Clinton Soda Deal Ignores School Funding Problems

This past July, former President Bill Clinton announced an initiative in conjunction with the William J. Clinton Foundation to fight childhood obesity. In that effort he has been negotiating for the past year or so with the three major beverage companies, namely Cadbury Schweppes PLC, the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo. Inc., to decrease the sale of soda and sweetened beverages in public school vending machines.

Clinton hopes that with the help of the American Beverage Association to advocate the replacement of high calorie drinks with more water and juice drink choices available for sale in not only United States high schools but also in some middle schools. He hopes to expand the initiative to selected snacks manufacturers as well in order to encourage healthier eating amongst school-aged children. However, his enthusiasm for his new leaf on healthy eating since his double bypass surgery in 2004 falls far short of the mark in analyzing the underlying bevy of problems that contribute to childhood and adolescent obesity.

Perhaps Mr. Clinton's focus on his self-lauded vending machine deals will help illuminate the sad fiscal shape school districts are in across the country when forced to hinge their school budgets on the sales of soda and candy bars. For in fact over the term of the Clinton Administration vending machine sales and exclusive lucrative contracts with soda bottling companies increased exponentially. They became necessary according to school administrators and school boards nationwide as school budgets were tightened specifically during his tenure.

In an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren in 2005, Bill Clinton stated that "You've got vending machines in all the schools that offer unhealthy foods and the local PTA gets a cut from the profits of the vending machine." Upon announcing his deal in July 2006 to get the beverage companies to dramatically decrease soda in vending machines and replace them with sports drinks, flavored waters and diet sodas in high schools by 2009, he still has not correctly stated the path of the realized revenues from vending machine sales in school districts. Either he is ignorant on the subject or chooses to be so.

Exclusive contracts with beverage and snack food manufacturers in the public schools exist under myriad sets of rules and regulations from each state to each respective school district. It is up to school boards, who volunteer school superintendents or principals to enter negotiations with corporate entities for vending machine contracts. They usually provide the biggest bang for their buck over any other kind of school fundraising efforts.

Such deals generally require a 5 to 10-year commitment from the school or school district where the beverage company or food manufacturer makes certain demands of the school in order to for them to receive a share of the sales revenue. Usually a school receives approximately 40% of profits provided they agree to signage on their athletic fields, advertising allowed on the machines and can guarantee a specific number of students within the school. Such deals can garner anywhere from $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 per year depending on the size of the school district.

But where Mr. Clinton is misleading is in his statement that the revenues go to the PTA or to extra-curricular activities which the PTA sponsors. For it is precisely exclusive contracts with beverage and snack food companies negotiated by the school districts or principals which must go into a general school fund and be used for a wide array of school expenses. With school budgets annually falling short not just for "extras" but for everyday school expenses, almost every school district is dependent upon vending machine sales in addition to school lunch a la carte food sales, snack bars and school stores which also sell food and snacks.

However, contrary to what most think, a school general fund pays for necessities such as school maintenance, computer wiring, classroom supplies, library books, supplemental reading programs, student assembly programs and even playground equipment. Art supplies, music classes and physical education considered "unnecessary" expenditures in most school board budgets are not part of all curriculums and very often are then dependent upon additional fundraisers by PTA's and student-run fundraisers.

The other issue of note which is not addressed by the food hawks or Bill Clinton, famous for his triangulating approach on issues during his two terms as president, is the lack of the facts regarding a multitude of problems which has called for cutting the fat and calories. Since there is presently only one state left in the U.S., that being Connecticut, which mandates daily physical education classes for elementary schoolchildren, it would appear that over the past 15 years as obesity has grown to 15% of school age children that there has been no focus on physical education, health and nutritional education and recess, by the federal government. And much of that time was on Clinton's watch.

It was not until the year 2000, during President Clinton's final year in office, that he rolled out a plan prepared by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Secretary of Education Richard Riley titled, "Promoting Health for Young People through Physical Activity and Sports." It provided 10 strategies to promote better health among young people with increased participation in physical activity and sports. It did not address physical education in the schools but rather extra-curricular and off-campus activities in conjunction with the U.S. Olympic Committee. Nor did either Shalala or Riley address the looming crisis of financing education through vending machine sales and fundraising while at the same time not requiring schools to provide physical education or daily recess for children, during their years serving under Clinton.

