Kids Just Created Black Markets To Sell This In School Due To Michelle O’s Lunch Rules

As Western Journalism has extensively reported, nutritional mandates placed on public schools by the federal government – and with the support of Michelle Obama – have failed miserably in numerous districts across the U.S. Students complain that the new meals are unappetizing and too small while administrators lament the increased preparation cost and spike in food waste.

Disgruntled kids have already made their opinions known via social media, where many students posted images of and complaints about the meals they were being served. When this activism did not achieve the desired result, recent reports indicate students began establishing black markets to trade foods – particularly spices – heavily regulated under the current guidelines.

One Indiana school board president explained that kids in his district “have been caught bringing – and even selling – salt, pepper and sugar in school to add taste to perceived bland and tasteless cafeteria food.”

Describing these deals as part of a “contraband economy,” John S. Payne said that this development is one of several to “reinforce the call for flexibility” as it relates to nutritional restrictions.

He went on to lament other consequences he has noticed throughout the Blackford County School District since the new regulations went into effect.

“Students are avoiding cafeteria food,” he said, noting that those who do purchase school lunches refuse to eat the very types of foods Obama has been pushing as part of her campaign against childhood obesity.

Similar trends are being reported in districts across the nation. Dr. Lynn Harvey oversees the nutrition program for 1.5 million North Carolina public school students. As such, she has noticed a marked increase in wasted food and a staggering drop in school breakfast participation.

Should schools be forced to serve meals that increase both cost and waste? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Michelle’s Lunch Rules Are Backfiring In A Big Way, And 55,000 Lunch Ladies Aren’t Happy

As Congress begins the process of considering whether to re-authorize First Lady Michelle Obama’s woefully unpopular school lunch requirements, forces are building to turn back the rules because fewer kids are participating in school lunch programs, there are higher levels of food waste being recorded, and school administrators are even finding more kids running to nearby fast food or convenience stores to load up on the food they like.

The Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act–the law pushing Obama’s nutrition requirements–is certainly unpopular with kids, but the law is also not a hit with school administrators or lunchroom personnel.

Last week, the 55,000 members of the School Nutrition Association lobbied against Michelle’s strict requirements, saying that what many kids call “starvation” lunches are having very unfortunate and unintended consequences. With the First Lady’s lunches being so unpopular, food waste is at an all time high as kids throw away Michelle’s unappetizing servings.

Additionally, as SNA member Debbie Beauvais notes, kids are sneaking to local stores to get the food they would rather eat.

“We have a new problem where we have to police the front doors,” Beauvais recently said. “Security is turning into a concierge because fast food trucks are pulling up. Kids are texting the local pizzeria and pizzas are showing up at lunch.”

As for the food waste, just in her district, Beauvais said that the vegetable mandate alone led to $25,834 in food waste.

As The Hill recently reported, “Of the students who are eating the school lunch, Beauvais said 23 percent are throwing away the half-cup of fruit or vegetables they are forced to take, which cost on average 26 cents each. With $112,320 spent on 432,000 cups of fruit or vegetables served a year, that’s $25,834 wasted.”

This cost is compounded to millions of dollars of food waste in schools across the country.

The SNA’s 55,000 school lunch workers insist that Obama’s starvation lunches are a big problem. The SNA wants to retool Obama’s program to give schools the flexibility to “allow schools to prepare healthy meals students will eat.”

Not everyone involved in school nutrition is calling for a complete end to the program, though. In a very politic manner, Lynn Harvey, chief of school nutrition services at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, tried to sound upbeat about the idea behind the program.

“I think right off the bat we admitted that the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act has created a lot of positive change in school meals and we certainly don’t want to roll back school meal standards to where we were prior to the implementation,” Harvey said.

But even Harvey insisted that having more flexibility to act would be preferable to the from-the-top, overly strict requirements that Obama’s school lunch program imposes on schools.

Whatever happens, First Lady Michelle Obama is moving full speed ahead with her unpopular rules and has said that she will fight for her program “until the bitter end.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

School Principal Posts This About McKinney On Facebook, Loses Job Almost Immediately

According to a recent Miami Herald report, one local high school principal lost his job after posting his opinion of a video depicting an interaction between a McKinney, Texas, police officer and a teenage suspect. The footage has sparked protests and demonstrations, making it the latest hotbed of civil unrest tied to perceived racism within the law enforcement community.

Former North Miami Senior High School Principal Alberto Iber, however, was one of many who believed the officer involved, Cpl. Eric Casebolt, was likely justified in his use of force.

“He did nothing wrong,” Iber asserted in a recent Facebook post. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”

The short message quickly attracted criticism, starting with locals like Miami Councilman Alix Desulme.

“For him to make such a comment is insensitive to the community,” he said.


As for his boss, Miami-Dade County School Superintendent Alberto Carvalho promptly delivered Iber’s pink slip and released a statement denouncing the former principal’s statement.

“Judgment is the currency of honesty,” he stated. “Insensitivity – intentional or perceived – is both unacceptable and inconsistent with our policies, but more importantly with our expectation of common sense behavior that elevates the dignity of humanity of all, beginning with children.”

Iber has since reacted to the controversy, stating that he intended the comment to appear online anonymously.

“I regret that I posted the comment as it apparently became newsworthy and has apparently upset people,” he said. “That was not my intention in any way.”

It is clear from the social media response to his post that there are plenty of Americans who feel he should not have been punished for sharing his thoughts.


Should this principal have lost his job for posting an opinion on Facebook? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Morality Of Gender Neutrality: Throuples, Grouples, Niblings, And Zoophiles

A new trend is emerging among the media, Hollywood, “science,” public schools, federal and local government officials, and the “medical community” to push transgender and polyamorous relationships (throuples and grouples) as normal.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is considered a human rights violation by the United Nations. Yet in America, parents and doctors legally subjugate minors to sex-reassignment surgery and pubescent blocking drugs with unknown, long-term, irreversible consequences and with known harmful, short-term consequences. Surgical mutilation should be categorized as malpractice and child abuse as FGM would be; yet it is legal and advocated as a “social norm.”

The majority of American parents reject the federal policy mandating public schools to teach children gender neutral terms within the context of “sexual fluidity.” Yet if these children express disagreement, they are penalized. Parents are ignored by school boards and must choose whether or not they will re-enroll their children in such public schools that are now creating a hostile environment for heterosexual children.

None of the transgender concepts or practices represent the majority of Americans; yet they reveal an agenda designed to be farther reaching than “marriage equality.”

The 3 percent’s agenda extends beyond achieving “marriage equality” and normalizing transgender, polymorous grouple & throuple relationships– to demand that anyone who disagrees with them be legally punished.
​ ​
The question is, what’s next? If any person can marry anyone they choose, then why prohibit sex and/or marriage with animals and/or children? Why not legalize prostitution, polygamy, pornography with humans and non-human animals, throuples, and grouples? Listen to learn more here.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The College Board’s Sabotage Of American History

A stellar group of American historians and academics released a milestone open letter yesterday in protest of deleterious changes to the advanced placement U.S. history (APUSH) exam. The signatories are bold intellectual bulwarks against increasing progressive attacks in the classroom on America’s unique ideals and institutions.

Moms and dads in my adopted home state of Colorado have been mocked and demonized for helping to lead the fight against the anti-American changes to APUSH. But if there’s any hope at all in salvaging local control over our kids’ curriculum, it lies in the willingness of a broad coalition of educators and parents to join in the front lines for battles exactly like this one.

As the 55 distinguished members of the National Association of Scholars explained this week, the teaching of American history faces “a grave new risk.” So-called “reforms” by the College Board, which holds a virtual monopoly on A.P. testing across the country, “abandon a rigorous insistence on content,” choosing to downplay “American citizenship and American world leadership in favor of a more global and transnational perspective.”

The top-down APUSH framework eschews vivid, content-rich history lessons on the Constitution for “such abstractions as ‘identity,’ ‘peopling,’ ‘work, exchange and technology,’ and ‘human geography’ while downplaying essential subjects, such as the sources, meaning and development of America’s ideals and political institutions.” The scholars, who hail from institutions ranging from Notre Dame and Stanford to the University of Virginia, Baylor, CUNY, Georgetown, and Ohio State, decried the aggressive centralization of power over how teachers will be able to teach the story of America.

This is not a bug. It’s a feature, as I’ve been reporting for years on Fed Ed matters. These so-called APUSH reforms by the College Board, after all, are part and parcel of a radical upheaval in testing, textbooks, and educational technology. It is no coincidence that the College Board’s president, David Coleman, supervised the Beltway operation that drafted, disseminated, and profits from the federal Common Core standards racket.

The social justice warriors of government education have long sought, as the NAS signatories correctly diagnosed it, “to de-center American history and subordinate it to a global and heavily social-scientific perspective.” Their mission is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate racial, social, and class divisions. Their mission is not to assimilate new generations of students into the American way of life, but to turn them against capitalism, individualism, and American exceptionalism in favor of left-wing activism and poisonous identity politics.

The late far-left historian Howard Zinn has indoctrinated generations of teachers and students who see education as a militant political “counterforce” (an echo of fellow radical academic, domestic terrorist, and Hugo Chavez-admirer Bill Ayers’ proclamation of education as the “motor-force of revolution.”) Teachers aim to “empower” student collectivism by emphasizing “the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements.” School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of “social struggle.”

The APUSH critics make clear in their protest letter that they champion a “warts and all” pedagogical approach to their U.S. history lessons. But they point out that “elections, wars, diplomacy, inventions, discoveries — all these formerly central subjects tend to dissolve into the vagaries of identity-group conflict” as a result of the APUSH overhaul.

“Gone is the idea that history should provide a fund of compelling stories about exemplary people and events,” the scholars point out. “No longer will students hear about America as a dynamic and exemplary nation, flawed in many respects, but whose citizens have striven through the years toward the more perfect realization of its professed ideals.”

This is precisely why I dedicated the past two years to writing my latest book, “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” When it comes to understanding the foundations of our free-market economy, the Founding Fathers’ embrace of private profit as a public good, and the boundless entrepreneurial success stories of individual American achievement, our children’s diet is woefully unbalanced.

Reclaiming our kids’ minds begins long before students reach the A.P. U.S. history classroom. Restoration begins at home.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth