USDA Paid ‘Improper’ Subsidies To 1,799 Dead Farmers And Proper Ones To 28,613 Dead Farmers

USDA Paid ‘Improper’ Subsidies To 1,799 Dead Farmers And Proper Ones To 28,613 Dead Farmers – CNS

The U.S. Department of Agriculture made farm subsidy payments to 28,613 dead farmers between 2011 and 2012, of which 1,799 were deemed “improper,” according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued in June.

.

The report, entitled “USDA Needs to Do More to Prevent Improper Payments to Deceased Individuals,” said USDA’s Farm Service Agency identified “thousands of deceased individuals who were paid $3.3 million in improper payments after their dates of death, of which FSA has recovered approximately $1 million.”

GAO determined that about 6 percent of the total subsidy payments should not have been sent due to clerical errors or outright fraud.

An FSA spokesperson told CNSNews.com that most farm subsidy payments made by the USDA are based upon the farmer fulfilling his contractual obligation; for example, participating in a farmland conservation program. In the event of the farmer’s death, payments would be made to the farmer’s survivors or corporate successor.

“Improper payments” are those sent to individuals who had not properly filed documentation and who had subsequently died, or sent to relatives who had filled out the documentation and signed it on behalf of the farm’s now-deceased owner — something not permitted under FSA regulations. Most of those cases involve a legitimate error, the spokesman added, but some are fraudulent.

The FSA distributes $20 billion annually in farm subsidies to roughly 1 million individuals, averaging about $20,000 per person. Approximately $7.4 billion is spent on farm commodity and conservation programs; another $4 billion goes for financial and technical assistance; and $8.3 billion is spent to cover roughly 60 percent of farmers’ crop insurance premiums.

To prevent future subsidy payments to dead farmers, the GAO recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture implement procedures to match crop insurance records with the Social Security Administration’s master death file, ensure that all subsidy payments are “supported by documentation,” and review “each subsidy provided on behalf of a deceased individual to ensure that an improper subsidy was not made.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

USDA Claims It Will Cost $3.2 Billion To Comply With Michelle Obama’s School Lunch Overhaul

Cost Of Complying With Michelle Obama’s School Lunch Overhaul? $3.2 BILLION! – The Blaze

As schools continue to grapple with the school lunch menu overhaul pushed by First Lady Michelle Obama, some are realizing their headache isn’t just from a lack of food.

.

The program involves way too much green – and we’re not talking lettuce and brussel sprouts.

We mean the estimated $3.2 billion schools will have to find to implement the new federal regulations. Many schools are also losing money due the unpopular Obama menu.

“New school lunch regulations mean financial losses for Pittsfield Public Schools,” reported The Berkshire Eagle in Massachusetts.

The school district expects a program operating loss of more than $100,000 due to a required equipment upgrade, as well as fewer lunches and snacks being sold.

Congressman Todd Rokita, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, noted at a recent hearing, “Because the law requires students to take fruits and vegetables for lunch, even if they have no intention of eating them, schools are struggling with increased waste. After implementing the new standards a year early, one Florida school district estimated students threw out $75,000 worth of food.”

“At Dedham High School in Massachusetts, providing the required vegetables in 1500 meals each week costs the district about $111 a day – but administrators report many students just throw the fresh vegetables right into the trash,” his statement read.

A New York district experienced a 50 percent decline in the number of student purchasing hot lunch.

“This decline in participation made it more difficult for the school to afford to serve lunches and breakfasts that met the federal meal requirements. As a result, the district’s food operation went $59,000 in the red and local leaders ultimately decided to opt-out of the National School Lunch Program,” Rokita said.

The USDA estimates implementation of the new guidelines will cost $3.2 billion over five years. Given that it’s a government estimate – and if Obamacare is any guide – the cost for schools will likely be much higher.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Indiana School District Loses $300,000 When Students Stop Buying School Meals After They Switched To Mooch’s Food Regulations – Weasel Zippers

But it makes Mooch feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

INDIANAPOLIS – The carnage shifted from the students’ lunch plates to school budgets after Michelle Obama’s lunch regulations were voluntarily implemented last year.

Officials in the Carmel Clay, Indiana school district told JConline.com they lost $300,000 last school year when many students rejected the menu changes and stopped purchasing school meals.

Amy Anderson, the food service director for the school district, told the newspaper, “I’m a registered dietitian. I used to feel that I was an educator and part of the education system. I currently feel like I’m a food cop.

“I don’t get credit for the 98 percent of our kids who are within normal weight range. I only get slammed for the 2 to 3 percent who aren’t.”

She said the changes may “drive her into retirement,” according to the paper.

Students in another central Indiana district were equally displeased.

“Kids eat with their eyes. When they saw that smaller portion, that freaked them out,” said Jennifer Rice, food service director of Lebanon Community School Corp., where the popular Salisbury steak shrunk, the paper reported.

Keep reading

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

N.Y. Times Confirms Massive Fraud At USDA In Pigford; Breitbart Vindicated

NYTimes Confirms: Massive Fraud At USDA In Pigford; Breitbart Vindicated – Big Government

The New York Times reported Friday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has likely enabled massive fraud in the Pigford series of legal settlements, in which black, Hispanic, female and Native American farmers have claimed to be victims of past discrimination.

.

The cost of the settlements, which could exceed $4.4 billion, is the result of a process that “became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees,” the Times notes.

Among those influential members of Congress was then-Senator Barack Obama, who made Pigford payouts a priority in exchange for political support for his 2008 presidential campaign among a coveted group of black voters in the rural South, the Times reports.

As president, Obama continued to support payouts for new groups of claimants while abandoning a review process that had been used to fight fraud. The aim was “buying the support” of minorities, according to the Times, while middlemen created a “cottage industry” in defrauding the government.

The Times investigation, led by reporter Sharon LaFraniere, vindicates the late Andrew Breitbart, for whom Pigford became a crucial issue in demonstrating the cynical use of racial politics by the institutional left to hurt the very people they claimed to be helping. Breitbart directed investigations of the Pigford fraud and championed the cause of the original black farmers in the lawsuit, arguing that many of them had been left behind while opportunistic lawyers and fraudulent claimants looted the federal treasury in exchange for votes and support.

The left, led by the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, attempted for years to dismiss claims of fraud in Pigford, calling it Breitbart’s “stupidest conspiracy theory.” When Fox News picked up the story, Media Matters called it an attempt to attack “anti-discrimination efforts.”

In fact, the 5,529-word report by LaFraniere shows that Pigford and subsequent settlements had little to do with redressing discrimination and everything to do with politics and greed, while the true victims of discrimination continued to suffer in obscurity.

In 2010, Breitbart was accused by the left of using a dispute with the NAACP to disrupt Pigford funding. That motivated him to investigate.

“I had never heard of Pigford, so for the last four and half months, all I’ve been doing is eating, breathing, sleeping Pigford, researching Pigford, finding whistleblowers who are hiding in plain sight who have been wanting to tell the story of how this was rigged,” he told the Daily Caller in December 2010.

The Times story credits Breitbart News and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for drawing attention to the issue.

LaFraniere and colleagues conducted their own, independent investigation, “based on thousands of pages of court and confidential government documents, as well as interviews with dozens of claimants, lawyers, former and current government officials and others involved in the cases over the past 14 years.”

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told the Times that the settlements opened “a new chapter of civil rights at U.S.D.A,” claiming that critics of Pigford and other payouts were motivated by a “Pandora’s box” of hidden racial agendas.

Yet the Times documents how Pigford became a “magnet for fraud” across the South. “In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina,” LaFraniere writes, “the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.” The government let many of the fraudulent claims slip by unpunished because “the bar for a successful claim was so low that it was almost impossible to show criminality.”

Much of the fraud was enabled by the Clinton and Obama administrations, and by members of Congress seeking to reward special interests. Then-Sen. Obama sponsored new Pigford legislation in 2007, while Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened in 2009 to lead protests against the administration if it did not bend to the wishes of Hispanic claimants.

Meanwhile, whole families, including young children, filed claims for past discrimination to reap $50,000 each in cash payouts. As yet, Congress has failed to investigate Pigford.

That may finally change.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Related video:

.

.

Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program For Illegal Aliens

Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program For Illegal Aliens – Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable. Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The email from Wood to Lopez-Coterilla and Vincente came in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy that the USDA FNS step in to prevent the state of Kansas from changing its food stamp policy to restrict the amount of financial assistance provided to illegal aliens. In a January 22, 2012, article, the Kansas City Star had revealed that the state would no longer include illegal aliens in its calculations of the amount of assistance to be provided low-income Hispanic families in order to prevent discrimination against legal recipients.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in August 2012, include the following:

* March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”

* August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.

* February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.

* March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”

* February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

As far back as 2006, in its Corruption Chronicles blog, Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA was spending taxpayer money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, CA, at the time even starred in some of the U.S. Government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the Consul assured that receiving food stamps “won’t affect your immigration status.”

In 2012, Judicial Watch reported that in a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s partnership with Mexican consulates to encourage foreign nationals, migrant workers and non-citizen immigrants to apply for food stamps and other USDA administered welfare benefits. Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking,” Sessions wrote, “for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy in the United States.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Confidential, Expensive USDA Sensitivity Training: ‘The Pilgrims Were Illegal Aliens’ (Videos)

Confidential, Expensive USDA Sensitivity Training: ‘The Pilgrims Were Illegal Aliens’ – Daily Caller

Footage of the United States Department of Agriculture’s compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program reveals USDA employees being instructed to refer to the Pilgrims as “illegal aliens” and minorities as “emerging majorities” – at “a huge expense” to taxpayers.

The video clips were made public Thursday evening by the conservative government accountability group Judicial Watch, which obtained them through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made on May 18, 2012.

The clips star Samuel Betances – a diversity instructor with Souder, Betances and Associates – who says in the video that he got his diversity training start under former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In the clips, Betances instructed USDA employees on the proper thinking about diversity and minorities – or, as he called them, “emerging majorities.”

Between requiring the employees to repeat that “every federal agency has discriminated against African-Americans, Hispanics, Native American Indians and other groups,” and a long account of his personal history, Betances encouraged the employees to take note because the presentation is “a huge expense.”

“If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that’s putting the video together, this is a huge expense,” he says in his video.

.

.
In another clip, Betances attempted to dispel the stigma of illegal immigrants by calling the Pilgrims illegal aliens.

“I want you to say that America was founded by outsiders – say that – who are today’s insiders, who are very nervous about today’s outsiders,” he said in the clip.

“I want you to say, ‘The Pilgrims were illegal aliens,'” he continued. “Say, ‘The Pilgrims never gave their passports to the Indians.'”

Throughout the session, Betances had the employees shout “Bam!” to reinforce his points.

.

.
Betances also explained in another clip Judicial Watch highlighted – from the more than three-and-a-half hour video – that he does not like the word “minorities.”

“By the way, I don’t like the word ‘minorities.’ How about ‘emerging majorities’?” he said.

.

.
At times in the video, Betances poked fun at “white males.”

“White males founded the USDA! Say ‘Thank you, white males.’ I know it got stuck, some of you couldn’t get it out,” he said to laughter. “I understand. Let’s try that again. Go ahead.”

“Notice I’m not saying, ‘Thank you for slavery, or sexism, or what happened to the indigenous Native American folks.’ I’m saying thank you for what? I’m saying, ‘Thank you for establishing the agency in which those of us that are not white males seek to play a larger role,'” Betances said in a faux giddy manner, before explaining that unity begins with gratitude, before turning to grievances. “We’ve got grievances!,” he said. “This institution, like all federal institutions, have not been fair.”

.

.
The training videos were supposed to be kept secret: Judicial Watch describes an Oct. 10, 2011 email exchange in which USDA Training Administrator Vincent Loran requested the training video from Betances and promised it will never get out.

“It will not be used for or show [sic] in any way shape or form,” Judicial Watch quotes Loran as writing.

“This USDA diversity training video depicts out-of-control political correctness,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Can someone please explain how any of this helps USDA employees to better serve the American taxpayer? This video further confirms that politically correct diversity-training programs are both offensive and a waste of taxpayer money. No wonder it took over half a year to obtain this video from the Obama administration.”

In April 2009, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a memo to all agency employees announcing “a new era of civil rights,” and instructed the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights “to lead a comprehensive program to improve USDA’s record on civil rights and move us into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider,” a USDA press release reads. Part of that “cultural transformation” included instituting civil rights training.

Judicial Watch notes that in 2011 and 2012, USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000.

Last October, when Judicial Watch first became aware of the training program through a FOIA request, a USDA spokesman told Fox News that the training was meant to increase diversity awareness, and was well-received by the employees.

“USDA offers a number of optional workshops and professional development opportunities in order to help employees better serve our customers,” the statement said. “The Souder Betances & Associates sessions were designed to foster overall diversity awareness – not to focus on any specific minority group – and received positive feedback from employees across the department,” the statement read.

See the session in it’s entirety: Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Election Over, USDA Cuts Ohio Food Stamps Aid

Election Over, USDA Cuts Ohio Food Stamps Aid – Sweetness & Light

……..

From the Toledo Blade:

Ohioans’ food stamp aid to be reduced

Benefit to fall $50 a month starting in January

BY KATE GIAMMARISE | November 12, 2012

Ohio families receiving food stamps could get an unwelcome surprise come January: $50 less every month in assistance.

For the 869,000 households enrolled in the program for the poorest Ohioans, that could amount to about $520 million annually out of the grocery budgets.

The Messiah giveth and the Messiah taketh away. Once he’s been safely re-elected.

Because of the way the federal government calculates utility expenses for people receiving the benefit, a mild winter nationwide last year, and a lower price for natural gas, many families could experience a significant cut in aid, those familiar with the program say…

You see? Global warming saves money!

Note that this is being done by the federal government. Obama. Not the state government which is run by evil Republicans. A casual reader might miss that subtle point, since it is barely mentioned.

And this is the thanks the locals get for stealing the election for Obama. And it is going to hit the most hardcore Obama supporters the hardest. Those loyal foot soldiers who probably voted their hearts out for Obama who knows how many times.

“They are going to increase hunger among our most vulnerable – working families, seniors, children, and persons with disabilities,” said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks…

What’s called the “standard utility allowance” – the amount deducted from a person’s income when the state determines his or her eligibility for the food stamp program – will decrease by $166 for 2013, translating to about $50 less per household in food assistance. State Job and Family Services officials tried to appeal the change to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but the USDA denied the request.

USDA officials did not respond to requests from The Blade for comment…

Don’t they care about increasing the food stamp rolls now that the elections are over?

“This is a federal issue,” said Joel Potts, executive director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Directors’ Association…

Jack Frech, director of the Athens County Department of Job and Family Services in southeastern Ohio, said the loss of funds will cause a true hardship… “These are folks that have already fallen off the fiscal cliff.” Mr. Frech added that many of his agency’s clients are not affected by lower natural gas prices. “The majority of folks [here] don’t heat with natural gas in the first place,” he said. “They heat with fuel oil and propane.”

The Rev. Steve Anthony, executive director of Toledo Area Ministries, said, “It will put a strain on all organizations that provide emergency food… We can’t pull food or money out of thin air.”…

Since when?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

USDA Uses Spanish ‘Soaps’ To Push Food Stamps

USDA Uses Spanish ‘Soaps’ To Push Food Stamps – Sweetness & Light

From the Daily Caller:

USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens

By Caroline May | 07/12/2012

The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HOPE PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.

The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.

“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HOPE PARK.'”…

While the United States Department of Agriculture encourages its outreach partners not to stereotype SNAP applicants, the agency’s use of novelas is notable. The USDA is not promoting an equivalent English-language drama series and telenovelas are a popular form of entertainment in Latin American countries and a culturally relevant way to appeal to potential applicants.

For the record, Spanish soap operas are wildly popular. Far more so than ‘Anglo’ soaps ever were.

The radio novelas are available on USDA’s website for state and local outreach partners to use as public service announcements…

In addition to the Spanish-language outreach, the USDA is also pushing to get non-citizens enrolled in the program. The radio novelas overcome one of the hurdles the agency has identified as hampering participation: “lack of knowledge” about the program.

“Although many non-citizens are now eligible for SNAP, SNAP participation has been historically low among eligible non-citizen households,” reads a 2011 Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility. “In 2008, the participation rate for non-citizens was 51% and the rate for citizen children living with non-citizen adults was 55% as compared to the national participation rate of 67% among all eligible individuals.”

While USDA is targeting non-citizens for SNAP participation, the agency stresses that illegals are not eligible for benefits…

How would anyone know whether the applicants are legal or not. The USDA can’t ask for photo IDs. That would be racist.

Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow on welfare and family issues, noted that while illegals are officially barred from participation, the legal children of illegals are eligible for benefits, creating mixed households with the potential to be intertwined with benefit programs.

Rector added that promotions such the radio novelas are part of the current process of assimilation into American culture. “The culture [non-citizens] are assimilating into is the culture of welfare dependence,” Rector explained to TheDC…

Which, of course, is the plan. The Democrats figure that once they get someone dependent on welfare, they are theirs for life.

In the 1970s, one in 50 Americans were on food stamps – today that figure is one in seven. SNAP spending has doubled since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.

There is no denying that Democrats; plan is working. In a sane world, they would be universally castigated.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Who says President Obama wants MORE Americans on Food Stamps?

President Obama does! Is it me, or is this administration all about getting as many of us dependent on government as possible?

One in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the government is pushing to enroll more — in many instances working to overcome Americans’ “pride,” self-reliance or failure to see a need.

“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”

The USDA has adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” A 2011 Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits.

The Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10 percent.

“Hearing from the outreach worker that benefits could be used to purchase seeds and plants for their gardens turned out to be a very important strategy in counteracting what they described as ‘mountain pride’ and appealed to those who wished not to rely on others,” the document explains. “Eventually, many accepted assistance from the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary program, and others, in some cases doubling a household’s net income. In 1 year, SNAP participation increased over 10 percent.”

Remember this, the Democrats goal is to slowly enslave us to the federal government. The end game is to ensure that a majority of Americans will vote Democrat, because we will be dependent on these programs, or government jobs.

Your Nanny State Intrusion of the Day!

Today, it is the story of a school encroaching upon parental rights, via Hot Air

Remember last year when a Chicago school flatly forbade kids from bringing in homepacked lunches? A school in North Carolina has a different approach: You can bring the lunch mom packed for you, but if it doesn’t meet the USDA guidelines, you’ll be marched to the cafeteria to eat a “healthy” lunch instead — and mom will be billed for the extra expense.

The punchline? Mom’s lunch actually did meet the guidelines in this case.

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…

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

It turns out that the lunch did, in fact, meet the standards. But that is not the meat, pardon the pin of the story. The parents ought to decide what the kids take to lunch, not the morons in our school systems. And please, spare me the “but some parents might not pack a healthy lunch” BS. First of all, define “healthy”. Go to a bookstore sometime and look at the diet section. So many different books, written by so many different “experts” with so many different definitions of “healthy”. And you actually think we can trust bureaucrats to decide what is healthy? Good luck with that!

Besides, the government has more important things to do. Like warning us of the inherent dangers of sand castles

A new EPA study says that building sandcastles is hazardous to your health.
The White House Dossier reported, via FOX Nation:

A new study performed by the EPA has determined that playing in the sand at the beach can make you sick.

In an article titled “Digging in Beach Sand Linked to Increased Risk of Gastrointestinal Illness,” the EPA cites a intensive study performed by EPA researchers and other scientists which found that your risk of getting sick might increase after playing in the sand.

How did any one of us ever survive to adulthood without these Nanny Staters to protect us?

Is it racism? Or just a nasty case of Cat Scratch Fever?

Chris of Wyblog helps me help you to help yourself understand the key differences! I offer a few helpful hints but go check out Chris’ spost to view them all.

Members of the New Black Panthers wielding billy clubs intimidated white voters in Philadelphia while proclaiming the era of “black power”? Not racism. And you’re a racist for thinking otherwise. Unless you’re Bob Scheiffer; then you’re just a moron.

Criticizing President Obama? Racism!

Criticizing President Obama’s policies? Racism!

A USDA official telling an NAACP crowd that even though her job required it, she refused to help a poor white farmer, instead fobbing him off on “his own kind”. Standing ovation, and an award.

Pointing out her hypocrisy? Racism!

And this, of course, is a bad case of Cat Scratch Fever!