December 16, 2017

New Facebook Child Abuse Guidelines

nanny_stateMy article as originally published in American Thinker:         

There are millions of social media soldiers lurking out there and recently one of them uncovered a “shocking” Facebook photo of a child holding an “assault rifle.” A prompt phone call to the proper authorities ultimately resulted in the attempted “rescue” of said child by CPS and several armed police officers.

But why stop there? As we march “Forward,” there are a host of other scenarios where children (and the community) need to be “saved” from the torments of bad parental decision making. As nanny Bloomberg says: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.”

Facebook could certainly help this process by putting forth some new child abuse guidelines. Let’s start with two groups of separate categories that would likely produce exactly the kinds of images of children that need to be exposed and reported to CPS.

The first group of guidelines would cover weapons, theology, and food (WTF).

As in the case of the “assault rifle” above, weapons are a no-brainer. Photos of children with guns, knives, nunchucks, or bows and arrows are pretty clear cut. But don’t stop there. Fingers pointed in the shape of a gun, toy weapons, sticks held in a defensive posture or even NRA t-shirts are all hints of a possible improper upbringing within the home and should thus be investigated.

Any theological display by young students (t-shirts for example) of “offensive” language like “Merry Christmas” or “offensive” symbols such as a cross or Bible should also be reported. Especially if offending item is displayed at a location that is clearly within the public domain.

Food is super easy, just follow Michele Obama and Michael Bloomberg’s dictates… uh, guidelines. Displays of sugary, salty, or fatty foods by a child should be reported immediately, especially any portion that appears to be “super-sized.” And of course “super-sized” children should be cause for alarm as well and reported to authorities.

Next we’ll move on to bragging and sports (BS).

Even the NFL is finally recognizing the dangers associated with the sport of football, so any “violent” action photos of children (especially head-to-head collisions) should be reported to CPS at once. And soccer balls should be kicked (but not too hard) and never head-butted.

While certain sporting scenes clearly constitute child “abuse,” the act of bragging is more of a grey area and can be corrected with a little re-education if necessary. Bragging about receiving an “A” for example, or showing off a winning trophy to the camera isn’t acceptable but bragging about a participation trophy or passing a class is fine as long as there was no child left behind.

If you’re wondering why the environment is excluded from this set of guidelines, it’s due to the fact that even children aren’t to be excused when it comes to crimes against the environment as can be seen in the “progressive” 10:10 Campaign’s “No Pressure” ad where children are blown into bloody bits for “crimes” of environmental noncompliance.

So, comrades, as you’re browsing through the multitude of images on Facebook posted by your friends and family, remember to think WTF and report on any of these or any other BS violations you happen to come across during your investigations. The “fundamental transformation” of the U.S. into a “safe” and “fair” nation can be completed with your help.

Next time we’ll discuss the reporting of other “dangerous” images that fall within the guidelines of the three R’s: Reading (conservative literature), Racism (anyone who opposes the Left’s policies) and Rush (no explanation necessary).

Nanny-State Ignites Taco War

My article as originally published in American Thinker:       

I’ve been highly critical of the ever expanding nanny-state that erodes our freedoms, whether in the form of soda bans, light bulb bans, plastic bag bans or even the new school lunch regulations, signed by President Obama. It’s this latter policy that is to blame for my eight-year-old son coming home from school hungry a few weeks back.

My son is a little picky when it comes to certain foods. He’ll devour steak, seafood and many fruits and vegetables but if you ask him to take a sip of milk or eat something with cheese on it — forget it. He claims that dairy bothers his stomach, but will then go and eat ice cream or a slice of cheese pizza and claim that “that’s different.” The point is, he’s eight, has some quirky eating habits and it’s the job of my wife and I to understand his habits and to make sure he gets the nutrition he needs within the parameters that work for him.

One morning during the first week back at school we looked at the new lunch menu and tacos were being served that day. He loves the school’s tacos and will only eat them because he has always been free to order them the way that he likes — without the cheese.

This time was different though. When he asked for his taco without the cheese he was told by the server that he had no choice but to have the cheese (no, he’s not an exchange student currently studying in Cuba). This was never a problem in years past and he was truly confused as to what to do and ended up eating only on an apple, which explains why he came home “starving” that afternoon.

My wife and I asked him if maybe the tacos were now pre-made with the cheese and told him that if so, there was nothing that could be done about it. Sometimes being picky will limit your choices in life. But this wasn’t the case as the cheese was applied just before serving, as it always had been, according to my son.

My wife put a call in to the principal and it turns out that the culprit was Obama’s new Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act. According to my son’s principal, the problem wasn’t that he wanted his taco without the cheese; the problem was (assuming she fully understands all of the new regulations) that it was, and is, virtually impossible for the food servers to be able keep track of the children who pay for their lunches verses the ones who receive their lunches for free or at reduced rates with a taxpayer subsidy.

The school could face disciplinary action if caught giving non-compliant meals to students who are in the National School Lunch Program. That meddling cheese was needed to meet the dairy requirements contained within the new law. I understand the principal’s concern given another school recently received a $15,000 fine for serving soda during lunch time, which is in violation of federal law. So how much would an illegal cheese-free taco cost the school?

Aside from the obvious government overreach, how is it “healthy” for kids to be forcefully offered food that they either won’t accept or just end up throwing it in the trash? And what about children who are lactose intolerant?

My wife raised a stink about it so the principal said that she would tell the servers that our son is allowed to get his food the way he likes it by giving his name. If more parents complain I can see where it would get too complicated to continue though. But thanks to my wife, the lunch servers now know who my son is and he will get his taco the way he wants it next time.

Does this “special” treatment now make my son a crony diner or will these now be considered black market tacos? In any case, comply-or-starve big government top-down control creates a wasteful, unnatural environment that even a child finds hard to swallow.

Nanny Bloomberg Stumbles onto Something

My article as originally published in American Thinker:  Bloomberg can try to sugarcoat this all he wants but NYC’s proposed ban on the sale of large soda drinks over 16 oz, which is supposed to save people from their own destructive impulses, is yet another example of the ever growing nanny-state. Obviously confused as to which country he lives in, Mayor Bloomberg says: “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.” Aside from the lost freedoms involved, this should make the trash collectors union happy.

While Bloomberg and the government have absolutely no business “forcing” people to do such things, the Mayor actually inadvertently makes the case for why we need “forced” limited government.

When questioned about his nanny-state intrusion Bloomberg stated:

“The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you,” Bloomberg said on MSNBC Thursday afternoon. “If it’s a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”

The amount of food or beverage that people pay for and then consume using their own money is nobody’s business but their own. What is everybody’s business though, is the ever expanding colossal girth of the Federal Government due to its voracious appetite for taxpayers’ money. Isn’t it about time that the government is placed on a “forced” diet for the health of the entire nation?

Bloomberg’s logic equally applies to government spending as well. You see, the government tends to “eat” all of the tax dollars that are placed in front of it. If it’s a bigger “container” of taxes, it “eats” more. If a smaller “container” of taxes were placed in front of the government, it would be forced to “eat” less. But without some sort of “forced” restraint, the government has the ability to just borrow or print more dollars for its consumption.

The only way to “force” this tax diet would be with a Constitutional Amendment to cap spending as a percent of GDP such as what Milton Friedman had proposed in Free to Choose or like the Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) as proposed in 2010 by Reps. Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and John Campbell.

If we’re truly interested in a healthy nation, instead of the government limiting consumers choices (read freedoms) to things like a maximum 16oz soda, why don’t we instead limit the Federal Government’s choice to a maximum of 16% of the GDP? Otherwise, the way things are going, this behemoth is going to explode. Try as it may the media can only sugarcoat these economic numbers for so long.

President Obama did inherit an already obese Federal Government, but despite the claims by some that he placed it on a healthy diet, the truth of the matter is that Obama actually super-sized virtually everything.

Feeding the Nanny-State (UPDATED)

See update at bottom:

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

On Wednesday Michelle Obama unveiled the new Federal school-lunch regulations, as part of her anti-obesity campaign. I don’t remember seeing a culinary section in the US Constitution. Under current leadership, the Federal government appears to have an enormous appetite for our freedoms?

The First Lady said during her speech:

Because, as parents, we all know that if left to their own devices, many of our kids would eat candy for breakfast, they’d follow it up with a few French fries for lunch and cookies and chips for snacks, and then they’d come home for a big chocolate sundae for dinner, right? (Laughter.) And we know that it is our responsibility, as adults, to make sure they don’t do that. So it’s our responsibility to make sure that they get basic nutrition that they need to stay healthy.

That’s right — kids need and have their parents to watch over them — but of course that’s just not good enough for the nanny-state.

Mrs. Obama goes on:

And that’s why so many of us try so very hard to prepare decent meals at home, and to limit how much junk food they get at home, and to ensure that they have a reasonably balanced diet. And when we’re putting forth this kind of effort at home — and many of us are, and it’s difficult to do every single day — it’s always a challenge, particularly with tough economic times and not enough time in the day — but when we’re putting forth these efforts, when we’re doing what we’re supposed to do at home, the last thing we want is to have all these hard efforts, all this hard work undone in the school cafeteria.

Suddenly the Left is all worried about parental efforts being undone at school? Not quite. It’s the parents’ responsibility, not the federal government’s, to make sure their kids eat well at their homes, their friend’s houses, their grandparent’s houses and at their schools. If enough parents aren’t happy with what’s on the menu (which they can read) they’ll either complain to the school (a local issue) in order to force changes, or hit the school in the pocketbook by packing their kids lunches on their own. That is unless their kids go to one Chicago school where even that is no longer allowed because parents aren’t to be trusted with making their own kids lunches. Forget about metal detectors, this school is more worried about having ‘food detectors’ to make sure no one is packin’-lunch.

Mrs. Obama says the kids don’t mind the “change” that she believes in:

And again and again, schools are finding that when they actually offer these healthier options, kids aren’t just willing to try them, they actually like them. That’s the thing, that’s the surprising thing.

But as Michelle Malkin points out, Los Angeles schools have found that the only thing getting healthier is the amount of garbage from tossed food, and the union payrolls.

President Obama has been working hard and doing his part to curtail the problem of childhood obesity in the United States as well. It happens to be one of the side effects of his destruction of the economy.

(UPDATE)  Told ya!

A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.

NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

And this from Human Events:

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

Now a 2nd incident.   From The Blaze:


The policing of children’s food at West Hoke has been portrayed as an isolated incident, but a curious memo Jazlyn brought home to her mother seems to point to something more.

The memo Jazlyn brought from the school outlines the necessary nutritional requirements students’ homemade lunches must contain: two servings of fruit or vegetables, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain and one serving of meat or meat substitute. Included with the memo was a separate sheet, this one a bill for the cafeteria food Jazlyn was served.

The memo, dated Jan. 27 with the subject line “RE: Healthy Lunches,” was signed by school principal Jackie Samuels and said, while “we welcome students to bring lunches from home … it must be a nutritious, balanced meal with the above requirements. Students, who do not bring a healthy lunch, will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.”