Hey, First Lady! Hey! Leave Them Kids Alone! Nation’s Children Say ‘HELL NO!’ To Michelle Obama’s Fascist Nanny State.

The first part of that title, for those who aren’t familiar with the song, comes from Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall.”

What’s funny is that in that song, too, nanny state “educators” were lecturing the children.  At one point in the song a nagging teacher says to the little minds under his power:

And of course Michelle Obama is now saying, “Well, they really shouldn’t be able to be allowed to have any meat, either.”

Meat Michelle Obama, the federal government’s ripoff of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.

And kids are getting pissed off along with their parents:

Nation’s children push back against Michelle Obama-backed school lunch regs
Published: 3:12 PM 09/22/2012
By Caroline May

Children and parents across the country are fed up with the restrictive new school meal regulations implemented by the Department of Agriculture under the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” which has long been touted by first lady Michelle Obama.

The standards — which cap meal calories at 650 for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, at 700 calories for middle school students and 850 for high school students — also dictate the number of breads, proteins, vegetables and fruits children are allowed per meal.

A spokeswoman for Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who earlier this month introduced legislation to roll back the new standards, told The Daily Caller that King’s office has heard more complaints about the issue during the past few weeks than any other.

“This year, we’ll be hungry by 2:00,” one student, Zach Eck, told KAKETV in Kansas. “We would eat our pencils at school if they had nutritional value.”

Iowa mom Robin Wissink told TheDC that she now provides her autistic daughter Molly, a junior in high school, with a bag lunch because her school’s new menu is so unappealing. Students at St. Mark’s in Colwich, Kan. have also been “brown bagging” their meals.

And some student-athletes in Wisconsin are arguing that the calorie caps hit them especially hard, given their intense workouts and scrimmages.

“A lot of us are starting to get hungry even before the practice begins,” Mukwonago High senior Nick Blohm told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Our metabolisms are all sped up.”

The new lunch standards have led to the removal of some old food favorites, including a particularly popular item at one school in upstate New York: chicken nuggets.

“Now they’re kind of forcing all the students to get the vegetables and fruit with their lunch, and they took out chicken nuggets this year, which I’m not too happy about,” Chris Cimino, a senior at Mohonasen High School in upstate New York, told the Associated Press, which gave the rules a “mixed grade.”

Students in the Plum Borough School District in Pennsylvania are protesting the new federal restrictions on Twitter.

“everyone.. if you agree school lunches are expensive and small, RT this. we can fight the school! tweet #BrownBagginIt,” @TornadoBoyTubbs tweeted, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Administrators have scrambled to find creative ways to make the new menus appealing. A school district in Lake County, Fla., for example, is planning to conduct a survey to determine how to make vegetables more appealing to children, who often throw them out.

“[The regulations do] limit the food that you can put on the plate,” Alden Caldwell, the director of food services at a Brookline, Mass. school, told Wicked Local. “In theory, it’s a good idea, but in practice we’re finding that there are issues with it.”

Despite the outrage, some parents believe the ongoing obesity epidemic justifies the tight calorie standards.

“I think it’s smart to be pre-emptive and proactive at getting more nutrition fed into the kids,” Amos Johnson, a parent with students in the Lee Summit, Missouri school system, told the Lee’s Summit Journal. “I see that more as a multi-beneficial supporter for health and academic performance. I think that’s the thing I would look at. You should be healthier, and if you’re nourishing the brain and getting the fuel right, academic outcomes should maintain or improve.”

When the legislation was signed into law in 2010, it received bipartisan support, including a big endorsement from Michelle Obama.

“As parents, we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure they have a reasonably balanced diet,” the first lady said in a statement at the unveiling of the new standards in January. “And when we’re putting in all that effort the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria. When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won’t be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home. We want the food they get at school to be the same kind of food we would serve at our own kitchen tables.”

Obama welcomed students back to school this year with a YouTube video explaining the importance of the new meal plans.

Watch: Michelle Obama discusses ‘exciting’ changes to school cafeterias

King and Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp introduced the “No Hungry Kids Act,” which would repeal the USDA rule that resulted in the new standards, last week.

“The goal of the school lunch program is supposed to be feeding children, not filling the trash cans with uneaten food,” Huelskamp said in a statement. “The USDA’s new school lunch guidelines are a perfect example of what is wrong with government: misguided inputs, tremendous waste, and unaccomplished goals. Thanks to the Nutrition Nannies at the USDA, America’s children are going hungry at school.”

The previous article I wrote contained a frustrated student’s synopsis of what could have been the entire Obama big government nanny state presidency: “It’s worse tasting, smaller sized and higher priced.”

This is nanny state liberal fascism, straight up.  It commits at least three offenses against individual liberty: 1) it federalizes what ought to be up to parents; 2) it lumps every child into one single category; and 3) like most liberal policies, it punishes the healthy to “protect” the unhealthy.

There are clearly children who should have their calories restricted, just as there are clearly children (mostly due to the penetration of liberal “values”) whose parents don’t bother to take care of them.  But Michelle Obama says that ALL children are fat, inactive sloths who need government to be their mommy and so we’re going to usurp the role of ALL parents and just replace them at lunchtime. 

Frankly, I see a lot more kids who aren’t fat than kids who are.  But like the vast majority of liberal programs, what the liberals really want is more power and more control, and so they take the most extreme cases and exploit them to control everybody as much as they possibly can.

It is the way liberals think: they know better.  They are the elite intelligentsia who know more than and better than you.  And they should be the ones who get to push all the buttons and pull all the levers of society.

Hey, Michelle, leave them kids alone.

 I’m glad more parents and frankly MORE CHILDREN are learning a lesson in intrusive big government liberal nanny statism.

Tags: 650 calories, 700 calories, 850 calories, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Michele Obama, nanny state, school lunch guidelines, school lunches