School lunch czar Michelle Obama touts her food standards as something to be completely admired and embraced in order to combat and reduce childhood obesity. Schoolchildren nationwide are fed bland and unappetizing foods that Michelle – not the kids’ parents – deem appropriate and appetizing. Appropriate it’s not, and as far as appetizing goes, kids throw the food away and return home hungry and agitated after a long day of dumbed-down learning. And so it goes when government overreach extends into issues between parents and their kids.
Like all things Obama, Michelle has a cult-like following, such as those who fawn over her toned biceps or think she’s cool for jamming with a turnip to a play on words of Lil John’s rap, “Turn Down for What,” which, incidentally, promotes toting marijuana, drinking and hard partying. (Are we even surprised?) Michelle’s clueless idolaters give her a pass and nod their empty heads in agreement of anything Michelle orchestrates, including butting into and taking control of student’s lunch menus.
You would think that these same supporters would eagerly comply with Michelle’s dietary plan to help all Americans, not just students. However, when asked by reporter Dan Joseph of MRCTV – a division of Media Research Center – these same admirers thought twice about applying Michelle’s school lunch standards to areas of government aid that directly affect what foods welfare recipients could purchase.
The following video is brilliant!
[jwplayer ajVTEg57]
Here we see some of Michelle’s loyal fan base backpedal when her socialist school lunch program is applied to society overall. Wait; hold up! What’s the deal, Obama-nites? If you applaud and commend Michelle’s school lunch standards, then why not consider the same standards for welfare or SNAP recipients? If, as Michelle states, “We need you to embrace this mission with enthusiasm,” then why not get on board with her to, as her Marxist husband resounds, “fundamentally transform” America’s menus for those who eat government food? I mean, after all, it is being provided free of charge.
Just think: This could be a bonding process as welfare recipients share identical meals with their kids at lunchtime or creatively plan their holiday menus comprised of the two pieces of cauliflower allotted to some students in Oklahoma. Entire welfare/SNAP communities could get together and share the best recipe for crackers and a few slices of lunch-meat at their local government-run community center, or for those technically savvy with Obama phones, on Instagram. Potlucks, birthday parties and other festivities would feature soy “chicken” nuggets and a cube of low-carb veggie cake drizzled with honey in place of frosting.
Why doesn’t Michelle force Sasha and Malia to eat what the public school kids eat? Wouldn’t that be akin to putting your money, or in this case, food, where your mouth is? The Obama girls could be the poster children for their mother’s healthy food agenda instead of eating sumptuous food prepared by on-site chefs, utilizing organic foods as much as possible.
It comes down to this: Some people in society will only wake up when they are forced to. In the case of Obama-nites, it’s perfectly acceptable to go along with the thuggish prez and his ghetto wife on whatever they propose or do on a whim – until it directly affects them in a very personal way, such as food. And I’m not being condescending; Obama is thuggish and Michelle is ghetto. Show me where most of Obama’s actions, associations and legislation don’t depict a thug mentality. And Michelle’s turnip dancing antics are ghetto and not indicative of behavior befitting a first lady (“first fist-bump,” in my book).
The minute Michelle messes with people’s food on a larger scale – and I don’t put it past her – it will be a game changer. I know this to be true. Not too long ago, I was at a beauty shop getting my hair done, and I struck up a conversation with the hairdresser about politics. He – a young, white, gay Obama supporter – was astounded at the levels of control and socialist policy that has been in play since Obama took office. He actually listened to me and asked questions. But the beautician at the next station – a young, white, obese Obama supporter – kept rolling her eyes and rudely huffing and puffing in between bites of junk food and slurps of a Big Gulp drink while on lunch break. She couldn’t contain her frustration. But then the subject of Michelle’s food-czar antics came up, and all regard for the first fist-bump went out the door. The girl almost choked on her greasy food as she blurted out, “She better not even try to tell me what to eat!” And one look at her told me she meant every word as she angrily devoured her fries.
This girl could care less about the Obamas’ disregard for constitutional principles, American lives or the expansive deficit as long as they don’t mess with her food, because then it’s game on. And the same can probably be said for those in the MRCTV video—although they give a more thoughtful reply. I understand that his question is hypothetical, but it proves that given a choice in this matter, people, no matter whom they vote for, aren’t down for being told what Americans can and cannot eat, even if the government is footing the bill. It would start with welfare recipients, then extend to other classes of Americans.
If Michelle Obama even dares to attempt to socialize food consumption on a grand scale, Secret Service had better immediately whisk her and her turnip away to a safe, undisclosed location, because her fan base will turn out en masse and turn against her.
Turn up for what, again, Michelle?
Media wishing to interview Selena Owens, please contact [email protected].
|
