Forget the war on drugs and Nancy Regan’s battle cry of “Just say no.” There’s a new First Lady in town and a new drug that is even more insidious than crack. The Federal government is at the disposal of America’s “Mom-in-Chief” Michelle Obama, and she’s coming for your sugar bowl. She has taken up arms in the fight against fat kids, aka childhood obesity, and there is going to be hell to pay. Apparently, America’s parents can’t even be trusted to feed our own children. Never fear, you incompetent plebes, Hillary Clinton’s government village will save you. New Federal laws are on their way to save us from our addictions to sugar and freedom.
Like all modern First Ladies, Michelle Obama has taken up a cause to champion during her stay in the White House. What is different about Michelle’s cause is that she has transformed her didactic message into legislation.
Michelle will make a rare joint appearance with President Obama today at Harriet Tubman Elementary School as he signs the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 into law.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is a little different than the first law proposed on the subject, The Healthy School Meals Act of 2010 (H.R. 4870), because it is far more reaching. The new law will add more names to welfare and government assistance programs like WIC and the School Meals Program. The law will allow access to Medicaid data and “directly certify eligible children.” When translated into English this means it will grow into another expensive entitlement program. There will be hundreds of thousands of children who will receive all of their meals, breakfast, lunch and dinner, from the government.
Hillary Clinton’s award winning book “It Takes a Village” ushered in the era of passing legislation “for the children” but Michelle Obama has taken this idea and run amok with it. The following passage from a Hillary Clinton speech on the philosophy of her book, gives a chilling preview into the government model of parenthood. If you really want to know what the potential evil of this kind of legislation is, substitute the word “communism” for the words “the village.”
To many, this brave new world seems dehumanizing and inhospitable. It is not surprising, then,, that there is a yearning for the “good old days” as a refuge from the problems of the present. But by turning away, we blind ourselves to the continuing, evolving presence of the village in our lives, and its critical importance for how we live together. The village can no longer be defined as a place on a map, or as a list of people or organizations, but its essence remains the same: it is the network of values and relationships that support and affect our lives.
I find it interesting to note that all ideas of a “brave new world” are first accomplished by the production of cowering, dependant people.