive nation with political subdivisions, and subdivisions of subdivisions, but all subservient to the so-called “elected representatives”.
And don’t get me started on all of the social engineering that the Wilsonite “progressives” got started. People started looking to the Federal Government to provide solutions for everything they saw as needing a fix, without bothering to realize that there are laws and there are Laws. a written piece of paper will not change the Law of Gravity, and all the judicial decisions on the planet will not change the Law of Supply and Demand.
WTF business does the first lady have mucking around with government policy in the first place? Nobody voted for her dumb ass. What’s next, Bernie Sander’s husband dictating what color of underwear he prefers school children wear?
The alternative to “The United States is” was “The United States Aren’t,” so I think we should cut Lincoln a little slack. And like Bob said elsewhere, you can’t let T.R. off the hook either.
LBascom,
Not sure when it happened, but somewhere along the line, somebody got the notion that first ladies needed to have a “cause.” Of course, pointing and laughing at the causes of Republican first ladies is SOP for the coprophagic Lickspittle Media, but none ever consider the glimmer of a thread of a ghost of a notion of questioning the merits of the current FLOTUS’s cause, much less mocking it.
But see, other First Ladies causes have been more like informational campaigns, like Laura Bush’s encouragement to read, or Nancy Reagan Just Say No campaign. This current nasty price of work is making policy.
I guess that’s a Progg thing, Shrillary tried healthcare and Tipper managed to get warning labels on music albums.
Maybe that should be a selling point for the next GOP candidate. “My wife will not fuck with your life”.
Oops, shoulda been “spouse”, “wife” now being all hatey and stuff…
“f**k” is probably hatey too.
Hillary tried her own version of healthcare back when people knew well enough to say oh hell no.
Deck chairs, Titanic.
SMoD 2016!
Let us accept the proposition that you put forward Drumwaster, to wit: Before Lincoln, people would say “The United States are…”, but after, it was “The United States is…”.
Perhaps, it was in some way an emotional response to the greatest carnage the people of North had ever seen or probably ever heard of.
If you want to put the blame correctly for the stronger national government after The Civil War, apply it to the Radical Republicans, who opposed President Lincoln’s ‘let ’em up easy’ / ‘with malice towards none’ / ‘let us bind up the nation’s wounds’ plan for Reconstruction, and who got their way in spades.
One only has to read the writings of the Radical Republicans to see that they were crypto-Socialists [later changed to ‘Progressives’] or, if you prefer: the Grandfathers of Statism in America.
School lunch should just be popsicles, because kids waaaaaaaaant them and are going to die if the school offers them an apple. I get that you want to feed your kids sugar pops for breakfast and twinkies for dinner, but does the school have to stoop to your level? Can’t you just send them to school with a bottle of corn syrup so that they don’t have to eat a green vegetable?
Further: while the Democratic Party is guilty of many, many vile sins, one could plausibly make the case that it was the Republican Party’s embrace of Progressivism in the last years of the 19th Century that fully legitimized that Socialist-based Movement in this country – an embrace that has spawned the loss of our Freedom and Ordered Liberty.
>One only has to read the writings of the Radical Republicans to see that they were crypto-Socialists [later changed to ‘Progressives’] <
like soviet communism, the statists of the time; the confederacy, was able to create myths of the righteousness of its existence. only some kinds of enslavement isn't ok: slavery and hitler. but that can change.
How is expanding rights slavery?
It smells like something died in here.
“I get that you want to feed your kids sugar pops for breakfast and twinkies for dinner, but does the school have to stoop to your level?”
See there knuckleheads, the Feds care more about the kids than the kids parents do, and can take better care of them.
Also, when the Feds feed children, there’s no chance of weight gain, and very little chance a banned shape showing up on the burned toast tray.
>How is expanding rights slavery?<
can you "expand rights" unconstitutionally?
>How is expanding rights slavery?<
by the state pitting 2 groups against each other and the state backing only one group.
>How is expanding rights slavery?<
owning slaves used to be a "right".
Fuck you, Miley. Show me where in the constitution the fed gov, much less the First Lady, is empowered to dictate school meals.
Right, w/o Michelle O there will be no one else setting guidelines for school lunches. No one.
How is expanding rights slavery?
On balance, I say tyranny:
Obamacare, Subjugating 300 million Americans to service 12 million tips toward tyranny
Stripping constitutional protection from 300 million to please 6 million or so also not very balanced.
In defense of mileycyrussays,
Freedom is Slavery, after all.
Big Brother loves you too miley!
Who’s got their Tocqueville handy? ‘Cause he described the kind of slavery miley scoffs.
mileycyrussays says June 29, 2015 at 6:05 pm How is expanding rights slavery?
When it expands government power while claiming to expand rights.
(Little hint, drone: The people running this charade are lying when they say they want to expand rights. Try to learn before you’re declared obsolete, m’kay? Your whingeing will be obnoxious no matter how brief.)
One group gained rights, the other lost nothing. Tyranny?
Since when is equal protection unconstitutional?
You guys are the ones saying, “Bwahaha! They won’t eat broccoli, they’ll only eat SUGAR!,” so you tell me. Maybe schools could give up all that federal money if they want to serve junk food so terribly bad with no strings attached.
Chester – it’s not recognized that gay people have the same right to marry as straight people – it’s as simple as that.
not = now
By “recognized” you mean “imposed by an unelected group of lawyers” and sadly you have no problem with that. You are incapable of imagining that being used against you.
But then you are just another drone squawking Teh Narrative when the string is pulled, so that really isn’t surprising.
Bored now.
> by the state pitting 2 groups against each other and the state backing only one group.
One group gained rights, the other lost nothing. Tyranny?
Since when is equal protection unconstitutional?
<
when the state has a thumb on the scale dude. my allan stupid
> Maybe schools could give up all that federal money if they want to serve junk food so terribly bad with no strings attached. <
fed money is evil dude
“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”
? Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
How the hell did gay marriage bleed over into a thread about government dependency?
Because that’s what we’re talking about.
If the government feeds you, you’re at best a dependent ward of the government; at worst, cattle.
How would recognizing that a group of people have the same rights that I already have ever be “against me”? What was “imposed?” by letting gay people marry?
Miley is a confused creature, that’s why garriage is in school lunch.
I suffer to think what is in sex Ed…
Shudder, suffer, whatever.
gay people have the same right to marry as straight people
They had that last month. I have never seen, nor has anyone ever been able to produce, a single State’s requirements for marriage license that say ANYTHING about love or sexual preference. Just gender, one of each. (And I don’t mean those fictional Heinz 57 genders claimed by the extremists these days.)
What was “imposed?” by letting gay people marry?
Taxes on churches, for one. No, not yet, but they are already contemplating it, with lawfare suits already cued up and waiting for the names to fill into the “plaintiff” and “defendent” spaces.
Violation of religious beliefs by another. And the MOMENT that any government says to anyone that they MUST perform same sex marriage (whether or not they might agree), they are in violation of the “establishment” clause of Amendment 1. Look it up.
Children, today we are going to learn all about a staple of garriage. It’s called a “tossed salad”. Hold onto your lunch, this is going to be an eye watering exploration into totally normal human sexuality. And by eye watering, I mean we are talking about the brown eyed cyclops, if you know what I mean…Lets begin!
*shudder*
I think somebody’s bucking for a promotion from the handicapper general.
But, in the highly unlikely event that the question was sincere:
The same goes for making sure everybody “eat[s] [their] peas” –as the President infamously put it.
What was “imposed?” by letting gay people marry?
By having the Supreme Court decide it.
Oh sorry, that’s a concept you really are incapable of understanding, drone. No worries, I’m not really speaking to you since I know it’s not part of your scripted replies.
This recognizes we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man.
Moral, yes. Legal, no. That should be a clear enough distinction that the sheer politics of it should cause the Court to recuse themselves. And let us not forget that such a duty should be voluntary, and not something that should be done with taxpayer funds, which are, after all and when you get right down to the point where the rubber meets the road, taken by force at the point of a gun.
I can give you an example of a right that was lost:
The right of a child to both a mother and a father.
To add to Drumwaster’s comment, you could also argue that if we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man, then government is obliged to not interfere with that obligation by taking too much of what we produce and earn, even if it’s for a good reason.
Rampant waste, fraud and abuse in social welfare programs at all levels demonstrates pretty conclusively that we’ve succeeded in “prevent[ing] severe hardship among those disabled, widowed, orphaned, or even just temporarily down on their luck” and in “ensur[ing] people do not suffer deprivation of the necessities of life: food, shelter, and clothing.”
Either that, or that government is no damn good at meeting those goals, in which case they’re best left to private initiatives.
Final thought:
Another one of the things government is no damn good at doing:
making kids eat bland and tasteless (but nutritious!) cafeteria food
also vegetables
There it was again, over and over again.
Someone needs to open a window.
“School lunch should just be popsicles, because kids waaaaaaaaant them and are going to die if the school offers them an apple.”
Where the hell do you keep getting all that straw from?
Show me this child that was going to have a mother and father and now isn’t.
See anything homophobic? Nope. Nothing homophobic here.
Children that didn’t have a mother and father:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/what_life_is_like_when_children_of_gay_couples_dont_matter.html
That would be an indeterminate % the children not being placed with families by Catholic Family Services in Mass., since they’re no longer in the adoption business because homophobia.
Where the hell do you keep getting all that straw from?
Why, his ass of course!
We need a new word, I don’t fear homo’s.
How about “homogrossed”
Talking about what homosexuals do = homophobia.
Thanks, Humpty Dumpty.
No, just judging it as bad = homophobia.
LBascom – I’m sure you gross a lot of people out too – but they don’t try to deny you equal protection under the law
You keep using that word “phobia”, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Is it a denial of equal protection that three people can’t marry? How about adult siblings?
disapproval = X-phobia
Thanks for demonstrating how political correctness is destructive of reason.
Case in point: “LBascom – I’m sure you gross a lot of people out too – but they don’t try to deny you equal protection under the law.”
But what about the homocidal sexual sadist and the suicidal sexual masochist? What about their rights?
If marriage is merely an expression of love, why can’t minors marry? A twelve year old is just as capable of love as an adult, don’t you think?
Be careful, you start peering into that abyss, there, it’s liable to peer back into you.
Do any of these losers actually know what a “phobia” actually is?
Afraid of it? Not at all. Sick of having it shoved in my face, with accompanying screams of “celebrate it OR ELSE!”? You bet.
Not to mention that “phobia” is usually described as an “irrational fear”, and they don’t grasp the concept of rationality, either. I’m so sick of those heterophobes…
Do any of these losers actually know what a “phobia” actually is?
To them it’s nothing more than something they can fling at dissenters in an attempt to denigrate/demonize/dismiss any opinions said dissenters express.
So no, they don’t know what that means. Judging from the past several days, they have problems understanding the term “love” too.
“Be careful, you start peering into that abyss, there, it’s liable to peer back into you.”
Shhh, it’s a twap.
Be vewy, vewy quiet…
> they have problems understanding the term “love” too. <
"love" is being a part of the collective. meaning, words, intent see j goldstein