Posts Tagged ‘nanny state’

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

September 25, 2012

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.

Advertisements

Most Liberal State New York Is THE LEAST FREE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY (Now Let’s Talk About Texas…)

June 15, 2011

This is what Democrats want for the entire country:

Slaves of New York
State is dead last in liberties
By CARL CAMPANILE
Posted: 1:16 AM, June 14, 2011

Unshackle New York!

New York’s notoriously high taxes and public spending, combined with restrictive “nanny” policies, make it the “least free” state in the country, a new study has found.

The Empire State ranked 50th in George Mason University’s biannual “Freedom in the States” rankings.

“New York has by far the highest taxes in the country,” the study reads, citing steep levies on property, income and corporations compared to other states.

The high taxes, in turn, fuel massive spending, according to the analysis by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank.

“Spending on public welfare, hospitals, electric power, transit, employee retirement . . . are well above national norms,” concludes the report, which covers the 2007-through-2009 period.

Ranking worst in the categories of economic freedom and fiscal policy, New York also landed near the bottom for the categories of personal freedom (48th) and regulatory policy (40th).

The study cites New York’s restrictive gun-control and anti-smoking laws and sky-high cigarette taxes and the Big Apple’s ban on trans fats.

The researchers also slam New York’s “excessive” home-schooling regulations and its strictest-in-the-nation health-insurance rules.

The authors rap New York for curbing the rights of individual property owners. “Eminent domain abuse,” the report says, “is rampant and unchecked.”

On the plus side, the report praises New York for relaxing its marijuana laws.

Co-author Jason Sorens said New York has the opportunity to improve its freedom rating, thanks to actions taken this year by Gov. Cuomo and the state Legislature.

“Cuomo insisted on balancing the budget through spending cuts rather than tax increases. It will help New York’s rating down the road,” said Sorens, a political-science professor at the University of Buffalo.

Sorens also said New York could move out of the cellar with across-the-board tax cuts and additional trims in spending and by reining in home-school regulations.

And he said New York will score significant points if Albany passes a law to legalize gay marriage, which he considers an advancement of personal freedoms.

“The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind,” he said.

But for now, Sorens said, New York is a “nanny state” and “the least free state”

Joining New York near the bottom of the list are Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, and New Jersey.

The top five “freedom” states are New Hampshire, whose motto is fittingly “Live Free or Die,” South Carolina, Indiana, Idaho and Missouri.

It is no wonder that young people dream of fleeing New York the way young people used to dream of fleeing the communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

New Yorkers under 30 plan to flee city, says new poll; cite high taxes, few jobs as reasons
BY KENNETH LOVETT
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Friday, May 13, 2011

ALBANY – Escape from New York is not just a movie – it’s also a state of mind.

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs.

“A lot of people are questioning the affordability of the state,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

An additional 38% cite climate, quality of life, overcrowding, a desire to be closer to family, retirement or schools.

The latest census showed New York’s overall population actually increased, though parts of upstate shed population and jobs.

A full 53% think the worst is yet to come for the state’s economy, while 44% say things should start improving.

And why is this exodus going on?

Because liberals run New York, and liberals are fascists.  And most people can’t WAIT to get away from this cancer on freedom and democracy:

For more than 15 years, New York state has led the country in domestic outmigration: For every American who comes here, roughly two depart for other states. This outmigration slowed briefly following the onset of the Great Recession. But a recent Marist poll suggests that the rate is likely to increase: 36 percent of New Yorkers under 30 plan to leave over the next five years. Why are all these people fleeing?

For one thing, according to a recent survey in Chief Executive, our state has the second-worst business climate in the country. (Only California ranks lower.) People go where the jobs are, so when a state repels businesses, it repels residents, too.

Indeed, the poll also found that 62 percent of New Yorkers planning to leave cited economic factors — including cost of living (30 percent), taxes (19 percent) and the job environment (10 percent) — as the main reason.

Upstate, a big part of the problem is extraordinarily high property taxes. New York has the country’s 15 highest-taxed counties, including Nassau and Westchester, which rank Nos. 1 and 2.

Most of the property tax goes toward paying the state’s Medicaid bill — which is unlikely to diminish, since the state’s most powerful lobby, the alliance of the hospital workers’ union and hospital management, has gone unchallenged by our new governor, Andrew Cuomo.

Of course, people shouldn’t be allowed to leave.  People who try to leave should be shot.  New York bureaucrats should follow other the examples of other commissars and build walls with barbed wire and machine gun nests to keep the proletariet in their proper places.

And, of course, if you make the ENTIRE NATION  like New York – which is exactly what Barry Hussein is trying to do – there will be no place left to flee to.

Meanwhile, conservative Texas is gaining enormously in population, and nearly forty percent of every single job created in the country the last two years was created in the state of Texas.

So just keep telling us about “failed Republican policies” while touting all your successes, you demonic liberal liars.

‘Celebrating’ DEPENDENCE Day Under Barack Obama

July 4, 2009

As we survey the despotism of the world around us, we can admire our founding fathers – and celebrate their achievement – all the more.

Think of Iraq under Saddam Hussein; or think of Iran under the Ayatollah and the mullahs.  And then look around and see all the millions, even billions of peoples, under some form of tyranny and totalitarian rule.  It was not the Iraqi people, but the people of the United States of America, who threw down Saddam Hussein and instituted a democracy in place of tyranny.  And the Iranian people may have rioted in their streets, but they failed to throw off the shackles of their tyrannous and repressive regime.  And it is very unlikely that they ever will lest some free people liberate them from their own government.

Think of the history of human civilization, and realize just how few times peoples under such rule have thrown off the shackles of bondage for themselves.

We were one of that tiny number.  And our forefathers instituted in place of tyranny the greatest example of democratic and republican government that the world has ever known.

The rarity of America’s achievement, and the resulting greatness that has since resulted, should be celebrated with more than fireworks.  It should inspire Americans – and the world – to pursue freedom and liberty over any obstacle which gets in the way.

Many historians have argued that the British government, and the king who embodied that government, really did not seek to impose anything that tyrannous.  The king didn’t seek to impose an Orwellian-style regime; he merely wanted to modestly increase taxes to help pay for a war that had been fought for the Colonies’ behalf.

The British Empire had spent some 60 million pounds fighting the French and Indian War less than a decade previously.  And the British justifiably believed that the Colonies should share some of the burden for that massive cost.  They weren’t consciously attempting to impose tyranny; all they wanted to do was raise money.

But the patriots didn’t view it that way.  What they saw was taxation without representation.  What they saw was an imposition on their property without their consent.  They looked at taxes (such as the Stamp tax and the Tea tax), and asked themselves, “If they can impose this upon us, what else can they impose?”

And when their protests were met with thousands of British troops, the patriots believed they had their answer: the king believed he could impose power upon them at his whim.

Unlike most other peoples in human history, our founding fathers did not wait for the yoke of oppression to become so heavy that it could not be thrown off.  Rather, they were willing to fight at the very first signs of tyranny.  And in so doing, they not only won their freedom, and the freedom of their descendants; they won the freedom of millions and millions of peoples whom their descendants would subsequently fight to liberate.

Part of the problem with tyranny and totalitarian rule is that there will always be people who say, “It really isn’t that bad.  Why are you making such a nuisance of yourself by protesting?”  The analogy of the frog in water comes to mind: if a government takes away our freedoms little by little, it is very likely that won’t comprehend the deprivation until it is too late to do anything about it.

Alexis de Tocqueville – one of the great political thinkers who recognized the import and result of American freedom – also wrote about one of the most pernicious forms of tyranny in the second quarter of the 19th century:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

C.S. Lewis wrote about a century later:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely 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 own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

The tyranny described by Alexis de Tocqueville and C.S. Lewis is the tyranny we face in America today: the tyranny of the nanny state; the tyranny of big government; the tyranny of the welfare state.  Naysayers can always continue to say, “It’s not that big of a deal,” or “It’s not that much worse than it used to be,” or “This is what we need right now.”  And they always will be able to say such things.  And that is precisely why most peoples find themselves in forms of tyranny that they have neither the power nor the will to free themselves from.

There is no question that the massive anvil of fiscal insanity will ultimately fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Barack Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in.  Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.”  And what is most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very long from now? A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

I look at the recent past, and see debts that our children’s children’s children will never be able to hope to repay; debts that will soon shackle us, and most certainly shackle our future generations.  And I realize that these debts have been accumulated in order to forge the very sort of society that de Tocqueville and Lewis warned us about.

The nanny state doesn’t celebrate the peoples’ independence; it celebrates their dependence.  As big government assumes more and more control of the economy, it creates more poverty and therefore more need for the government to come to the increasingly dependent peoples’ rescue.  It systematically and progressively creates a vicious cycle of dependency that becomes increasingly difficult for a once-free people to sever themselves from.

I think of two attempts by the Obama administration to seize government power that are most pernicious of all: health care and cap-and-trade.  Consider for a moment that if the government assumes control over our health care, it will have the potential to control everything that goes into our bodies, and even the activities of our bodies in the name of our “health.”  And as for cap-and-trade, what doesn’t require energy to produce or transport?  Under these two programs alone, nearly total control can be exercised.

What would our founding fathers – who were willing to fight over taxes on stamps or tea – have to say about these massive government power grabs?