THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Nanny Government strikes again. Mrs. Obama along with the Obama do-goodies are trying to tell everyone what is good for them and are saying they are going to take care of our health and welfare. Obama goes on to say - -"he's doing what is right for our children." That's a cop out. It's an excuse to pass a measure that grabs more power for governmental control. Obama family, I would suggest:" The parents know what's right for their children," not the President, the first lady or the government.
It wasn't too long ago that the actions by Mrs. Obama and her views as to what's good for a child resulted in the city of San Francisco banning toys in fast food meals. Their theory - -stop the child from seeing and receiving a toy and that will stop the child from wanting to eat a small hamburger or chicken fingers during the family outing.
President Obama signed a bill into law last Monday that he says will combat childhood obesity and the law allows him and his government to decide what foods are "greasy" and what food has "extra calories". Obama's plan is to take over control of all of the food that is served in schools and what food products are sold on school grounds, including in vending machines and at fundraisers. The law gives the government the power to decide what kind of foods will be served in every school across the land.
Interference by the government should not extend to an individuals right to choose and make informed decisions. Telling a person what they can or cannot eat and drink does just that. There should be limits on government and the government should have limited power, NOT UNLIMITED power. Power corrupts people. It should be a parental decision as to what their child eats. Where are the parents outrage.? Do the parents really want the government to raise their kids for them? Does the parents want to let the government usurp their role in raising their children?
I submit that if a parent decides that their child is eating too many, fries, burgers, sweets, sodas, etc., it is their job to advise their child to cut back and it is their job to deny the child the food that they believe is harmful to that child.
At this point in time the government is basically telling corporations like
McDonalds, Wendy's Jack-In-The Box and others, including restaurants, what foods they can and cannot sell in their stores and how that food is to be prepared. The government is also telling soft drink manufacturers that their product are a danger to children when in reality, they are not.
The irony is that these same fat cat politicians and lawmakers were brought up on the same foods and drinks they are restricting and banning. They ate the fries, the burgers,and drank the sodas and they turned out to be contributing members of society. Yet, these same hypocrites want to tell the parents of today that everything they themselves had access to and indulged in is now "bad" for the parent and their children. Are you kidding me? Political correctness run amok.
People, the danger IS excessive eating and/or drinking. When anyone, whether a child or adult eats two or three burgers, or three or four packs of fries or two or three 72 oz cartons of soda at one sitting, THAT - - is the problem. It's not the one child's meal at fast food or adult burger and the one pack of fries or one soda. The key is "moderation", nothing more. Plus, exercise at school. Whatever happened to recess and physical education in the schools. Let the kids work off the calories through those programs.
This 4.5 billion dollar measure also increases federal reimbursement for free school lunches because many schools across the country say they cannot afford to give free lunches to children. These free give-a-ways are unwarranted.
This measure on nutrition allows schools to provide not only free lunches, but after school snacks and dinner. What? It's now the job of the government to feed all the children in the country by providing "free" lunch and dinner? Once again, where's the parents? The parents can't fix a nutritious meal for their children after school? And, believe it or not, there are some in Congress now that wants to extend the free lunches, the free after school meals to the week-ends.They actually want to feed the children on the week-ends when they are not even in school. What a joke.
If these programs were only for a needy child that could prove that their parents cannot afford to fix a lunch, that's fine but once one child gets a free meal, every parent that has a child in school wants their child to receive a free meal also. It never ends. And to extend these free meals to after school dinners - why? Free lunch and dinner on the week-ends - why? Where does it end?
As it stands now we taxpayers are subsidizing parents that are working and earning a living wage and we are paying for their child to each free, lunches,after school dinners and week-ends feedings.
My view,- a free lunch for those children up through elementary school grades that can provide paperwork to show that their parents are unemployed and have no funds to provide a lunch for their child/children.That's it!
For those parents that are working it is their duty and obligation to house and feed their children.It is not the government or the taxpayers job to provide free meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner, (seven days a week) for "all" of the Junior High or High School children in this country. These freebie social "I'll look out after you" programs have to end. And, -that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment