Skip to comments.Obama Relents: Puts the Meat Back in "Lunch Meat"
Posted on 12/09/2012 7:32:55 AM PST by NOBO2012
I see that Ag Secretary Tommy and his Vilsacks were forced to walk back their recent schoolyard food police guidelines. Im referring of course to the USDAs dictates restricting the amount of fat, salt, sugar, meat and grains in public school lunch programs.
Under the new program some of the kids were so hungry that the schools evidently had to add breakfast and after school mini-dinner programs as well. So clearly this was not a cost cutting measure, butt simply a well intentioned we know better than you what to feed your kids edict (sponsored by the SEIU, now representing food handler/production workers everywhere).
Lady M, as you may suspect, is very upset about this setback in her plan to make America a safe place to eat.
The children have been protesting the new one size fits all guidelines since they were implemented.Through boycotts, hunger strikes and brown bagging theyve found ways to let their displeasure with the new rules be known.
I dont know who died and left the USDA in charge of what kids eat anyway.
So (snip)Today is Rajs birthday and Im making him a pear gingerbread cake. Its scrumptious and very holiday-y. Especially with whipped cream. Make one. Youll feel much better. I promise.
Upside Down Pear Gingerbread
3 tablespoons butter
1/3 cup firmly packed dark brown sugar
2 ripe, firm Bosc pears...Continued
(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...
i’ve always said that even a ‘bad’ food that’s et is more nutritous than a ‘good’ food that ain’t et.
ubamas know that hungry people are more easily tricked; they are bad intentioned
It’s what Castro and other idiot leaders do to keep the people enslaved and under control. They give the people just enough to eat to stay alive and work for free for them. God forbid the people live in a free society.
People are born free. It’s governments that enslave.
Soup and sandwich and milk would be much better than most of the cr**.
And remember...these are YOUR kids...not the government's.
Psssst....Kids were never obese before they started feeding kids in school.
Oh yeah. Prisoners probably get better meals than the shit that is fed to our children in school. We pack school lunches for all of our kids. One of them actually got into a little trouble earlier in the year for selling some of her food to other kids in the cafeteria, who of course were kids that were forced to eat the school lunches. My wife and I were actually a little proud of her. She saw a market opportunity, went for the highest bidder(s), and made a good profit. I loved her being a little Capitalist. The school administration didn’t greet the situation with the same enthusiasm/amusement. Turns out, they REALLY seemed to dislike the competition! LOL
OMG, that Gingerbread looks great!
You can say that again! I am a teacher who makes frequent visits to other high schools. You would not believe the garbage they feed the kids in NYC public high schools. These lunches are either free for students below a certain income level (and illegal immigrants), or a couple of dollars for those who can afford it. The menus sound absolutely glorious on paper, but the actual stuff is mainly starchy (to fill ‘em up cheaply), fruits are of appalling quality that you’d never pick out in a grocery store, virtually everything is just frozen food portions that were nuked or put into an oven, and there’s a snack vending machine right over there in the corner which is heavily patronized by the kids. Even though the breads are now whole wheat, so what? Imagine eating a “fish taco” which is a couple of breaded fish sticks wrapped inside a tortilla. Or THREE kinds of pizza on Fridays—half a loaf of Italian bread smeared with sauce and sprinkled with cheese, or a bagel similarly treated or a triangle of pizza. The lasagne served is obviously a portion-controlled gem right out of the freezer. There’s plenty of rice and beans on various days. They do offer salads and cooked veggies, but I see mostly girls taking those. There is a tremendous waste of food—you find uneaten fruits on the floor, unopened cartons of milk on tables, plenty of food on plates uneaten. Other teachers agree with me in wondering “Where did all the federal monies go which were supposed to pay for school lunches?” We agree that someone is pocketing some serious money and buying the cheapest crap to feed the kids. Of course, even THIS food is pure heaven for the illegal immigrants, it’s the best food they eat all day.
School lunches should fall under MOM’s jurisdiction! -—Mom
And it's kind of a joke that they serve those chicken dunkers....and pizza....and basically all the things they complain about as being "fast foods".
I went to our Senior center. The school lunches are like eating in a 5 star restaurant compared to what they give our seniors.....and most pay the $2-4. Disgusting...
OK. The kids are definitely not eating what I would call healthy lunches. They are eating stuff to fill them up cheaply. The nutrition, if they actually eat the salad and third-rate fruit they take, would be mediocre. The seniors, according to you, are getting crap-on-toast for vittles. So what I want to know is, WHERE IS THE MONEY BEING SPENT? The millions upon millions of Fed dollars going to school lunches and subsidizing senior centers. Where are they?
Couldn't have said it better myself!
First, inspection of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution shows that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public schools. And given that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like public school automatically makes such issues state power issues, the FLOTUS has no official say in public school meals imo.
Next, given that public school meals are arguably nothing more than an example of intrastate commerce, note that regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted people to believe about the Commerce Clause (1.8.3), the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend in the name of either public schools or public school meal programs imo. Using terms like "does not extent" and "exclusively," Thomas Jefferson had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Thomas Jefferson, Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
In fact, I've repeatedly posted that Justice John Marshall had reflected the Founder's division of federal and state government powers when Marhall clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, issues which Congrees essentially cannot justify under Section 8 of Article i.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Next, the only reason that I can see that citizens and businesses reluctantly answer "how high," when constitutionally undefined "independent federal regulatory agencies" like the USDA shout "Jump!," is because patriots actually don't know the Constitution any better than Obama does. If they did then they'd be able to point out the following problems with USDA.
To begin with, the Founding States drafted THE VERY FIRST NUMBERED CLAUSES IN THE CONSTITUTION, Sections 1-3 of Article I, to clarify that ALL legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the ELECTED members of Congress. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not. And by unconstitutionally delegating federal legislative / regulatory powers to nonelected federal bureaucrats like USDA, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters, defeating one of the main purposes of Sections 1-3 of Article I imo.
And even if Congress had the constitutional authority to delegate legislative powers to unelected third-party federal bureaucrats, the states have never delegated to Congress the power to regulate intrastate agriculture. This is evidenced by the following excert from United States v. Butler where arguably the last generation of Constitution-respecting majority justices had clarified in terms of the 10th Amendment that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate agriculture.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)." --United States v. Butler, 1936.
So Congress is wrongly delegating to third-party federal bureaucrats legislative powers that the states have never delegate to Congress via the Constitution.
And the reason that patriots now reluctantly accept that Congress does have the Commerce Clause authority to interfere with intrastate commerce is because FDR's activist justices rewrote constitutional history.
Again, the main reason that patriots are losing ground with respect to trying to protect the constitutional republic from Obama's constitutionally indefensible socialistic policies is that patriots evidently don't know the Constitution any better than Obama does. And when nobody knows the Constitution the federal government is going to win all constitutionally indefensible public policy arguments.
In fact, this brings to mind the theological question at to what might have happened if Jesus had been tempted by the devil in the desert if he hadn't known the Scriptures. But I'm sure seeing the conseqences of patriots not not knowing constitutional limits on the federal governments powers.
Finally, it's sad to think that the Founding States had evidently overlooked that the idea of the pursuit of happiness for many citizens would be to complain about unconstituitonally big federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.