by Timothy Birdnow

Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, good - can’t you just see the chubby Campbell’s soup kids every time you watch him 1) never makes a move without some ulterior purpose. Our Commander-in-Chef now has his wife, the lovely and dangerously-armed (what gives with this arm obsession in the media?) Michelle cooking up some new liberal scheme to feed his favorite food - greenbacks - to a few of his faithful friends, and he is doing it while claiming to be working for the public welfare.

According to Michelle Malkin (2)

“Behind every seemingly good deed in the Obama White House, there’s a deep-pocketed, left-wing special interest. Take first lady Michelle Obama’s crusade against childhood obesity. Who really benefits from the ostensible push for improved nutrition in the schools? Think purple — as in the purple-shirted army of the Service Employees International Union. Big Labor bigwigs don’t care about slimming your kids’ waistlines. They care about beefing up their membership rolls and fattening their coffers.

Mrs. Obama earned a State of the Union address shout-out from her hubby for taking on the weighty public policy issue of students’ physical fitness. The East Wing is now in full campaign mode — leaning on the nation’s mayors, traveling with the surgeon general and meeting with Congress and cabinet members to reauthorize the Lyndon Johnson-era Child Nutrition Act, which provides government-subsidized meals to more than 30 million children. It’s part of the Obama administration’s self-proclaimed “cradle-to-career” agenda for America’s youth.”

[…]

“What’s in it for Big Labor? SEIU Executive Vice President Mitch Ackerman explains: “A more robust expansion of school lunch, breakfast, summer feeding, child care and WIC (the federal Women, Infants and Children nutrition program) is critical to reducing hunger, ending childhood obesity and (SET ITAL) providing fair wages and healthcare for front line food service workers (END ITAL)(emphasis added).”

There are 400,000 workers who prepare and serve lunch to American schoolchildren. SEIU represents tens of thousands of those workers and is trying to unionize many more. “More robust expansion” of the federal school-lunch law means a mandate for higher wages, increased benefits and government-guaranteed health insurance coverage (the more luxurious the better now that SEIU has negotiated its Cadillac Tax exemption from the Democrats’ health care takeover bill).”

End excerpts

So, big bottoms mean big bucks for Big Labor, and America’s chief cook and bottle emptier can see that his friends have plenty of greens in their diet. Our would-be Caesar has prepared a buffet greenback salad for organized labor.

This is an example of the nose of the camel entering the tent; government can demand the right to control America’s diet because of government schools. Since government funds education government believes (wrongly, as the money to do this funding comes from taxpayers) that they can dictate how children should eat.  Once the premise is established that government feeds our children, then the camel has moved into the tent.

I wrote a piece for American Thinker a number of years back explaining the desire by the Left to control and change the American diet. (3)
I actually did not go far enough; part of the purpose for changing the American diet was - and is - to change our culture, to create a world culture with a world cuisine. There is something in liberals that longs for amalgamation. David Horowitz made that plain in his autobiographical “Radical Son”; his parents wanted worldwide socialism because they felt alienated, and they believed they could create a world where everyone felt part of the society and culture. Of course, their efforts to bring about this uber-community meant a rejection of the society and culture that they lived in, which fostered further alienation, which made them more determined to destroy the culture which led to even more alienation…

Changing our diets has been an integral part of changing our culture; the hope is to create a cuisine that transcends boundaries and cultures, to make Americans feel not so much a part of the American cultural experience as part of a truly international order. What we eat, how we dress, how we speak, what we read and watch, those are the building blocks of who we are and how we see ourselves. If those things can be changed, if a new culture can be created, then these old “tribal” notions can be eroded. Eventually we will be citizens of the world, and then there will be peace and happiness, at least according to the left.

It’s why George Soros’ father was so keen on Esperanto, an artificial language; he wanted to change how we communicate, and even how we think. (Soros means “to soar” in Esperanto.)  It’s part of the popularity among liberals of certain fashions, such as fatigues, or Mao jackets, or Che t-shirts. It explains the campaigns against wearing fur. This is about changing our culture as much as anything.

Now, I have little doubt that Commander-in-Chief Boy-Ardee wants to do this work of remaking America, but should he not find some profit in it as well?  Leftists are great at finding personal priviledge from their altruism, and so the O has found a way for his chums to profit off of changing America’s diet.

If they are worried about weight, perhaps a return to Judeo-Christian values is in order? One of the Seven Deadly Sins was gluttony, after all. If this were about health, the concept of overeating would be front and center. It’s not, which tells me that there is far more than meets the eye.

Welcome to the feeding trough!

Thank you for reading American Daily Review, conservative commentary without compromise.

(1) http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_campbells.htm
(2) http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2010/mm_02031.shtml
(3)  http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html