Chicago Public School Kids told NO HOMEMADE LUNCH FOR YOU

[OntarioVanMan]

While I'm not a fan of the morning breakfast program, I don't believe everyone it helps is necessarily on the public dole. There are poor people who don't receive gubmint bennies.

I understand Hawk....but isn't that where food banks come in? Where if I want to help those not so well off, I do so at my choice and not the government?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I understand Hawk....but isn't that where food banks come in? Where if I want to help those not so well off, I do so at my choice and not the government?

Nope... I agree with you. It is still ultimately up to the parents to feed their chirlins in the morning. Even more so if you're on welfare, cause you don't have a job to worry about. What has the government really done to help the situation? All they've accomplished is to make more people dependent on them.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

way back in the 80's recession...my kids were small in school...they(government/school board) my kids were put into the breakfast program without even consulting me...it was naturally thought I could not afford to feed them....I worked 2 jobs and had the ability to feed them..I was so embarrassed by this decision that I made an issue of it and puled my kids from the program...just after that I had a visit from a social agency for a home inspection...which I passed with flying colours...

 

[Dabus1952]

Listen I dont mine helping out a family ,who worked there whole life .Then fell on hard times due to job loss. The truth of the matter is that many of the people getting handouts are 3rd and 4th generation welfare familys.They are the same one's who get free healthcare, reduced breakfast and lunch in school .A food card for there home grocery shopping.{ cant give them food stamps no more to humiliating }The same one's who receive free bus passes in large cities if no school bus is availble.Not to mention earned income credit on there taxes at the end of year, even tho there not employed or work very minumum hours as to not stop the free Goverment Money.At the end of the day it's called entitlement ,give me ,give me, give me. Well its time to stop giving.Let these folks step up to the plate and become parents.Be the keeper of there children.

 

[cheri1122]

Listen I dont mine helping out a family ,who worked there whole life .Then fell on hard times due to job loss. The truth of the matter is that many of the people getting handouts are 3rd and 4th generation welfare familys.They are the same one's who get free healthcare, reduced breakfast and lunch in school .A food card for there home grocery shopping.{ cant give them food stamps no more to humiliating }The same one's who receive free bus passes in large cities if no school bus is availble.Not to mention earned income credit on there taxes at the end of year, even tho there not employed or work very minumum hours as to not stop the free Goverment Money.At the end of the day it's called entitlement ,give me ,give me, give me. Well its time to stop giving.Let these folks step up to the plate and become parents.Be the keeper of there children.

Dabus: I'm betting you can't back those statements up with facts about who is collecting welfare, food stamps, etc - you just repeat the same tired myths that "everybody knows", right?
Or have you actually researched the subject, so you know what you're talking about?
Why do you believe what you claim?

 

[cheri1122]

Are you sure about that? I remember reading that the right to vote was limited to being white, male, and a landowner. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson came along and changed it to white, male, and has a pulse.

Personally, I think the founding fathers had it right. They saw it as being a responsible citizen to own land, and thus to vote. I don't think it should go quite that far today, but some people who vote clearly should not be able to.

Yes, Hawk, I'm sure. They debated the subject, as some felt like you say, but ultimately decided a person's right to vote should not depend upon financial status.
Good thing, as the housing and banking crises have changed "The American Dream" - now we are told that some people just can't afford to own a home, and should resign themselves to renting their whole lives.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Yes, Hawk, I'm sure. They debated the subject, as some felt like you say, but ultimately decided a person's right to vote should not depend upon financial status.
Good thing, as the housing and banking crises have changed "The American Dream" - now we are told that some people just can't afford to own a home, and should resign themselves to renting their whole lives.

We're both wrong. It was left up to the states to decide who was eligible to vote in each state. Most states took up a property clause, so most poor whites could not vote. It wasn't until Jackson and his "Common man" declaration made it law that poverty among whites was not a disqualifying reason.

I don't believe property should be the catalyst of who should vote or not. But welfare should be. For the mice to get to vote on who gets the cheese is just ridicules.

 

[skyraider]

You all need to go to a public elementary school and see the food they serve and observe who is eating. Grades 1 through 3 are usually staring into the wild blue yonder. I had 3 grandsons in elementary at one time, we sent their lunch with them. I wouldn't eat the junk served at the school. This was in Chattanooga tn. What ever happened to pinto beans, corn on the cob, real rolls,green beans,fried chicken, Lima beans, and so on. IMHO> Usually u can read the menu in your local paper on what is served at your childs school.

 

[AMonger]

In a lot of ways, yes. But a LOT of parents are failing too - and there's no accountability for them. At least the schools have some oversight.

Schools...oversight for parents... Maybe in Superman's Bizzaro-world. Not in this universe.
Children belong to their parents, period. There aren't enough resources on the planet to undo all the bad things done to children or do the good things left undone, and it would be wrong to do it, anyway.

Once you start down that road, there's no stopping.

 

[AMonger]

LOL

How can a five year old (or any young age) take responsibility for what they are given to eat

They can't, just as they can't take responsibility for their healthcare or lack thereof, the toys they're given or allowed to play with, what they're allowed to watch on TV, the time they go to bed, the adequacy of the clothes they do or don't have, or the degree to which they're supervised overall. And yes, all these things will affect their adult lives. But there's no substitute for parents raising children. The government is neither capable, qualified, nor authorized to raise everybody's kids. Your senator didn't get a wisdom enhancement when he was elected; he's every bit the dumb @$$ he was before. Yet because he's a public official, he's now qualified to tell you how to raise your children?

Look at this picture.

Well, bummer. I can't find the picture I was looking for. It was of a poor, white trash girl, maybe 6 years old, with a filthy face and filthy clothes, hair that hadn't been washed, combed, or cut lately, with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth. The picture appears to have been taken by (I'm guessing) her father, presumably because he thought it was cute, when it's really pathetic. It's really sad to contemplate her future.

But as sad as it is, should the state raise her? Should the state raise any of these other kids?









Here's what happens when the state decides they know better than you how to raise your kids. By all means, let's have more of this.

Stormtroopers and Child-Snatchers

The Nanny State Goes to War: Paramilitary Police lay siege to Maryanne Goldbodo's Detroit Home.

Ariana Goldboldo, a mentally handicapped 13-year-old, was abducted from her home at gunpoint on March 24. Her captors have systematically poisoned her through injections of a dangerous psychoactive drug. There is also reason to believe that Ariana, who has reportedly tested positive for an STD, has been molested during her time in captivity.

