But the logic was liberally sound.  Students who worked hard and studied longer than their peers—in the spirit of fairness—should be willing to sacrifice their higher GPAs to benefit those whose grades weren’t so high due to laziness or ineptitude (or both).

Ironically, many of the same A students unwilling to take a B so someone else could be saved from an F, endorsed a progressive tax code that essentially spreads wealth from people who earned it to those who did not.

The same crew recently showed up at the University of California, Riverside, to see whether the student body there would sign a petition demanding that the athletic department consider race as a determining factor in team rosters.

Its findings were similar to UC Merced.  While UC Riverside students said they supported affirmative action laws to promote diversity and that race-based preferences “level the playing field” for disadvantaged minorities, they nonetheless refused to sign a petition to apply quotas to the UC Riverside basketball team.  At UC Riverside, 10 out of the 11 active players on the basketball team are black.  Blacks make up only about 20% of the student body.  So why not use affirmative action to promote diversity there?

ExposingLeftists.com’s Oliver Darcy figured this disparity was a natural place to promote diversity.  After all, affirmative action rules UC Riverside’s hiring policy and minority-specific outreach is not so vaguely couched in college advertising.

Diversity and equality are desired in our society, but the glaring double-standard found by ExposingLeftists.com shows where progressive policies promote problems.

Indeed, America walked out of the 19th century of slavery into segregation and Jim Crow.  And while American exceptionalism is responsible for so many of humanity’s historic steps forward, almost a century of post-Civil War discrimination disfigured our republic.  Until the civil rights era, a moral disconnect ruled the day.  But an ensuing onslaught of court rulings and bureaucratic fiat comprised the noble effort to reconcile America’s egalitarian idealism and its discriminatory reality.

Herein lies the rub.

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, segregated facilities for blacks and whites were overwhelmingly deemed constitutional as long as they were equal.  It took 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to determine that “separate, but equal” was “inherently unequal” because a segregated education “generates a feeling of inferiority.”

Ending segregation was a good thing, but the Pandora’s Box of reforms such as President Kennedy’s executive order that led to affirmative action and the forced busing laws passed to enforce Brown created mixed results.

Born of moral intentions, these remedies were never properly scrutinized for their immoral results.

Busing ultimately—and unfortunately—left too many school districts more segregated than ever.  “White flight” saw large numbers of white families de facto segregating their children to private schools and suburban neighborhoods.

Affirmative action and its tentacles—quotas, minority-based points systems, group-based preferences, loosened testing and admissions standards—are an affront to our most sacred democratic principle: that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.  For too long, our laws and court rulings have contorted this value.  And the belief that career opportunities and educational successes should be the reward of individuals’ merit and unwavering work ethic has eroded over time.

Tragically—for blacks, women and other “oppressed” minorities—affirmative action indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve.  It is pure illogic to think that you can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth.  Reverse discrimination simply cannot cure discrimination.

Today, two mutually exclusive Americas exist.  We are either an affirmative action America, where some among us are held to a lower standard based on skin color or we are all equal under the law, free to fail or succeed no matter what group we happen to be born into.  Both cannot be true.

Be it basketball or big business, allowing the best to advance is the true moral path.

Tonight’s webcast deals with that special little saying “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, a section of the Atlas Shrugged book that deals with this moral standard (or lack thereof) played out in a small section of the United States at the factory Twentieth Century Motors Company.

You can watch the Our Last Stand Webcast Here.

Let us know what you think. Did it make you think or at least consider the possibilities? Leave some comments below and tell us what you think.

It becomes a page turner and a fire-igniter within your soul. Maybe that is a little deep but I have to say that I haven’t been so invigorated for a long time. The fictional dialogue is so rich with content that holds true as much today as it did to Ayn Rand in the 50s’.

As a personal venture, I am taking certain sections of Atlas Shrugged’s dialogue and narrating them for a special mini series of webcasts. These portions of the book that are basic dialogue do not ruin the circumstances that play out through the story.

If you plan on reading it, I highly recommend pushing you to do so because everyone should hear some of what is said. That is a small goal of this mini series.

The first one deals with a response by a brilliant industrialist to the phrase “Money is the root of all evil”.

Forgive my reading if you aren’t a fan of my voice but minimize the window and listen while you go about your work online and let us know what you think.

Enjoy!

Watch the video HERE

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:  God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act.”

In an alternate reality, 54 million blacks would be alive in America today.  When adjusted for abortion, the number is 39 million.

The National Black Prolife Coalition says an average of 1,000 black babies are aborted every day.  Nationally, nearly one in three black pregnancies ends in abortion each year.  In New York City in 2009, 47%, or 40,798, of the city’s 87,273 abortions were performed on black women.

This led Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, to declare that, “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb!”

In 2005, the CDC reported that abortion killed more blacks than the seven leading causes of death for that year.  Reason number three on that list was homicide, which consistently stalks black neighborhoods.  These gang-ridden ghettos are war zones where the man-child mentality runs rampant.  In these communities, a chasm of fatherlessness has created cohorts of unruly youths.  Many of these immoral minors are as far removed from the mainstream as the pornographic and misogynistic, mob-life message, they hear regularly in rap songs and often replicate in real life.

The news stories on cities consumed by this culture of crime resemble Baghdad more than America.

“15-Year-Old Fatally Shot at Brooklyn Playground, 13-Year-Old Injured,” read one New York newspaper.  “Gang Violence Leaves Two Men Shot,” read a Chicago headline.  Chicago is a “city under siege,” where newly minted Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced last week that “92 additional police officers will start walking street beats.”  The city, already besieged by record-breaking heat, sees adding “more beat cops to patrol high-crime areas” as the best way to suppress the city’s so-called “killing season.”  In these summer months, homicide rates tend to be higher than any other time of year.  Last summer’s “killing season” saw some 168 murders.  One headline read, “Ten Dead, Among 54 Shot Across City Over the Weekend.”

Then there is the rise of black flash mobs.  These groups of young, mostly black teens, wreak havoc, vandalizing local shops and malls and beating up the elderly.

(Even the 19 wealthy football players arrested since the NFL’s lockout are all black.)

The prevailing wisdom is that this drab picture of black America stems from lingering historical setbacks.  And some still assert that white conservatives are culpable.

If so, it’s hard to believe.  Especially when you consider that while just 32.4% of Chicago’s population, blacks accounted for 75% of total crime in 2009.

Elsewhere, civil rights groups are betraying blacks.

In New York, the local NAACP joined the United Federation of Teachers in a lawsuit to block the closure of 22 “failing” public schools and the “co-locate” expansion of 15 charter schools.  Here, the NAACP ignored the success of the New York Charter school program—serving 60% black and 30% Latino students, and instead chose to support the expensive and futile public school model.  The New York NAACP sided with teachers’ union elites and neglected the best educational interest of “colored people.”

Then there is the persistent political monolith among black voters.

For example, the Congressional Black Caucus’ history of unethical fund-raising practices, it’s member’s unscrupulous nepotism, and corruption investigations don’t matter much on Election Day.  Worse still, while Congressional Black Caucus lawmakers live cozy lives on the taxpayer’s dime, their constituents suffer.

Last year, New York Congressman Charlie Rangel was convicted of a record-breaking eleven ethics violations.  His punishment?  The majority minority district— 35% black, 48% Hispanic—reprimanded the 40-year politician by electing him to his 20th term.  Rangel won a modest 80% of the vote.

In 2009, the national poverty rate was 14.3%.  In 2010, in New York 15, Rep. Rangel’s district, the poverty rate was 24.3%.  Rangel’s lopsided poverty numbers are no anomaly.  In April 2005, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBC) released a sobering reportdetailing even deeper disparities.  It found that the average poverty rate among CBC districts was nearly 19%.  A lower standard of living notwithstanding, blacks still stand lockstep in support of these liberal kings and queens.

Elsewhere, the first black President is presiding over the worse destruction of median net worth in modern history.  Sadly, black households are being hit the hardest.

The Economic Policy Institute found that in 2007, white households had a median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households.  By 2009, the median net worth for white households plummeted 24% to $97,860.  But for black households, it dropped 83% to $2,170.

The Chicago Sun-Times called it, “The Disappearing Black Middle Class.”  Yet blacks still overwhelmingly support President Obama’s big government approach.  As of June, Obama enjoys an 86% approval rating among blacks.

Fifty years ago, hooded killers from the Ku Klux Klan stalked blacks neighborhoods.  Today the murderers are mostly black.  A hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” sought to “exterminate the Negro population.”  Today, blacks are fulfilling the Planned Parenthood founder’s dream of genocide.  This is self-sabotage.

I don’t take pleasure in painting a picture so bleak.  However, this suffering is unnecessary.  Black America is still capable of a course correction.  And the stakes are too high to sit in silence.

Originally posted on Human Events.

Socialism: What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine? Mi casa es su casa? A primary goal of socialism is social equality. Impossible. The reality of socialism is that social equality is a myth and what actually occurs is a redistribution of wealth. We live in a class system and our schools are naturally part of a class society. The class system is not defined at birth, as some may have been brainwashed into believing.  Wealthy families were created, somewhere down the road, by someone’s sacrifice, dedication, blood, and sweat. It is simply survival of the fittest.

After reading this post, if you believe the current school funding plan is failing 85% of our state’s students, then it is your responsibility as a tax payer, parent, former public school student, or state representative to advocate for the new plan and vote yes when and if the time comes.

Mr. Becker makes a lot of loose points without any real concrete ideas to support his stance because in the end, he is not truly there for the right reasons. I mean a gay guy going through therapy to expose the therapy as faulty while saying that he is truly trying to be straight is kind of like a male and female team of co-anchors going into marriage counseling to expose that it doesn’t work for a news story. The true reasoning isn’t there, as made clear by Becker’s own mission statement:

“I was to go undercover to Bachmann & Associates in Lake Elmo, MN posing as someone seeking counseling for homosexuality, schedule as many appointments as I could, and document what went on during my appointments with hidden cameras.”

According to Becker, his first visit involved paying with cash:

“Preparing for my first visit was a surreal experience. I couldn’t pay by check since my checks had my name, my husband’s name, and a Vermont address. This meant I would be paying with cash and opening my wallet before each appointment, so I realized I’d have to go through my wallet and remove or hide anything that would invite suspicion. My Human Rights Campaign credit card had to go, lest anyone recognize that organization’s ubiquitous logo. I left our ACLU membership card behind as well.”

Let’s see, a Human Rights Campaign credit card and an ACLU membership card. At least he is on the up and up! All he was missing was an SEIU badge hanging off a T-shirt that had Bush with a Hitler mustache. Could his true political intentions be any clearer here?

“At the start of our second session I went straight to the point: what could I do? Would I ever be able to be completely rid of homosexuality, or merely learn to cope with and manage it? Wiertzema’s response was that it’s situational. Some people have been able to get rid of it completely over a long time period, others over a shorter time period. Still others are able to get it to “subside,” down to a “manageable” level, but it’s still there in the background. He asked me, “Are you okay with knowing that it might take awhile, and that it might not… maybe not happen at all? …Obviously, it’s not okay, in a way, but…” I said that I wanted to give it a go, that it was better to try than to not try.”

Becker goes on to at least acknowledge that Wiertzema admitted to the treatment failing on occasion but that it was the first and last time. Again, Becker was not there with true intention of anything working and that really plays into this whole article but I will get to that when I touch on Becker’s final thoughts.

“I was never told that every professional medical and mental health association rejects “ex-gay” therapy including the American Medical Association, American PsychologicalAssociation, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Counseling Association, or that the treatment I was seeking was totally unsupported by research. I was never informed about possible alternative treatment options such as gay-affirmative therapy. Nobody ever told me about the potential for harmful side effects like depression and suicidal thoughts. And although I was asked to sign a treatment plan outlining my problem, desired outcome, and treatment strategy, I was never given nor asked to sign any kind of informed consent document that disclosed the above information about “ex-gay” therapy. As such, I believe Bachmann & Associates to be practicing unethically, even by the standards of the American Association of Christian Counselors. This is particularly disconcerting given the fact that Marcus Bachmann’s clinic has received significant funding from the State of Minnesota and the federal government.”

Potential for harmful side effects like depression and suicidal thoughts due to the therapy? I’m not out of line to question why session therapy with someone who is truly gay and struggling with their identity is any different than marriage counseling with these side effects. If you get an angry couple in a room to share their feelings on why the marriage is failing and they start coming out with some crazy stuff that they never shared with each other, who is to say one of them doesn’t go home and hang themselves in guilt? It is an unpredictable human nature.

Here are some of Becker’s points that I completely disagree with:

“I was advised to find a heterosexual “accountability buddy” as I struggled to increase my attraction to women and decrease my attraction to men. I was to confide in, pray with, and be held accountable to this person.”

Maybe my only experience with therapy is watching Anger Management starring Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson (which I am sure will pull a response from anyone that disagrees with me that my Conservative stance alone warrants therapy…argue the points) but isn’t “buddying up” with someone to help accountability issues something that happens a lot in therapy circumstances?

Also, if Becker takes issue with the “pray with” portion and why it holds any place in a CHRISTIAN CLINIC, maybe he should think a little harder about where he was.

“Bachmann & Associates sells a book written by Twin Cities minister and self-proclaimed “ex-lesbian” Janet Boynes. This book chronicles her supposed journey “out of the lesbian lifestyle.” Next to the stack of books was a prominently-displayed, typewritten note that read, “Janet is a friend. I recommend this book as she speaks to the heart of the matter and gives practical insights of truth to set people free. – Marcus Bachmann, PhD.”

Holy moly, this Christian kook Bachmann claims to have an ex-lesbian friend and supports selling her book. What an evil and manipulative man. What is he thinking?

“I pretended to have just told my brother that I was seeking counseling to help me deal with homosexuality. My brother’s (fictitious) response was that I should just come out, because a person can be happy and gay and still go to heaven. My therapist said that my brother “didn’t choose his words wisely.”

Again, he is at a Christian clinic. I am guessing had the therapist said the opposite about gays getting into Heaven with no problem, he would have been called out for opposing his faith. Is it really so wrong for a Christian counselor at a Christian clinic to share a Christian position?

“I mentioned Marcus Bachmann’s by then well-publicized remarks calling gays “barbarians” who “need to be educated.” “Am I a barbarian?” I said through tears. Rather than contradict his boss’ words, Wiertzema opted to doubt the authenticity of the recording I had heard: “It sounds like… something that someone just did. It doesn’t sound accurate.”

Listen, I am willing to bet that these statements weren’t just made up and researching them is a waste of time. I say that because if they were said, it was a stupid thing to say. I believe that you don’t choose to be gay, that you are born that way. I also believe that if you want to stand up for equal rights or at least tax privileges with civil unions compared to marriage, I would support that. If Marcus said this, it was wrong but you know, people make mistakes and some people hold different beliefs. The fact is, no one is handcuffing gays and lesbians and forcing them to sit through this therapy.

Here is the point, the clinic is for people that consider themselves to be struggling in some sort of manner. If I don’t drink but I want to do a piece on how the Pelosi clinic’s alcoholism therapy doesn’t work by posing as an alcoholic just to prove a political point, I can do that, but it doesn’t prove a damn thing.

The people that seek this type of therapy are individuals that truly have a concern and are looking for help. They are open to the ideas and are willing to listen. They are likely to try and follow advice whether it works or not. You know what, it might not work but then they should ask for their money back.

If there are cases like the one he mentions where a father took his son, against his will, into the clinic for treatment, then I would say that is completely wrong as well. I honestly don’t think that any treatment through therapy will work if the patient isn’t willing to acknowledge the problem and want to rectify it. NOT that being gay is a problem by the way.

“Based on my experiences at Bachmann & Associates, there can no longer be any doubt that Marcus Bachmann’s state- and federally-funded clinic endorses and practices reparative therapy aimed at changing a gay person’s sexual orientation, despite the fact that such “therapy” is widely discredited by the scientific and medical communities. It’s time for Michele and Marcus Bachmann to stop denying, dodging, and stonewalling. They owe it to all Americans to provide a full and honest explanation for their embrace of these dangerous and fraudulent practices.”

Becker’s conclusion on the clinic is based on a lot of arguments with holes. What he should have done with his team was find ex-patients that underwent therapy and had full intention of reversing their sexual orientation and failed at doing so because of the Bachmann clinic’s therapy. It would have made for a more interesting read instead of the biased hack job that actually came out of going undercover.

In the end, this is more about Becker being a liberal jerk trying to coax an emotional response from the public to garner support for the Left in the upcoming elections than it has to do with the gay community and their therapy at this clinic.

If the number one thing to do as a liberal to try and win an argument is to place blame on some previous Republican administration for an ongoing problem instead of owning up to it then the next thing to do on the check list is character-assassinate your opponent with mud throwing politics. Congrats Becker, now on to step 3.

Right-To-Work is a foundation that was established to protect the civil rights of employees while eliminating forced unionism. Right-To-Work is not so much “anti-union” but rather anti-forced unionism. The laws give employees the option to decline joining a union, back out of a union, and barring union dues from being deducted from the paychecks of public employees.  Unions across the country have recently been under fire in many states and situations: Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, and Boeing of Seattle.

Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5%

(For more statistics: http:www.nrtw.org)

 

When economic research displays a variation of state growth across the country, particularly in industry location and economic growth, it is in fact RTW laws play the significant factor. Unions play an even larger factor in the division of growth among the nation.  A union environment is naturally a less-attractive atmosphere to invest new capital resources and attract industry. It has been confirmed by economist Thomas Holmes (http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/research.html) that manufacturing differs among counties in RTW regions. Holmes addresses the assumption that two bordering counties, one of which is located in a forced-union state, would be highly similar in most respects except for their business-policy environment. Holmes’ research discovered that “the manufacturing share of total employment in a county increases by about one-third when one crosses the border into the probuisness side.”

Immediately following Wisconsin, Governor Kasich of Ohio signed into law a limit on public-worker collective bargaining rights. Healthcare, sick time and pension benefits are no longer negotiable. Automatic public-worker pay raises are eliminated. The House Labor Committee added Republican-supported revisions that make it more difficult for unions to collect fees by banning automatic deductions from employee paychecks.

Most recently, The National Labor Relations Board has sued Boeing Co., claiming the company retaliated against its unionized work force in the state of Washington by opening a new production line for its 787′ airplane in the RTW state of South Carolina.  Through this lawsuit, the agency is demanding a judge order Boeing to return all 787′ assembly work to Washington.

In my home state of New Jersey, Republican Governor Chris Christie has been denounced as “Anti-Public Workers” or “Anti-Union”. If you recall the statistics above, Governor Christie is simply trying to establish a “Pro-Buisness” environment in his state. Last week, a RTW bill was quietly introduced into the State Legislature.”Workers ought to have the ability to decide whether they want to join a union or not,” said the sponsor, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, the top-ranking Republican on the Assembly Budget Committee.  She continued on, “If the unions can make a case they can benefit workers, I’ll withdraw the bill. If they fail to make that case, why should the government order people to join or comply?”  New Jersey democrats claim that the bill is “dead on arrival” and after New Hampshire RTW proposition failed, union-workers in New Jersey rally with hope that the war on unions will be won by the public. Last month, the New Jersey Education Association took a big hit when the Governor signed into effect a law requiring higher pension and healthcare benefits costs to those public employees.

Those teachers who contribute bi-monthly union dues, I bet, could have easily determined a better use to the collective $2 million dollars. Extra revenue in a worker’s pocket contributes to personal economic confidence. One person with economic confidence will be more likely to take their additional revenue and spread it amongst their community through personal spending. If a state has economic confidence, such as in an RTW state, industry and business will blossom while providing jobs and revenue.

Leal, 38, was brought to the U.S. illegally at the age of 2 and was found guilty of Adria Sauceda’s 1994 rape and death. Residing in the U.S. since he was a toddler, although a Mexican national, Leal could have contacted his diplomatic representatives for legal assistance.

Leal was one of 51 Mexican nationals on U.S death row who challenged the U.S to their failure of informing them of their diplomatic rights, and in 2004, The International Court of Justice sided with Mexico.  Texas Governor Perry would therefore be violating international law by executing Humberto Leal.

Governor Perry received many appeals from diplomats, top judges, senior Military officers, the U.N., and President Obama. Arguments ranged from, “putting U.S. diplomatic relationships in jeopardy” to “affecting any American arrested abroad.” The White House sought the Supreme Court to rule in this matter and urged that Leal’s execution be put on hold until Congress could pass a NEW law regarding foreign nationals who stand trial for capital crimes without proper diplomatic representation.  The White House sent a 30-page brief to the Supreme Court in which they outlined the problems of carrying out the Leal execution.

The fact that most black uplift is held hostage by a confluence of cultural cancers that are constantly overlooked is part of the problem.  But black America’s enduring conflict—a hesitancy to address deep historical contradictions—is the real culprit.

That President Obama’s race is associated with slavery suggests a cosmic karma.  That he has become the leader of the party that went to war to preserve it is beyond ironic.  This is the Democratic paradox. 

For blacks, the national stain of slavery was survived by Lyndon Johnson’s dream writ large.  As Ronald Kessler writes, when asked why the Civil Rights Bill had recently become so important to him, President Johnson said:  “I’ll have them n——s voting Democratic for two hundred years.”  History remembers Presidents, not senators.  And despite the efforts of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, whose leadership supplied the votes needed to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act that Johnson took credit for, black support, by a consistent 90% margin, became a democratic dream come true.

Eleven presidential elections later, blacks still blindly concede power to a political party whose ideals are anathema to our own.  And two generations of playing the role of a politically duped voting bloc has resulted in enumerable losses.  Black unemployment at “Depression-era levels” is, regrettably, the tip of the iceberg.

The Schott Foundation reports that 47% of African-American males graduate from high school.  In D.C., the black homicide rate dropped over the last decade, but remained much higher than the average white murder rate.  The National Campaign reports that 50% of black teen girls get pregnant at least once before age 20—nearly twice the national average.

These are all outgrowths of a disintegrated values system among many blacks.  Most noticeably in a number of darkened inner city neighborhoods, where a miasma of underclass culture has been swallowed whole.  Where a shrinking middle class, due to rampant illegitimacy and disproportionately high crime rates, produces poor expectations for home ownership and income equality.

Do not all Americans confront the profound problems facing black Americans?  Of course.  It’s these tragic disparities that call for headlines.

Elsewhere, Obama is fresh from another foreign trip and is already golfing again.  His 30th fund-raising event to date puts him at an average of one fund-raiser every six days since New Year’s.

The point here is the President’s priorities.

Liberal media have invested too much in Obama to hold him responsible for his negligence.  And blacks who still support Obama and who have staked everything on his “success” are the ones being pushed to the furthest margins of society.

For far too many blacks, Barack Obama’s presidency reinforces an all-to-familiar brew of monolithic groupthink.  This herd mentality breeds a harmful protectionism that suggests, “He can do no harm.”  An affirmative action of sorts now defines his first term in office.

Famous French romantic writer Victor Hugo once surmised, “No army can stop an idea whose time has come.”  Exposing the lie that liberalism and the Democratic Party are the keys to black advancement is an idea whose time has come.

Why blacks, who are just 13% of the population, account for 30% of abortions in America is beyond comprehension.  After nearly 50 years, is this what blacks have to show for 90% support to Democrats?

A slick campaigner, Obama is well-aware of his waning support among blacks and Hispanics.  His reelection hopes spin on an axis of symbolism.  While half the country opposes the far-left zealot, the moderate and cultural icon will be on the ballot in 2012.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said at the Republican Leadership Conference that [Obama] “has failed the African-American community.”  If blacks don’t wise up and hold Obama and democrats accountable, we will have failed ourselves.

Article can also be read on Human Events

“No, if I picked one favorite, favorite food, it’s French fries.”  The audience began to laugh.  “Okay?  It’s French fries,” Obama continued.  “I can’t stop eating them.”  As the students laughed more, the First Lady quickly returned to her role as advocate of health eating.  “But eat your vegetables,” she said, to still more laughs.  “And exercise.” – Washington Examiner

Oh Michelle, you never cease to amaze me with your dazzling remarks to your zombies, I mean fans, I mean audiences. Leave it to progressive liberals to make decisions for your “benefit”, yet completely ignore them themselves.

Michelle Obama isn’t new to the health food scene, obviously. Her “Let’s Move” campaign is all about healthier food choices and physical activity for youth. Don’t get me wrong, that is a fantastic venture to take up…at least in “non-mandated” terms. Here is the problem though, the Obama administration is doing more than just promoting healthier lifestyles, they are forcing it on families.

Let’s talk about the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act that was signed last December by the Obama administration. This Act affects schools on the local level in regards to their lunch content and pricing.

I had mentioned in a previous post that this affects everything from regulating school store and vending machine purchases to fundraiser activities. If the sugar or fat content are too high for what is being offered, it’s cut out. Say goodbye to class pizza parties and hello to broccoli bonanzas! At least they would never regulate what you pack from home, haha that would be crazy! Right?!…Right?

When it comes to pricing though, we are starting to see Federal regulations affect us on a local level. The administration would like to make lunches more affordable to children who are unable to pay, due to family financial circumstances, by running the current lunch prices through a government equation to come up with a better price. Sounds reasonable right?

Well let’s take a real life example of how exactly that has worked out. Our local school district recently held a board meeting in which the CNR Act was official introduced and voted on (despite it being mandated anyway).

The school presented that the Act requires them to evaluate and average the prices of the lunches at the elementary, middle and high school levels, giving them one set price to work with.

The government threshold number for lunches is set at $2.46. This is derived from the amount of Federal subsidies for each free meal ($2.92) minus the Federal subsidies for each paid meal (26 cents).

If that average falls below the threshold number of $2.46, you move on to the next formula, our school district happened to fall under that number.

From there, you apply a 3.14% increase (stipulated as 2% in Federal law plus inflation set at 1.14%). After applying that, you are required to round the cent value down.

It sounds complicated but all you really need to know is this: In order to help make lunches more affordable in the district, we are raising lunch prices at the elementary and middle school level by 5 cents. Now THAT is some liberal math for you.

This outcome should be enough alone to constitute a face-palm from people wondering what the heck is going on. Yet, the issue always goes deeper when you are talking about the intentions of liberal politicians.

You see, in a lot of cases it is unfair to compare local politics to politics at the Federal level but in this case, the mandate was passed down from that level and directly affects local taxpayers. The issue is “class warfare”, which is a staple in liberal politics.

Yes, they are concerned about those that are unable to afford lunch and yes every child needs to eat and be provided an opportunity for that in a public education environment but once again that burden is placed on individuals that CAN afford the school lunches. You are pitting the have-nots against the haves at a local level just like the whole “tax the rich” rhetoric of the Federal level liberal politics.

The problem that is overlooked though, is that a lot of the “haves” are families that are just hugging that “have not” borderline and you are raising the prices for them as well, POSSIBLY shoving them into the “have not” category. Is it so hard to imagine that when things like sub-prime lending, 100% financing and job losses are so abundant right now?

It seems to me that the only mathematical equation that liberals ever fall back on is taxing the hell out of the rich to subsidize the poor, instead of actually enacting policies that help grow the private sector so people can be more reliant on themselves.

Here is my question, how many people do you think actually even know about this? It certainly isn’t making national news. That is called pandering by the way.