Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lunch ladies praise Trump roll back of Michelle O food rules: ‘A good thing for schools’
Education Action Group News ^ | June 21, 2017 | Victor Skinner

Posted on 06/23/2017 10:10:52 AM PDT by Olog-hai

President Trump is making school lunches great again, or at least a lot better than they were during the Obama administration.

Food service directors are applauding recent changes to federal school food regulations imposed on schools as part of Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity. […]

Regulations imposed through the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act put strict limitations on calories, fat, sugar, salt, and other elements of foods served in public schools that participate in the national school lunch or breakfast programs. …

(Excerpt) Read more at eagnews.org ...


TOPICS: Education; Food
KEYWORDS: flotusmichelle; foodpolice; moochelle; obama; obamalegacy; schoollunch; second100days; usda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2017 10:10:52 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

That’s racist.


2 posted on 06/23/2017 10:13:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I remember in primary school we were served something on a bun we called “mystery meat.” It was truly a mystery but we still loved it. I’m sure it was full of salt.


3 posted on 06/23/2017 10:13:45 AM PDT by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

"Sloppy Joes! Slop Sloppy Joes!"

4 posted on 06/23/2017 10:13:48 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Does anyone care that the feds have NO constitutional authority in regards to ANYTHING in state schools? Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.

...if anyone cares...


5 posted on 06/23/2017 10:15:40 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

My favorite lunch lady!

6 posted on 06/23/2017 10:16:53 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

That was funny!


7 posted on 06/23/2017 10:18:03 AM PDT by ColdOne ((I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11~ Best Election Ever! “Laughing my #Ossoff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.

And there ain't no Constitutional right to health care either, but see what we're going through?

8 posted on 06/23/2017 10:18:30 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I want my Salisbury Steak!


9 posted on 06/23/2017 10:19:33 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

First thing I thought of when reading the headline!

FReepers are the best!


10 posted on 06/23/2017 10:21:22 AM PDT by HombreSecreto (The life of a repo man is always intense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

the only thing that the Obama administration did was threaten to deign funds if they did not fallow the dictates of the administration....serval rich school districts decided not to take the money. no laws were enacted all they did was change administrative rules for the federal school lunch program.


11 posted on 06/23/2017 10:21:24 AM PDT by PCPOET7 (in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Why should our kids have to eat a lunch that make them feel and look like Michelle O (see Pic at site) about to have a diarrhea attack!-)


12 posted on 06/23/2017 10:22:23 AM PDT by Harpotoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PCPOET7
That’s how the federal government implements its unconstitutional regulations in the first place. It was mentioned in The Conscience of a Conservative way back in 1960 (pp. 25-27):
Let us focus attention on one method of federal interference—one that tends to be neglected in much of the public discussion of the problem. In recent years, the federal government has continued, and in many cases has increased, federal “grants-in-aid” to the States in a number of areas in which the Constitution recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. These grants are called “matching funds” and are designed to “stimulate” state spending in health, education, welfare, conservation or any other area in which the federal government decides there is a need for national action. If the States agree to put up money for these purposes, the federal government undertakes to match the appropriation according to a ratio prescribed by Congress. Sometimes the ratio is fifty-fifty; often the federal government contributes over half the cost.

There are two things to note about these programs. The first is that they are federal programs—they are conceived by the federal government both as to purpose and as to extent. The second is that the “stimulative” grants are, in effect, a mixture of blackmail and bribery. The States are told to go along with the program “or else.” Once the federal government has offered matching funds, it is unlikely, as a practical matter, that a member of a State Legislature will turn down his State’s fair share of revenue collected from all of the States. Understandably, many legislators feel that to refuse aid would be political suicide. This is an indirect form of coercion, but it is effective nonetheless.

A more direct method of coercion is for the federal government to threaten to move in unless state governments take action that Washington deems appropriate. Not so long ago, for example, the Secretary of Labor gave the States a lecture on the wisdom of enacting “up-to-date” unemployment compensation laws. He made no effort to disguise the alternative: if the States failed to act, the federal government would.

Here are some examples of the “stimulative” approach. Late in 1957, a “Joint Federal-State Action Committee” recommended that certain matching funds programs be “returned” to the States on the scarcely-disguised grounds that the States, in the view of the Committee, had learned to live up to their responsibilities. These are the areas in which the States were learning to behave: “vocational education” programs in agriculture, home economics, practical nursing, and the fisheries trade; local sewage projects; slum clearance and urban renewal; and enforcement of health and safety standards in connection with the atomic energy program.

Now the point is not that Congress failed to act on these recommendations, or that the Administration gave them only half-hearted support; but rather that the federal government had no business entering these fields in the first place, and thus had no business taking upon itself the prerogative of judging the States’ performance. The Republican Party should have said this plainly and forthrightly and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the federal government. …
But the GOP did not. Same pattern as 60 years ago. They just repeated it with Obama, to a more destructive degree.
13 posted on 06/23/2017 10:29:28 AM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I swear, did a double-take because the last word (”salt”) did NOT read as “salt” to me. . . . .yikes!!


14 posted on 06/23/2017 10:35:12 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PCPOET7

Interesting but it remains that the entire federal Dept of Education is unconstitutional.

As you’ve pointed out in how the feds leveraged the school lunch thing, our biggest problem with the unconstitutional feds is the STATES who need to get back to INDEPENDENCE from the feds - the foundation of our country - constitutional state sovereignty.


15 posted on 06/23/2017 10:46:27 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.”

Blue Ribbon schools get bennies from the Fed. If the school chooses not to participate, no bennies. But once schools participated, they adopted the conditions that went along with it. And once that happened, Obama could do anything he wanted and schools were afraid to say no.


16 posted on 06/23/2017 11:11:28 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("“In America, we don’t worship government, we worship God.”" DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.”

Blue Ribbon schools get bennies from the Fed. If the school chooses not to participate, no bennies. But once schools participated, they adopted the conditions that went along with it. And once that happened, Obama could do anything he wanted and schools were afraid to say no.


17 posted on 06/23/2017 11:18:29 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("“In America, we don’t worship government, we worship God.”" DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Sorry side. That battle was lost in the late fifties early sixties. School boards across America agreed to take federal funding for lunch programs


18 posted on 06/23/2017 11:26:47 AM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

And continuing to point that out hasn’t changed it one. It


19 posted on 06/23/2017 11:29:29 AM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Does anyone care...

I do. I'm opposed to the idea that the government should hold a gun to someone's head, take their money, and give it to someone else. But there's so few who can break it down to the basic facts.

20 posted on 06/23/2017 11:30:08 AM PDT by libertylover (In 2016 small-town America got tired of being governed by people who don't know a boy from a girl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson