Almost exactly two years ago, I mentioned the government is getting involved in who may watch children and what they could be fed.
It should scare you, too. How long before the US government is telling you who can watch your kids and how they are allowed to do it, including what the children may be fed?
Two years later comes this story.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.
The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.
Read the entire thing, as there’s some spectacular stuff from the Government Agents In Charge of
Children’s Food. It’s easy to look like you can predict the future when you are predicting the expanded growth of power of the state; it’s easy because people are sheep and continue to allow this to happen.
You have an opportunity in 2012. You are running against the weakest President since Carter. He has to run on his record, now, and there’s an awful lot of easy ammunition there.
Yet the best you can apparently do is Mitt Romney, and you are considering Rick Santorum?
I think Mitt can win. I don’t think there are significant differences between his positions and those of The One, but he’s probably marginally better.
Santorum? No. Have you learned nothing from the strength of the Ron Paul support? Do you understand that support will line up behind Gary Johnson as soon as the Republican primary race is over if Santorum is the nominee?
I think Gary Johnson could be the difference in a couple of states regardless of the nominee, but you all best realize how many people in your ranks lean towards Libertarianism. Sure, some on the Left will place a protest vote for Johnson as well, but the real alignment is with some of your ranks.
Just letting you know.
Don’t worry about me, though. I’m voting for Johnson regardless.
Fantastic OP/ED from John Cochrane in the WSJ on the red herring that is the birth control mandate.
When the government can force an employer to provide a particular type of drug coverage, the y can force them to not provide drug coverage. Won’t be long before they can mandate which drug you take.
I don’t think anyone would consider that ‘choice’ or ’empowerment’, but apparently some do.
The problem here isn’t that the government is forcing coverage for a particular drug, it is that we let the government can do that in the first place.
As long as there’s a Democrat in charge, this must be acceptable.
As the report notes, it’s particularly remarkable that these findings come on the heels of President Obama’s recent boasting about the efficacy of drones and his specific claim that the policy has “not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”, adding that it was “important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.” Compare that claim to the Bureau’s almost certainly under-stated conclusion that it has “found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.” And targeting rescuers and funeral attendees of your victims is quite the opposite of keeping the drone program on a “very tight leash.” As Samiullah Khan, one of the Bureau’s field researchers put it:
In a war situation no one is allowed to attack the Red Cross. Rescuers are like that. You are not allowed to attack rescuers. You know, the number of Taliban is increasing in Waziristan day by day, because innocents and rescuers are being killed day by day.
Strictly speaking, the legality of attacking rescuers may be ambiguous because, as the Bureau put it: “It is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to attack rescuers wearing emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. But what if rescuers wear no emblems, or if civilians are mixed in with militants, as the Bureau’s investigation into drone attacks in Waziristan has repeatedly found?” But there’s nothing ambiguous about the morality of that, or of attacking funerals (recall the worst part of the Baghdad attack video released by WikiLeaks: that the Apache helicopter first fired on the group containing Reuters journalists, then fired again on the people who arrived to help wounded). Whatever else is true, it seems highly likely that Barack Obama is the first Nobel Peace laureate who, after receiving his award, presided over the deliberate targeting of rescuers and funeral mourners of his victims.