The latest excuse for the elimination of recess in elementary education has been pinned on the No Child Left Behind Act enacted in 2001, whereby principals and teachers claim that the standardized testing demands and its requirements have left little time for outdoor activities, thus less recess. Lawsuits and the fear of bullying, code for more lawsuits, is also at play.

Such begs the question again about real concern for the health of children who are cooped up all day and not given the chance to burn off excess energy and exercise while developing a good habit in doing so. One can only wonder about the habitual doling out of Ritalin, primarily to little boys, like the foreboding candy, by physicians upon the recommendation of school administrators. Perhaps if kids could run off their pent up energy they would be able to sit still longer in their seats without need of pharmaceuticals.

Addiction to sweets is one problem which does not address schools' addiction to vending machines and the sale of "competitive foods" which refers to food sold outside of the School Lunch Program but from vending machines or in a la carte lines in the school cafeteria or school store. These snack foods supposedly "compete" with the School Lunch Program foods as provided by the federal government. And as schools are trying to balance their budgets on the backs of granola bars or lower fat candy bars, each school loses nearly $4.00 per child should they choose to skip lunch, eat off campus, or bring their own. It is but one more irony not lost on school administrators either.

The amount of time now occupied by principals, now largely saddled with vending contract negotiations, fundraising organization duties and serving as in-house nutritional spokesmen is all time lost from concentrating on far more important decisions in educating our country's youth. And most administrators do not follow through on how much revenue is generated from sales, where and how much revenue is eventually spent on which programs, or how much the other fundraising groups' activities contribute to various programs. Yet to solely blame the principals for this required delegation is unfair. Rather, it would seem that school boards should be held more accountable by the public.

But given the disconnect between the federal government, the states, the localities and the various school districts where no mandates or regulations exist with respect to allocation of vending machine sales or fundraisers in schools, it will be difficult for a voluntary plan such as Mr. Clinton's to be successful. For at most school fundraisers most proceeds are still largely generated from the sale of foods with minimal nutritional value, known as FMNV's, where they are largely exempt from dietary restrictions.

Back in 1946 when the National School Lunch Program was established, its goal was to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches in participating schools for children of need. In 1975, the National School Breakfast Program was established, also based upon need, as a free or cost-reduced program for those wishing to participate. Neither program was set up in order for schools to subsidize school districts or to encourage bad eating habits. And neither program was concerned about child obesity as it did not exist at either time.

But physical education, class recess, health and nutritional education, engaged parents and common sense are seemingly a thing of the past. And literacy and scholastic excellence did not seem to suffer by taking class time for physical fitness. Clearly there is no easy fix, but sometime not so long ago the real priorities in public education coupled with the well-being of schoolchildren took a back seat to raising and misspending dollars by misguided bureaucrats. And if the nation is waiting upon beverage and food manufacturers in order to make decisions on behalf of our schoolchildren, as proposed, then we as a nation are in deep trouble.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi

Diane M. Grassi is a freelance columnist, reporting and writing commentary on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect assessments. From U.S. public policy to Major League Baseball, she is an eclectic thinker, and demanding of her readers to reflect on their own thinking patterns from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with her or not, Diane M. Grassi will have you coming back to note her opinions, and if at best she wakes you up, then her goal will have been accomplished.

Ms. Grassi is featured with the online publications: New Media Journal.us; American Chronicle; Mich News.com; Opinions Editorials; the Conservative Voice; Liberty Watch Magazine as well as many others. She also writes regular columns on Major League Baseball where she is a featured online columnist with The Diamond Angle Baseball Ezine and Sports-Central.org Ms. Grassi may contacted at: dgrassi@cox.net

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Clinton and Bush -- The Cause of School Shootings

The majority of school shootings have taken place during William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George W. Bush's reign. Precisely forty out of forty two shootings. Since its inception, America has always had guns and schools coexisting at about the same time. Yet amazingly forty shootings have taken place during their presidency! Consider also that these forty shootings took place during a period when the number of gun laws and restrictions was growing! At least during the Clinton regime. Further, it is of course a given that no one has ever cared more about ending school violence and taking away guns then these presidents have. Nor has anyone else worked harder than they have toward this end.

Note that I am only including intentional shootings, not accidental gun discharges. Nor am I counting the incidents of carnage involving the use of a car (as in California in 1999) or any other type of instrument. The list of school shootings during the reign of Clinton is as follows:

February 9, 1992. Stockton, California, high school, 2 dead.

May 1, 1992. Brooklyn, New York, high school, 4 dead, 9 wounded.

January 12, 1993. Miami, Florida, high school, 1 dead.

January 18, 1993. Grayson, Kentucky, high school, 2 dead.

March 25, 1993. St. Louis, Missouri, high school, 1 wounded.

May 24, 1993. Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, high school, 1 dead.

April 8, 1994. Maryland high school, 1 wounded.

February 2, 1996. Moses Lake, Washington, junior high school, 3 dead,1 wounded.

April 15,1996. Washington, District of Columbia, high school, 1 wounded.

February 19, 1997. Bethel, Alaska, high school, 2 dead, 2 wounded.

May 1, 1997. New York City, New York, high school, 1 wounded.

October 1, 1997. Pearl, Mississippi, high school, 2 dead, 7 wounded.

December 1, 1997. West Peducah, Kentucky, high school, 3 dead, 5 wounded.

December 15, 1997. Stamps, Arkansas, 2 wounded.

March 24, 1998. Jonesboro, Arkansas, middle school, 5 dead, 10 wounded.

April 24, 1998. Edinboro, Pennsylvania, middle school, 1 dead.

April 28, 1998. Pomona, California, elementary school, 2 dead, 1 wounded.

May 19, 1998. Fayetteville, Tennessee, high school, 1 dead.

May 21, 1998. Springfield, Oregon, high school, 2 dead.

June 15, 1998. Richmond, Virginia, high school, 2 wounded.

April 20, 1999. Littleton, Colorado, high school, 15 dead, 28 wounded.

May 20, 1999. Conyers, Georgia, high school, 6 wounded.

November 19, 1999. Deming, New Mexico, middle school, 1 dead.

December 6, 1999. Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, middle school, 4 wounded.

February 29, 2000. Mount Morris Township, Michigan, elementary school, 1 dead.

May 26, 2000. Lake Worth, Florida, middle school, 1 dead.

September 26, 2000. New Orleans, Carter G. Woodson Middle School, 2 wounded.

August 28, 2000. Fayetteville, Arkansas, University of Arkansas, 2 dead.

So the "body count" during Clinton's war on America is fifty one dead and eighty three wounded.

The list of school shootings prior to and after Clinton are as follows:

August 1, 1966. Austin, Texas, college, 14 dead.

July 12, 1976. Fullerton, California, college, 7 dead, 2 wounded.

March 5, 2001. Santee, California, high school, 2 dead 13 wounded.

March 7, 2001. Williamsport, Pennsylvania, high school, 1 wounded.

March 22, 2001. El Cajon, California, high school, 5 wounded.

March 30, 2001. Gary, Indiana, high school, 1 dead.

January 15, 2002. New York, New York, 2 wounded.

January 16, 2002. Grungy, Virginia, law school, 3 dead, 3 wounded.

2003, Case Western Reserve University Law School, 1 dead, 2 wounded.

Jan 10, 2003, Orlando, Florida, middle school, 1 dead.

September 2003, Cold Spring, MN, high School, 2 dead.

March 21, 2005, Bemidji, MN, high school, 10 dead, 15 wounded.

October 20, 2005, Saginaw, MI, high school, 1 wounded.

November 8, 2005, Jacksboro, TN, high school, 1 dead, 2 wounded.

The "body count" for all non Clinton school shootings is forty two dead and thirty six wounded.

What is the explanation for the fact that 96 percent of the school shootings have taken place during Clinton (aka Bubba) and George W. Bush's (aka Dubya) presidency? Let us now consider some possible explanations. As mentioned above, these shootings have taken place during a time period when there was an increase in the number of federal and state laws restricting or eliminating gun ownership. In other words, during the pre Clinton era, there weren't enough gun laws. Yet, in that same Wild West pre Clinton era, there were only two school shootings!

That is to say, during the 215 years (1776 to 1991) of American history, guns were more readily available to our children. One might even say that the previous presidents (especially those evil Republicans) didn't care enough for our children. So then why is it that during the pre Clinton era filled with uncompassionate presidents and loose gun laws, there were only two school shootings? Hmmm? Obviously the explanation for the increase in shootings during Bubba and Dubya's reign is not the lack of gun laws.

Is the explanation to be found in the prevalence of drugs? This can't be right since drugs were readily available and widely used in the 1960s and 1970s. Just ask Clinton. Drugs, whether they are legal or illegal, have been used in America for a long time. Plus, if you count alcohol as a drug, then surely in America's past when its availability was not as highly regulated and the social morality of its use ebbed and flowed, there would have been a good number of school shootings. However, there wasn't.

The only pre Clinton school shootings took place in August 1966 in Austin, Texas, and in July 1976 in Fullerton, California. The decade of the 1980s, according to the liberal media, was the decade of greed. A decade when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The decade of Reagan and trickle down economics. So then why wasn't there any school shootings then? Consider well that in the 1990s there have been more Americans investing in the stock market then ever before. Plus, the amount of cash they put into the stock market has been greater than ever before. W hy would they do that kind of investing? If the 1980s were the decade of greed, then why not the 1990s given the above? Why aren't the 1990s considered a decade of extreme greed?

So then let us posit a possible explanation, for discussion, that the cause of the school shootings in the Clinton era (which takes up most of the 1990s) was due to greed. If this explanation were true, then we have to ask what quantum of greed was necessary to cause only two school shootings prior to his presidency? Next, how much more greed was present in America during Clinton's presidency in order to cause twenty eight school shootings? How much greed is present in America as a direct result of Dubya? Why was there such a tremendous increase in greed during Clinton's presidency over all other president's combined? Plus, why did the greed factor go down in 1995? That was the only year of his presidency in which there were no school shootings.

Additionally, how could greed possibly be the explanation since the 1990s are not a decade of greed? If it is a decade of greed (even though the media and the Democrats are not claiming it to be) then why in the world would the United States government be encouraging Americans to invest in the stock market? Why would the United States Congress be considering allowing Americans to invest part of their retirement funds into the stock market? What do we mean by stating that greed might be the explanation for the school shootings? Do we mean to say that the shooters were greedy? Or that the victims were greedy? Who was greedy? Was it the then current president? Who was it? Surely that is important to know.

Plus, how much greed was necessary to initiate the school shootings? Are we to believe that if a certain person or persons have a certain amount of greed, then that will cause school children to grab guns and start shooting people at school? Greed is not therefore the cause of the school shootings. Not in the sense of a bottom line explanation. It should be obvious that all of the shooters were greedy about something at sometime in their lives. Some of them may have been motivated to some extent by greed in the course of their shootings. All men and women, boys and girls, are equally subject to being greedy. Greed alone can't explain why 96 percent of the school shootings happened during Bubba and Dubya's presidency versus being statistically spread out during the majority of the other president's terms.

Could we offer in explanation that our schools during Bubba and Dubya's terms have been unsafe or are more unsafe? If that were true then we would have to state that in the pre Bubba and Dubya years, when schools were safe or safer, that there were only two shootings. S o how were schools different back then? Simple--back then schools didn't have metal detectors, mandatory uniforms, zero tolerance policies, class sizes were larger, there were not as many gun laws as now, and there was greater access to guns. Additionally, about thirty years ago, prayers were routinely said in class, as was the pledge of allegiance, and classes were always taught in English. Hmmm--I don't think we like that answer, do we? Okay, so then we will drop this possible explanation.

I would offer that the only primary explanation is that Satan is causing these tragic events. This is the opportune time for him to act. In light of the foregoing examples of Bubba's acts of the sinful nature in my book Saviour Clinton, it is apparent that he belongs to the Devil. "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning....This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God" (1 John 3:8, 10). Christ said of the devil, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10).

All people are born in sin and are members of Satan's tribe, so to speak. To put it another way, they have membership or allegiance or citizenship in the kingdom of darkness. The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the church in Rome (Rom. 3:10 18) of this situation: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes."

So where does Dubya fit in? Easy. The bible says; "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." 1 Cor. 5:11. Dubya has from day one worked to protect and honor the spirit of the anti Christ in Bubba. Remember that on the day of Dubya's first inauguration, when there was a boat load of evidence that the Clintons and their ilk defaced, destroyed, and stole property from the White House, Dubya firmly put his foot down to make sure there was only an appearance of an investigation into those acts. And no one was ever convicted for such acts.

Continuing on during Dubya's presidency, we find that he and his father have grown closer and closer to Bubba and his wife. Numerous articles have been written about this budding romance. See for example the following articles; (1) Conservatives Irked Over Bush Clinton Loveless, June 15, 2004 Newsman article; (2) Presidents: Bubba and Dubya-Warming Up, January 8, 2005, MSNBC article; (3) Clinton, Bush in Super Bowl Tsunami Pitch, January 27, 2005, Newsman article; (4) Bush Picks Brains of Clinton, Father, April 9, 2005, Washington times article; (5) President Asks Bush and Clinton to Assist In Hurricane Relief Effort, September 1, 2005, The White House press release.