Ariana's mother, Maryanne, made a valiant but futile effort to protect her daughter. As a result, she may end up in prison. If this happens, Ariana almost certainly won't survive. [FONT=&quot]Godboldo, a college dance instructor, had attempted to school her daughter at home, but eventually decided to place the youngster in a local government school. This meant that the girl would have to undergo a government-dictated suite of vaccinations. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Shortly after receiving the injections, the girl experienced severe side-effects, including behavioral problems she hadn’t previously experienced. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When Godboldo consulted with local health and welfare officials, she was told that her daughter would have to receive regular injections of Risperdal, supposedly to counteract the effects of the other government-mandated vaccinations. This is a bit like prescribing cancer to treat diabetes. Among the documented side-effects of that drug are tardive dyskinesia (difficulty with basic motor skills) and severe emotional problems – including suicidal thoughts. When Godboldo’s long-suffering child began to display those symptoms, the mother refused to continue with the injections.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The local “child protection” bureaucracy – which, like all other agencies of its kind, subscribes to the totalitarian assumption that children are the property of the state – decreed that Godboldo was "in denial about her daughter's mental health issue." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There's no evidence that Godboldo disputed the seriousness of her daughter's condition; as Ariana's primary caretaker, she understood it very well. She had very reasonable doubts about the competence of the therapeutic officials who were forcing Ariana to undergo injections of a potentially lethal drug. But it is impermissible for parents to entertain such reservations about the wisdom of those clothed in the purported authority of the State, or to resist their prescriptions, whatever their efficacy. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sure, Ariana might die or be driven irretrievably mad as a result of government-mandated treatment -- but this was a decision for the Anointed Ones to make, and for parents to accept with proper docility. Accordingly, the CPS authorized itself to “liberate” Godboldo’s daughter in order to continue poisoning her with Risperdal injections. A small team of government kidnappers – CPS workers and Detroit Police officers – materialized on Godboldo’s doorstep, demanding that she surrender the child. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"They broke into my home illegally in an effort to take my daughter," Godboldo recalls. "They had no documentation that said they were allowed to enter my home."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Godboldo, acting on her natural authority as a parent to protect her child, refused to let the kidnappers take her daughter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When Godboldo refused to let CPS take her daughter, a home invasion team -- led, appropriately, by a veteran of the Iraq occupation, Lt. Michael Nied -- forced its way into the home. Nied claims that Godboldo fired a gunshot that sprayed him with drywall residue and made his little heart quiver. He and his fellow heroes retreated and called in a "barricaded gunman situation." A ten-hour siege then ensued. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Prudential considerations aside, Godboldo would have been within her rights to gun down the kidnappers, had she possessed the means to do so. She hadn't committed a criminal offense, and the police didn't bother to bring along one of those cunning little permission slips judges reflexively issue any time police want to invade a home. In moral and legal terms they were no better than any other gang of armed intruders.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Eventually a paramilitary SWAT team – complete with automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, and helicopters – was dispatched to surround Godboldo’s home. The mother eventually surrendered and was put in jail on a $500,000 bond. Although Maryanne was released on bail, her daughter remains in the custody of her abductors, undergoing forcible injections of a drug that is slowly destroying her body and mind -- and, quite possibly, being subjected to sexual violation as well.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Godboldo can take a small measure of comfort in the fact that Ariana -- unlike Aiyana Jones, who was murdered by a Detroit SWAT team in a gratuitous raid staged for a "reality TV" program a year ago -- is still alive. But the risk to that child increases with every minute she remains in the custody of Michigan's child "protection" service. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Last year, Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ presented a detailed report on the murder of 10-year-old Johnny Andron, a child suffering from epilepsy and cerebral palsy who was seized by the state and starved to death in what was referred to as a "foster care facility." Johnny's mother Elena, a single parent, devoted most of her free time to caring for her wheelchair-bound son. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After she lost her factory job, Elena made the tragic error of seeking "help" from the child "welfare" system, which makes a federally subsidized profit each time it steals a child from his parents. Johnny was made a "temporary ward of the state," a judicial designation that was tantamount to a death sentence. The same was true of Elena's parental rights, since the same ruling placed her on a central registry of "abusive" and "neglectful" parents. She was placed inside the hamster wheel of government-approved "parenting classes" taught by profiteering busybodies who've attached themselves like boxcars to the federal gravy train.

For months, Elena struggled to find and keep a new job while dutifully attending classes that did nothing but clutter her schedule. During the same period she watched her son, who had been a hefty child but -- considering his disabilities -- a healthy one, slowly waste away through deliberate criminal neglect. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Infuriated that her child was being tortured to death through starvation, Elena dared to complain. This action was taken as evidence of her unsuitability to be a parent. She was summoned to court and informed by a black-robed functionary that she wouldn't be permitted any further visits with her son. She had no further contact with Johnny, and no updates on his status until a representative of the criminal syndicate that had taken him hostage announced to her that he had died. [/FONT]
​

Mike Ratte nearly lost his seven-year-old son into Michigan's foster-care gulag after mistakenly allowing the child to take a sip from a beverage called Mike's Hard Lemonade during a Tigers game in 2008. Ratte, a professor of archeology at the University of Michigan, didn't know that the product contained alcohol. Since the sign advertising the drink described it only as "Mike's Lemonade," Ratte assumed that it was merely an overpriced soft drink.

Leo took a sip of the beverage, immediately found it distasteful, and place the bottle on the floor near his bleacher seat. Shortly before the game ended a Comerica Park security guard waddled over, picked up the bottle, and asked Ratte if his son had been drinking from it.

Although Reed was puzzled by the question, he replied in the affirmative. His puzzlement mutated into alarm when he was told that the "lemonade" was actually an alcoholic drink. The guard demanded that Ratte and his son remain seated while a scrum of his buddies assembled to escort them to a police substation located in the stadium. When questioned by the police, Ratte admitted -- once again -- that Leo had taken a swig of the drink, repeating as well his insistence that this was an innocent mistake. Anybody burdened with even a particle of common sense would recognize this as the truth. If Mike Ratte were perversely determined to get his son drunk, would he do so in public? If questioned about this, would such a person admit that his son had sampled the forbidden libation?

Anybody capable of making an EEG needle twitch would recognize that this was an honest mistake, not a crime. (Another Michigan family recently had a similar but scarier experience, due to a mix-up at an Applebee's restaurant.) This was made all the more obvious when an exam confirmed that Leo wasn't intoxicated. But this didn't prevent the police from doing what they are programmed to do in such circumstances, which is to use any available pretext to kidnap the child.

As described in a civil complaint filed on behalf of the family, Mike and Leo were forced to take an ambulance ride to a nearby hospital, where Leo was forced to endure a blood test that confirmed the absence of alcohol in his body. While his son was being needlessly bled and perforated, Mike was taken to a separate room and questioned by Officer Celeste Reed of the Detroit Police Department's Child Abuse Division. This wasn't an investigation; it was a dilatory maneuver. Reed was simply waiting until the child-snatchers had worked out the details of the abduction.

When she finally acknowledged to Ratte that she and her comrades were going to steal his son, Reed played the Nuremberg Defense card, blaming a superior who was "pushing this case to impress her new boss." Once Leo was in custody, however, Reed took the initiative, perjuriously claiming in her report that officers had "observed [Leo] to be intoxicated."

Leo was sequestered from his family and put into temporary foster care while the CPS bureaucracy labored to find some way to make their abduction permanent. The "referee" assigned to the case announced that she would keep it open for a week. However, Mike and his wife -- unlike most of the families victimized by the child-snatchers -- were people of means and influence. With the help of a capable attorney they were able to free their son after a mere two days' captivity.

"Class has something to do with the fact that the child was only in care for two days," points out Don Duquette, a law professor at the University of Michigan and director of the university's child advocacy center said. "If you're not sophisticated, the system isn't set up to give you very much of a chance to work against the ritual that's ordinarily done."

The "ritual" Duquette refers to is a form of bureaucratic child sacrifice: Families are destroyed, and children are abused under the color of supposed government authority, in order to placate the demands of the tax-feeding class. That ritual can commence at any time, for any reason. And any family can be selected as sacrificial victims. All that is required is the conjunction of an anonymous complaint and a willing bureaucrat. I write those words as a father who has confronted that prospect face-to-face.

The kidnapping of Leo Ratte occurred because his father made a trivial mistake involving a government-restricted mood-altering substance that inflicted no measurable harm on the child.

By way of contrast, Elena Andron and Maryanne Godboldo have been traduced as "neglectful" parents because they sought to preserve their handicapped children from state-sanctioned harm. As a result, Elena's son Johnny is dead, and the same people responsible for that atrocity will quite possibly kill Ariana unless Maryanne is able to rescue her from the child "protection" system.


If Maryanne goes to prison, her daughter will die. At present, her prosecution on assault charges is being held in abeyance pending a ruling from the Michigan State Supreme Court in a case "that will determine if residents have the right to defend themselves from police officers entering a home without proper authority," reports the Detroit News...

Now let's return to the notion that the right to resist arrest has become "outmoded" because of the "procedural safeguards" that supposedly protect criminal defendants. Ariana Godboldo has never been charged with a crime; neither had her mother, until she engaged in a heroic but doomed effort to protect her child from an assault on their home that the prosecution now tacitly admits was unlawful.

As Elena Andron and countless other parents have learned, there are no procedural safeguards for parental rights or the individual rights of children once the CPS intervenes.

The federally subsidized child "protection" universe is a joint production of Lenin, Kafka and Salvador Dali in which power means everything, facts and law mean nothing, and the contours of "reality" are warped in the service of self-enraptured bureaucrats.

Unless a parent is a person of means and influence, like Mike Ratte, active resistance may be the only way to keep his child or children from disappearing into the CPS Archipelago once the family comes to the attention of the child-snatchers. Ideally, this would mean pro-active measures to conceal a targeted child, or to provide for the child's escape in the event the child-nappers arrive.

As the abduction of Ariana Godboldo demonstrates, the child "protection" apparatus is literally at war with American parents, and police are prepared to murder any parent determined to keep his children out of the hands of those who can drug them, starve them, and molest them with impunity.

 

[pjjjjj]

Dabus: I'm betting you can't back those statements up with facts about who is collecting welfare, food stamps, etc - you just repeat the same tired myths that "everybody knows", right?
Or have you actually researched the subject, so you know what you're talking about?
Why do you believe what you claim?

Back up which statements? The things that Dabus said *are* well known facts that most everyone knows, at least I thought they did. Which statements are you in doubt about?

 

[pjjjjj]

way back in the 80's recession...my kids were small in school...they(government/school board) my kids were put into the breakfast program without even consulting me...it was naturally thought I could not afford to feed them....I worked 2 jobs and had the ability to feed them..I was so embarrassed by this decision that I made an issue of it and puled my kids from the program...just after that I had a visit from a social agency for a home inspection...which I passed with flying colours...

Was that in Canada or the US? Why did 'they' think you couldn't afford to feed them? That is sick!

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Was that in Canada or the US? Why did 'they' think you couldn't afford to feed them? That is sick!

Because the kids told the teacher and teacher told social services and so on....in Hamilton Ont.Canada

 

[arrbsthw]

It's not the government's responsibility to tell you what you can and can't feed to your children. Children should be allowed to take a lunch to school because there are some kids that don't like what they serve and would rather do without than eat the food there. I think a lunch from home that a child will eat is better than trying to force him/her to eat something that they won't and be hungry for the rest of the day.

It's not the school lunch that is fattening up American children..it's 200 channels and the internet. No one goes outside to play anymore (and if they did they may wind up kidnapped). There is no Phy Ed in schools anymore. at least not in our schools, they cut recess back to once a day.. What do they expect?

 

[keeneG]

The United States Department of Agriculture has lately been making efforts to move ahead with brand new regulations to make the meals much better. As to what I heard lately, the Senate has obstructed the new USDA regulations, which suggests that potatoes will stay in schools, for now. The amendment specifically prohibits the USDA from setting “any maximum limits on the serving of vegetables in school meal programs.”

 

[layoutshooter]

The United States Department of Agriculture has lately been making efforts to move ahead with brand new regulations to make the meals much better. As to what I heard lately, the Senate has obstructed the new USDA regulations, which suggests that potatoes will stay in schools, for now. The amendment specifically prohibits the USDA from setting “any maximum limits on the serving of vegetables in school meal programs.”

It IS the responsibility of the Congress, House and Senate, to write law. They SHOULD be interfering in regulations put out by mere Departments. It is their JOB to do that! USDA has NO business telling schools, which are state and/or local responsibilites, ANYTHING!

Of course the Congress has NO business in state,or individual matters either. Like, education or what we can OR cannot eat! Talk about government being out of control.

 

[Turtle]

While I applaud you in replying to the post, not the poster, you are, just the same, replying to a spammer with a deleted account.