First Lady, Michelle Obama, has taken it upon herself to help save our children from us, their parents. If you hadn't heard, Michelle is on a health food kick for our children. She is determined to make sure our kids eat well when at school. Why? From what she says, because our kids are being fed the wrong kinds of foods, like McDonald's and birthday cakes. Though she did recently agree to allow them to eat fatty foods for the holidays, so long as they make up for it after the holidays. It seems Mama Mo is determined to teach us all how to be good parents.
Michelle's keynote piece of legislation, a $4.5Billion program to revamp our schools' lunch programs, was recently signed into law by her husband, the smoker in-chief. Amongst the many provisions of the bill, aside from increasing funding to school lunch and dinner programs, and forcing our kids to eat healthier foods during those meals, it conveniently restricts the use of such events as bake sales to raise money for smaller school programs. It isn't quite clear yet how many bake sales a school will be permitted to hold each year before their quota will be exceeded. Though that would assuredly be worked out in the regulatory process.
Forgive me for making fun of this situation. Every first lady has their pet projects. Aside from then First Lady Hillary Clinton's pet universal health care project, back in 1993, no First Lady has ever been so ambitious. Especially in a time when we don't have $4.50 cents to our country's name, let alone another $4.5 billion.
The real crux of my complaint against this program is not in the benevolence of it. Rather, I take issue with Michelle Obama placing herself, or in the very least, placing the United States government into my parental shoes and telling me how to raise my kids.
Today, in touting the signing of the bill, Michelle had the audacity to say, “Nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children. Nothing.” Really, MO, "nothing"?
There is one little glitch is MO's proclamation that nothing is more important than the health and well being of our children. Though that may be a true statement concerning us as parents, it is NOT true with regards to the obligations and duties of our government. If that were the case, there would at least be something to that effect SOMEWHERE in the Constitution, don't you think? It is OUR duty and OUR obligation and OUR right to determine what is best for those for whom we are responsible. Only when we fail in those duties and obligations, and the life and liberty of our children become at grave risk is the government even remotely responsible for stepping in.
The problem with our society today is that we've allowed the far left to define our national conscience for us. They determine that some poor souls who lost their home in a fire in Georgetown should receive federal aid. And who are we to say those people should not be helped? They decide that the widow of a veteran of war should receive additional compensation because she just can't afford to live the way she used to before her husband died. And who are we to deny Congress the right to dip into the treasury to help her? (Google the story of the Georgetown Fire and Davy Crockett to read about this or just click here)
They decide that the families of those who perished trying to save others on 9/11 should receive billions of dollars in compensation and aid. And who would dare to challenge Congress is their philanthropic venture? Last summer, NY Congressman, Anthony Weiner made an impassioned plea on the floor of the House for several billion dollars more to be given to the victims and surviving families of the attacks of 9/11. When I questioned him on it, through a Facebook email, a conversation ensued between him and myself lasting several days. You can read the entirety of the conversation in one of my blogs here. It left me dumbfounded as to where in the world people like that feel that obtained any right or authority to simply use the public treasury for whatever cause them deem worthy.
When a massive earthquake struck Haiti, and two former presidents pleaded with Americans to send all they could to help these poor souls, Americans jumped in with both feet, as we do every time. They, our government, decided that millions of homeless victims of a massive earthquake in Haiti should be given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid because we, the American people, would want to help them...so why shouldn't Congress just do it for us?
Why shouldn't they? Because it's not THEIR job. Because we, their employers, did not afford them the liberty to use OUR money in any manner not already expressly delineated in the Constitution. We did not appoint them as our conscience and our personal philanthropic arm.
When Davy Crockett was confronted by one of his Kentucky constituents after he voted, like everyone else in Congress, to help the poor victims of the Georgetown fire, he became acutely aware, for the first time in his life, that he has no authority to use one dime of the public treasury for what amounts to little more than a charitable endeavor.
When Congress appropriated, in 1887, money to aid Texas farmers who were suffering through a drought, then President, Grover Cleveland, vetoed the bill, stating,
"I feel obligated to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of the individual suffering which is in no manner related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."
The penchant for the left to compel the public to support government involvement in aiding those of less fortune than most, or to engage in restructuring general public mores to suit their own ideal of what our world should be like, through force of government, is reprehensible at best, and potentially criminal as it violates the fundamental tenets of the founding of our country, that, though we, as a civilized society, may need the benefits of a government which brings about an equity of opportunity, we are far better served without a government that impunes our personal liberty by imposition.
There is no question that I, as a parent, consider my family's well-being to be my sacred duty and privilege. I do not need, nor want...nor have I authorized Congress nor the First Lady of the United States, to act on my behalf in fulfilling this duty. The First Lady is far within her rights to use the pulpit granted her through her husband's election to espouse, encourage and enlighten the public concerning the issues of health and obesity amongst our children. But she oversteps her bounds by using her position and by manipulating the benevolent nature of the American people to impose her views upon us all.