Let their kids be some obese southern bastards and then take away their health care.....pain and suffering for the poor....the GOP way:

USDA to ease school-meal rules
Chief says he’ll loosen the tough nutritional standards championed by Michelle Obama.
AGRICULTURE Secretary Sonny Perdue has lunch with students at Catoctin Elementary in Leesburg, Va. One lawmaker condemned the rule change: “This isn’t about flexibility; it’s about making kids less healthy.” (Carolyn Kaster Associated Press)
By Melissa Etehad
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said Monday that he would roll back part of former First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative: stricter nutritional standards for school lunches.
Perdue, who became head of the agency last week, announced he would be relaxing guidelines and providing greater flexibility in nutrition requirements for schools’ meal programs.
“This announcement is the result of years of feedback from students, schools and food service experts about the challenges they are facing in meeting the final regulations for school meals,” Perdue said during a visit to Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Va.
“If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition — thus undermining the intent of the program,” said Perdue, who was accompanied by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Patricia Montague of the School Nutrition Assn.
Under the changes to the federal nutrition standards, schools won’t have to cut salt in meals, states will be able to allow some schools to serve fewer whole grains, and schools will be allowed to serve 1% milk rather than only nonfat milk.
Advocates for change on school lunch nutrition have said it’s difficult to meet rules set under the Obama administration.
“We have been wanting flexibility so that schools can serve meals that are both nutritious and palatable,” Montague said during Monday’s announcement. “We don’t want kids wasting their meals by throwing them away. Some of our schools are actually using that food waste as compost. That shouldn’t be happening.”
The Obama administration placed standards on school lunch nutrition in 2010 when it passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. During that time, Michelle Obama was seen by many as a leading advocate in the fight against childhood obesity. She started the Let’s Move! campaign, which sought to encourage children to take part in more physical activity and help provide healthier food options in schools in underserved communities.
The percentage of U.S. children with obesity has more than tripled since the 1970s, causing long-term physical and emotional distress for children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Children with obesity are at higher risk for having asthma and Type 2 diabetes. Many are bullied and, as a result, are likely to suffer from depression and self-esteem issues.
In 2014, the standards were met with challenges in Congress led by the School Nutrition Assn., which has called the regulations too rigid, and House Republicans who supported the powerful lobbying group’s efforts.
But according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 97% of schools across the country are implementing the school nutrition standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
The changes announced Monday are seen by some as undermining a bipartisan breakthrough.
“Michelle Obama started a conversation with every mom and dad in America on what they were feeding their kids in a way that didn’t cast judgment,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president from the Environmental Working Group, which specializes in research and advocacy.
“Nothing will change that legacy, but unfortunately today’s actions will delay and undermine Obama’s food policy legacy,” he said.
Politicians and public health advocates have also criticized the rollbacks.
Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) condemned the Trump administration’s change to nutrition standards for school meals across the country.
“Just days into his new job as Secretary of USDA, Secretary Perdue has decided to put special interests ahead of the health of America’s children,” DeLauro said in a statement.
“The USDA and President Trump have now decided to roll back much of the progress we have made in the fight against rates of childhood obesity and malnutrition,” DeLauro said. “This interim final rule by the USDA is a slippery slope that will completely undermine school breakfast and lunch programs and the USDA should immediately reverse course.”
McGovern said the country should build on the progress made rather than “turn our backs” on youths who rely on the meals.
“This isn’t about flexibility; it’s about making kids less healthy,” McGovern said. “Just because President Trump thinks fast food is a balanced meal doesn’t mean we should lower our standards for our kids.”
The Alliance for a Healthier Generation has worked with more than 35,000 schools to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity.
“We would not lower standards for reading, writing and arithmetic just because students found them challenging subjects and we should not do it for school nutrition either,” Howell Wechsler, the organization’s chief executive, said in a statement.
melissa.etehad@latimes.com
Twitter: @melissaetehad

Congress is falling behind on GOP promises
It’s on track with a sweeping budget deal, but not much else.
By Lisa Mascaro
WASHINGTON — Congress is on track to deliver President Trump his first big bipartisan agreement this week with a $1-trillion spending bill to keep government running, but don’t expect other major legislative accomplishments any time soon.
Even though Republicans control the House, Senate and White House, the party in power is now at risk of squandering the unique opportunity offered in an administration’s early months to muscle through big-ticket priorities in Congress.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) once promised a Republican agenda so ambitious — repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, overhaul the tax code, cut federal regulations — it would take twice the traditional 100 days of the new administration to accomplish it.
But as Congress begins the march toward Ryan’s 200-day milestone, the prospect for success on almost any of the major Republican priorities is no more in sight than in the first 100 days, which left Trump with only a slim list of achievements.
“It’s really hard to do big stuff, especially when the White House is unpopular,” said George Washington University professor Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress.
This week will be pivotal as Congress is set to approve the spending package, which averts a shutdown threat by funding government operations until September.
House Republicans may also try again to bring their Obamacare overhaul bill to the floor after earlier attempts fizzled. But it’s unclear whether they have the support of their members, and the bill has almost no chance in the Senate because fellow Republicans there oppose it.
The toxic combination of Republican infighting, the White House’s failure to provide clear direction and an over-ambitious agenda have hobbled the majority’s ability to accomplish its goals.
With the healthcare effort floundering and tax reform still likely months from being crafted into legislation, congressional Republicans have teed up few other promised priorities, such as infrastructure or border security. It raises questions of what, if anything, Congress can accomplish before the summer recess.
Congress has sent more than 28 bills to the president to sign into law. Most were modest measures or bills passed under a special process to unwind recent Obama-era regulations.
Business groups have heralded the rapid deregulatory effort, which was one of Republicans’ top promises. But the window for using that special process, which permitted bills to pass with a simple majority in the Senate rather than the usual 60 votes to avoid filibuster, is about to close, meaning the job going forward will be harder without bipartisan support.
The spending package is likely to win backing from a wide cross section of lawmakers, in part because it steered clear of Trump’s top priorities — money for the border wall with Mexico and steep cuts to non-defense programs. It beefs up military spending that both parties support, but only by half as much as the administration wanted.
Congress will probably finish the week having averted a shutdown — usually seen as the basics of governing — only because Republicans in this case were forced to drop their go-it-alone approach.
“I hope this is a metaphor for the future,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters Monday. “If Republicans work with us, we can get things done.”
The first six months of a new Congress are typically prime time for legislating, even more so when the majority party also has its president in the White House.
In 2009, President Obama set the course for what would become the most productive Congress since President Lyndon Johnson as Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.
Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used their congressional majority to usher through the economic recovery act during Obama’s first 30 days and set the groundwork for passage later that session of Obamacare.
Stunned but impressed as the Democrats steamrolled their agenda through Congress, Republican leaders relied on a similar strategy to win back the majority — telling voters they needed control of all levers of government to accomplish their to-do list.
But the flaw in the GOP strategy has been its own inability to unify as a working majority amid constant dissent between its conservative and centrist factions. That friction helped stall the healthcare bill and could also hinder tax reform negotiations.
“It’s been a total swing and a miss — several swings and misses,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said.
GOP lawmakers are reminded of the stakes at play when they show up back home empty-handed to face constituents who voted them to office on the power of big changes.
Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, acknowledged that Republicans should have been better prepared for this moment. But he remained hopeful that Trump, with his convention-breaking style, will buy more time for Congress to act.
“Under the old-style thing, you should have had it all ready to go,” Brat said. “But you got to fit it in the Trump matrix.”
At some point, Republican leaders in Congress will bear responsibility for its accomplishments, or lack of them. Pelosi’s office quipped last week that running the country doesn’t come with “training wheels.”
When Democrats had control, Pelosi and Reid were seasoned deal-makers who helped steer the White House toward legislative lifts — relying on Obama to use the power of the pulpit to amplify the party’s positions.
In contrast, many Republicans simply did not expect Trump to actually win the presidency, and did not prepare for their legislative agenda beyond loose policy papers and blueprints.
Ryan brings less negotiating experience to the bargaining table, and his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, prefers working more quietly behind the scenes. Trump meanwhile has shown little appetite for delving into the details of legislation or aggressively selling such measures on the stump, as other presidents have done.
Republicans are likely to set their sights lower, on smaller legislative lifts in the weeks to come, if the big-ticket items slip beyond reach.
Binder, the George Washington University professor, noted that previous Congresses have emerged from the start of a new, same-party administration with mixed results.
With a productive session, President Clinton was able to recover after the rocky start of his failed healthcare overhaul and an attempt to end the ban on gays in the military.
By contrast, President Carter, whose attempts to reform what he saw as pork-barrel projects and Washington waste alienated many in his party, never quite recouped from his opening days.
Congress stalled much of Trump’s agenda in what Binder said “is probably the closest analogy we have of unified party control being a bust.”
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
Twitter: @LisaMascaro

Trump’s wall slips further out of reach
Excluded from the $1-trillion budget deal, it is becoming a metaphor rather than a physical barrier.
By Noah Bierman and Brian Bennett
WASHINGTON — “Mark my words,” Donald Trump said when he announced he was running for president nearly two years ago. He would build a wall on the Southwest border, and Mexico would pay for it.
That promise, the most indelible aspect of Trump’s political branding, has endured. It still generates some of the loudest applause during Trump’s speeches, as it did at a weekend rally to mark his first 100 days in office.
But over the last week, Trump gave up on pushing Congress to include the billions needed for the wall in the spending plan that lawmakers expect to pass this week. There is little sign that Mexico will be compelled to pay for it, as Trump has so often vowed. And administration allies are increasingly trying to redefine “the wall” as something other than what Trump described in the campaign.
The wall may be the perfect metaphor for Trump’s administration so far: It remains a White House priority. Trump’s harsh rhetoric about it has probably helped stem the flow of illegal border crossings, stirring widespread fear in immigrant communities.
But the physical wall itself remains very much in doubt, in part because members of Trump’s party seem unwilling to pay for it and members of his administration do not think it is completely necessary .
“It is clearly a defeat for the president” for the money not to be in the current spending bill, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in Washington that advocates for reducing immigration levels.
“At a minimum there’s no appetite for it,” said Angela Kelley, a senior strategic advisor for immigration at the Open Society Policy Center, which favors looser immigration restrictions. “That could grow into an allergic reaction.”
The $1-trillion deal to keep the government open through September, agreed to by the White House and congressional leaders late Sunday, does not include money for new fencing or new border agents requested by the Trump administration.
It does include $1.5 billion for border security, a concession Democrats might not have made without the pressure from Trump on border spending. But that money is allocated for technology and maintenance of existing infrastructure at the border.
The most notable new barrier in the spending plan: $50 million to upgrade the fence around the White House, requested after intruders began hopping the existing fence during the Obama administration.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the border security money in the spending plan could help with planning, technology and other preliminary aspects of the wall. He promised that Trump would push for more when he gets a chance to negotiate the 2018 spending bill, his first full-year spending plan.
“This is a down payment on border security,” Spicer said.
But Republicans in Congress, their spokespeople and even administration officials these days often define the wall as a catchall for border security, rather than a physical structure.
“There are places where a permanent physical barrier, a wall, makes sense,” said Michael Steel, a former GOP leadership aide. “There are other places where it’s less practical and there are other options. But the overall goal remains the same.”
Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, John F. Kelly, offered a similar assessment in April.
“It’s unlikely that we will build a wall or physical barrier from sea to shining sea,” he testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Under questioning from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he agreed that the wall could be interpreted as a combination of drones, towers, fences, technology to detect tunnels and other electronic means combined with border guards. “The wall is all of that,” he said.
That approach would mirror policies pursued by Trump’s predecessors and would roughly follow the strategy advocated by officials at the National Border Patrol Council, who have said, for example, that fences are often preferable to solid walls because they are harder to hide behind.
Even Trump allowed during a speech in Georgia on Friday that the wall would be “in certain areas,” a departure from his long-held description of a solid, uninterrupted barrier that would grow higher by a few feet every time he was doubted.
“Obviously, where you have these massive physical structures you don’t need — and we have certain big rivers and all,” Trump added, cryptically.
Official cost estimates for a wall vary — from $12 billion to $38 billion, all the way to a nearly $70-billion estimate by Senate Democrats.
Although popular among Trump’s supporters, the wall has never been a top priority for hard-line immigration policy advocates, who argue that a combination of changes, including tougher internal enforcement, would do more to stem illegal immigration.
Nor do most Americans expect Trump to actually build it, surveys indicate. In a YouGov poll conducted last week, 51% of adults said they did not think Trump would build a wall , while only 29% said he was likely to accomplish that goal. The share of adults in the poll who said Trump would probably not achieve the goal was higher than for any of the campaign promises YouGov asked about.
But there is tension between broad public opinion and Trump’s supporters. Republicans in the YouGov poll were far more likely to believe the wall would get built. Other polls, which show about 30% to 40% of Americans want a wall built, show much greater support among Republicans, especially conservatives.
“I don’t know that they care whether it’s a Chinese wall,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has advised Trump. “They saw it as a symbolic statement that he was going to [crack down on] people crossing into the United States illegally.”
Gingrich said those counting out Trump’s ability to pressure Congress for more wall funding suffer from “historical amnesia” that presidents sometimes need time to win their initiatives and “the desire to minimize Trump because he didn’t get it by waving a magic wand.”
Trump’s harsh rhetoric and a handful of enforcement changes have helped reduce illegal border crossings without a new barrier. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that 16,600 people were apprehended and deemed inadmissible at the Southern border in March, a 64% decrease from the same month in 2016.
Trump has celebrated that victory but is wary of resting on it.
“You know, we have done so well at the border, a lot of people are saying, ‘Oh, wow, maybe the president doesn’t need the wall,’ ” Trump told the raucous crowd at his 100-day rally in Harrisburg, Pa., on Saturday night. “We need the wall to stop the drugs and the human trafficking. We need the wall.”
Trump, who feeds off his crowds’ enthusiasm, appeared to veer off script as the audience grew louder. “We will build a wall, folks, don’t even worry about it,” he said. “Go to sleep. Go home, go to sleep, rest assured.”
Even as Trump talks up the wall, the ground beneath it has shifted. On Saturday, he did not ask, “Who’s going to pay for it?” — once a signature line at his campaign rallies that prompted the crowd to chant “Mexico.”
The Mexican government, which sees the wall as an insult, has insisted it would never entertain funding it, and Trump has not offered a plan that would force the issue.
To pass the spending bill, Trump needed Democrats, both in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority, and in the House, where hard-line conservatives often vote against spending bills regardless of which party crafts them. Those dynamics will surely continue and could grow even thornier.
Advocates on both sides of the immigration debate predicted that Democrats’ victory on the latest spending bill will embolden them to demand more in future negotiations. Indeed, some Democrats were openly gloating Monday.
“If Congress refuses to fund your stupid wall during your honeymoon period, what makes you think we will ever fund it?” tweeted Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Torrance.
Trump allies argue that increases the urgency of securing the money quickly.
“It is essential he wins this,” Krikorian said. “Even if the wall did nothing, it would be important to get it through, because it is so essential to the message of controlling immigration.”
noah.bierman
@latimes.com
brian.bennett@latimes.com
Times staff writers Lisa Mascaro and Michael Memoli contributed to this report.

No pussyboys...grown ass guys who try to tease other grown ass men like little girls do in grade school has no relevance....no matter how relevant it makes you feel.....that is about it....nothing to elaborate on.........so tease away and realize what type of grown ass men you grew up to be.........

you all can post 50 more times and none of you tender bitches will not even make me blink.....try your luck fagg boys......no wonder you bitches drive big trucks and carry guns....trying to compensate for the bitch in you so can at least appear to be big rough tough guys from the outside.....fking hilarious.................

I post one thing and the white COCKroaches come out with their full hateful fury but I'm the one under their control let them tell it...hilarious....ask yourselves...why does it take so many of you and the mentally damaged, drug addict ao and poor little battered fagg doc trying his best.....are just out of control with multiple posts each and all the CRACKA ASS hatred they can muster....man you racist ass white boys are some really soft bitches.........in the same vein of your inbred ass relatives....hilarious indeed........don't give me that much power over you all..........can one brother really make a cracka brigade freak out like this? wow..........

Stop bitching and whining,"oooh mommie, he said some baadd wooords...........

what should be done is that poor people need to stop being pro-business and force people like scott walker to not fk them over..........and demand more from businesses starting as consumers.....so when people like ao laughs at me about an older car that looks and runs new....he doesn't understand I'm not a mindless consumer slave and when I buy something like that..I hold onto it and change my financial situation before I buy something else...if Americans were not convinced they had to have new trinkets to feel like they are somebody...they could make companies work for them....as an employee or a consumer.....

Nope dumbass...you don't set any mental tone or control a motherfking thing...there are plenty of days when I don't say shit to you and all you do is run after me with comments and get ignored....so who is the dog then you dishonest piece of obsessed shit? When I respond you talk that bullshit and when I ignore your ass you try to act like some stupid ass victory has happened because you "ran me off"...your behavior is easily observable and symptomatic of someone with serious psychological issues....even when conservatives talk about your afflictions or you wander all over OPP picking fights with multiple people simultaneously........your mental issues are apparent even when your OPP dialogue with others is independent of me......so fk you and your bullshit lame ass attempts at employing that junior-college level 25-cent weak ass psychology on me.....wrong brother........now try to turn this example of behavioral observation into something that places you in a superior position so I can piss on myself laughing at your dumb, troubled ass............fk you!!

But that is why I go it alone....no one listens to shit I have to say but that is okay as long as I do............job discrimination and economic disenfranchisement likes people like me..........

The business entities have Americans fighting over crumbs as they do whatever they want themselves..and some of us are stupid enough to defend them....when businesses don't give a damn about nothing but executive compensation and investor returns...I taught an HR course in Public Admin that showed how the ratio of executive to worker compensation went from 46:1 to 454:1 between the 60's and 2000's...........

learn to read bitch......name-calling counts.......

GOP on verge of losing health care vote

By Lauren Fox, CNN

Updated 6:09 PM ET, Mon May 1, 2017
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/republicans-continue-to-work-on-health-care/index.html

Leftists Work to Expunge 'Negro' From Place Names and Maps
image U.S. maps and charts are peppered with place names that include the word, "negro." "Negro" creeks, hills and hollows are common across the nation, particularly in the South and West. Often, the original names contained the widely condemned slur that also begins with "n."

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=23707?omhide=true

First on CNN: Trump administration ending Michelle Obama's girls education program


Kevin Liptak-Profile-Image

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer


Updated 2:50 PM ET, Mon May 1, 2017

MIchelle Obama's 'Let's Move!' program – Through the initiative, millions of kids are attending healthier day care centers, where fruits and vegetables have replaced cookies and juice. Michelle Obama speaks at a Let's Move! Walmart announcement at The Arc in Washington in 2010.

MIchelle Obama's 'Let's Move!' program – Nearly 9 million kids participate in the Let's Move! Active Schools program and get 60 minutes of physical activity a day. Nearly 5 million kids will be attending healthier after-school programs in the next five years. The first lady meets with students in New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 2010.
Photos: Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move!' program

MIchelle Obama's 'Let's Move!' program – Childhood obesity rates have finally stopped rising -- and obesity rates are actually falling among our youngest children, according to Let's Move! initiative. The first lady attends the White House Kitchen Garden harvest on the South Lawn in 2010.

MIchelle Obama's 'Let's Move!' program – America still spends nearly $200 billion a year on obesity-related health care costs, and that figure will jump to nearly $350 billion a year by 2018, according to Let's Move! campaign. Michelle Obama visits the Fresh Grocer store in Philadelphia in 2010.

"The Peace Corps continues to prioritize girls' education and empowerment programming," the spokesman said. "Girls' education and empowerment has been a hallmark of our work over the past 56 years and we look forward to continuing those efforts with our interagency partners. We remain dedicated to the passionate work of our volunteers and staff to empower and educate girls in their communities."
Tina Tchen, who served as Obama's chief of staff during her time in the White House, said the end of "Let Girls Learn" was a disappointment given a global recognition that educating young women could help improve conditions across developing nations.
"We felt it was important to have a branded campaign that drew attention to those issues, and we found that when we did it, we had extraordinary support," Tchen said. "I think it's unfortunate to not continue with the branded campaign. We think that this is an issue that has bipartisan support, it's really not a Republican or Democratic issue."
Tchen said the benefits of the program, which drew upon private sector support as well as government dollars, outweighed the costs. She noted that a development program launched by President George W. Bush to combat global HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, had been maintained and expanded by the Obama administration.
Donald Trump's next 100 days
" 'Let Girls Learn' had several years of funding already baked," she said. "We were hopeful that given that, it could continue. But obviously elections have consequences, and nobody knows that better than we."
After launching the initiative in 2015, Michelle Obama heavily promoted "Let Girls Learn," including during travel abroad and at events held in Washington. CNN Films produced a documentary highlighting some of the girls participating in "Let Girls Learn" programs in Morocco and Liberia during the then-first lady's trip there.
Obama also harnessed her popularity on social media to promote "Let Girls Learn," and enlisted celebrities like Frida Pinto and Meryl Streep to help highlight the struggle girls in many developing countries face in regularly attending school.
In October of last year, the Obama administration attempted to reinforce "Let Girls Learn" ahead of a new administration. The White House announced $5 million in private sector commitments toward the programs administered under the "Let Girls Learn" banner, bringing the total financial pledges to more than $1 billion for programs in 50 countries.
The hope then was to underscore the success of the initiative in the hopes the next administration would continue it.

The ending of the program comes as Melania Trump begins to define her own platform as first lady. While she hasn't formally announced an official platform, women's empowerment and access to education for women and girls is emerging as a key area of importance for her growing East Wing.

"I continue to firmly believe that education is the most powerful way to promote and ensure women's rights. Together we will do this not only by striving for gender parity at all levels of education, but also by showing all children, and especially boys, that it is through empathy, respect and kindness that we achieve our collective potential," she said in a recent speech at the State Department.

On Monday, a Trump White House spokesperson referred comment to representatives for the first lady, who declined to comment.

First daughter Ivanka Trump who serves as an adviser to the President, is focused on women's empowerment and entrepreneurship, topics she's touted on panels and in speeches.

She is a self-described "Entrepreneur & advocate for the education & empowerment of women & girls," according to her Twitter biography.

In promoting the importance of girls education, Obama regularly highlighted her own educational path, and said it was critical to her success in the private sector and later as first lady.

"Education is a very personal thing for me," she said in October during a discussion at the Newseum with a group of girls from across the globe. "As I tell girls whenever I meet them, I wouldn't be here, sitting here not just in this chair but in the life that I have, if it weren't for my education."

Tchen said Monday that the former first lady was still assessing how to promote this issue in her new life as a private citizen.

"This is an issue she cares passionately about," Tchen said. "I think it's still early days for what she will do in her post-White House life. But this is one she's looking at figuring out where can she be value added, where can she help with this issue."

CNN's Betsy Klein contributed to this report.