Skip to comments.NEW REPORT: More Than 1 Million Kids Have Stopped Eating Michelle Obama’s “Healthy” School Lunches…
Posted on 05/24/2014 4:21:19 PM PDT by kingattax
Michelle Obamas new dietary restrictions is so bad that they cant even GIVE the food away. A million kids have turned away from Obamas school lunch and schools are feeling the huge hit.
Via The Hill:
More than a million kids confronted by healthier school lunches are turning up their noses, leaving the cafeteria and heading out to get a burger instead.
The difficulty in getting students to eat lower-fat, lower-sodium meals is at the center of a food fight between House Republicans and first lady Michelle Obama that erupted this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
And yet they're so poor we have to subsidize their lunches?
The government never learns that legislation does not change behavior. Prohibition should have convinced these morons.
Follow the money. The free lunch program is a gigantic scam.
Where in the United States Constitution does a give the first lady the power to dictate school lunches?
Who put this ignorant obese POS in charge of local districts school lunches?
Does no one stand up to these people?
(Except the children that is)
They could give it to the hog farmers and see if they would eat it. ‘If’ they do then the farmers can butcher the hog and give it back to the schools and they can make bacon or ham sandwiches for the kids. Everybody will be happy, even Michelle.
It's possible to put together a healthy lunch that the kids will eat. I've seen some schools do it. The parents and students should stop whining and work with the schools to get better food selections.
Just lock the schools down from 8 AM to 3 PM. No one allowed in or out. Just like a prison.
That way they will have to eat Moochelle's slop, or go without.
That's a good question Oliviaforever. And the answer is that it doesn't.
In fact, the Supreme Court has officially clarified that the Constitution's silence about any issue, school lunches for intrastate schools in this example, means that the federal government is prohibited from interefering with such things.
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 [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
If it was really that good Moo would have the exact same daily menus at the White House table and cafeteria...but none of the big cheese are going to eat that crap .... that’s for the little people.
Expecting anybody named Obama to eat ObamaDiet is like expecting anybody named to Obama to be covered under Obamacare. Now, if they renamed it WookieCare...
The Revealed Dietary Wisdom of the illustious St. Steatopygia is correctly seen by the kids as ‘reviled’, and forget the wisdom.
“Youth has a built in BS detector”.
That is just a temporary roadbump in the path to the "equitable" ideal society, as presently envisioned by the African Contingent. You know, from that continent with the wholesale number of Nobel Laureates?
So what will be the outcome of this conundrum be for the millions of students nationwide who are helpless to do anything other than eat elsewhere?
That remains to be seen. But little setbacks like this one does not discourage the totalitarians. They are nothing if not determined. It's for their own good. Doesn't matter. The end justifies the means; the everlasting mantra of the totalitarian bent. They know its good.
Lost in the drama is the fact that part of the force-feed program is the total absence of any monitoring whatsoever of the thousands of tons of wasted food (and money) each month that the ill-conceived force-feed continues.
I suppose it is possible that all those millions of obstinate students are simply racist.
Then the size of her butt would suggest that she ate what they didn’t.
Or do it themselves and keep all ******* government involvement permanently out of a profoundly personal necessity of life.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -- C. S. Lewis
Instead of fining or otherwise punishing the beached whales, or allowing them to die prematurely, everbody's got to pay with another small piece of their individual liberty.
But thank you for playing. Thank you for your suggestion.
The Obamugabe regime will have then defeated the "War on Obesity!"
SCOTUS underwent a pretty sharp change since US v. Butler in 1936. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) which opens the door to abuse the Commerce clause power. SCOTUS has since doubled down on that Commerce clause power, using it to uphold marijuana prohibition (Raich), and laws against guns that were NEVER in ANY commerce, let alone interstate commerce (Stewart).
One million racist American kids.....who knew?
The beauty of FR is the variety of expertise available to contribute to any discussion; even legal ones.
Of the hundreds of thousands of laws still on the books, I am sure someone will find one that nullifies that Supreme Court decision. No sense bothering the Supreme Court with details...
At this point, what difference does it make?
Cboldt, given the remote possibility that you haven't seen the following excerpt concerning historical Supreme Court clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, limits wrongly ignored by FDR's activist justices, you might find it interesting.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added] Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
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.