Clearly God said to have nothing to do with such a brother as quote above. Bubba certainly fills that description. Even more certain is both Bush's flagrantly violating God's Word. I know in defense of such sin many will say that I don't understand this or that. Or that I am wrong. Dubya has even said in effect that only Bubba could understand his life since they are both presidents. What that really is saying is that because both of us are sinners, and we share the same job description (or life experience, or had the same women, or robbed the same people, et cetera), it is only natural and beneficial that we have dinner together. That we have fellowship together. Yet God said to have nothing to do with that sinner. Not even have dinner with him or her. It thus seems to me that we must conclude that God is wrong. That 2nd Corinthians was but inspired vacuous verbal vomit (IV3 or cubed). That Mark is all fouled up.

However, the reality is that by living the lives they have, these two men alone have provided an opportunity for 96% of all school shootings to take place in America. Some say that even though Satan came but to steal, kill, and destroy, this aberrant statistic is meaningless. All those who were killed or wounded, and their ravaged families, are just supposed to be "comforted" and deal with their loss while we are told to trust these two men? How about agreeing with God's Word? Especially after seeing the devastation the disobedience of Bubba and Dubya have caused on America.

It is the citizens of the kingdom of darkness that are expected to continuously exhibit the fruits of the sinful nature as mentioned in Galatians 5 above. This was mentioned by the apostle John in 1 John 3:9. He wrote, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." Clearly, by examining the actions of Bubba as provided earlier in my book, the only conclusion to be reached is that he belongs to Satan. He is still a citizen of Satan's kingdom.

Clinton enjoys incredible favor with the Devil. It can be said that as far as the United States is concerned, he is the Devil's number one. As president he was in fact and symbolically the leader of America. While he was leading America in a certain direction, the Devil came following behind and caused these shootings to take place. So why now? Why was this the opportune time for the Devil to cause 67 percent of the school shootings in America during Bubba's reign? And 96% of them during Bubba and Dubya's presidency. That is the question, my friend. That is the question that must be answered so that appropriate action can be taken.

Let us examine another element of the ballyhooed Clinton legacy. That is the extraordinary increase in "hate" web sites as tracked by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. According to them, the number of hate web sites prior to the Oklahoma City bombing was only four. Afterwards, it grew to over 2,500! Naturally we have to ask why the sudden increase after that act of domestic terrorism. You will recall that the Oklahoma City bombing happened on April 15, 1995. That was during the first term of Clinton. That year was also the only year in which no school shootings took place during his reign. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 Americans. Though Americans have from the beginning killed other Americans, this was at the time the first and largest act of domestic terrorism in the modern century.

We know that according to Jesus (as recorded in the book of John, chapters 8:44 and 10:10), Satan "...was a murder from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him," and "The thief comes only to steal kill and destroy." Could the twenty eight school shootings have taken place during Clinton's time as president out of mere coincidence? Or was it rather that during his reign, the time was right for Satan to come in and kill 219 people and would about 100 others though these two means alone? What are the possible reasons to explain the explosive growth in hate sites on the Internet? Is it Gore's fault since he claims to have invented the Internet? Why should the incredible ease to post opinions and stories on the Internet give rise to such a tremendous number of hate sites since 1995? Could it be that all the people haters suddenly went online in 1995?

That's not a likely explanation, so what other reason could there be?Were all the people haters suddenly paid to spread their message on the Internet? Was all this hate mongering a part of a vast conspiracy? Left, center, or middle, take your choice. If so, where is the evidence to support such an explanation? Moreover, why did the sites pop up after the Oklahoma bombing? Was this all part of a well orchestrated ploy by Attorney General Janet Reno to discredit the Internet and demonstrate a reason for its being regulated, licensed, and taxed by the federal government?

One thing is for sure--it is easy to demonstrate that the continuous actions and words of Clinton and his administration testify that they are citizens of Satan's kingdom. Therefore, it should not be surprising that Satan used this man's time in office to spread death and destruction all across America. And that embracing him as Dubya has is sinful and deadly. This result should be as much expected by Americans as the daily rising of the sun in the east.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, ® Copyright © 1973, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

Mark B. Replogle is a California attorney at law. His practice is dedicated to bankruptcy law. He is the author of two books; Saviour Clinton: An Evil American King; and How To Hear and Discern The Voice of God. From 2003 to 2005 he served with the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Forces Pacific. During that period he was fortunate to serve in Bahrain in 2003, in South Korea for two exercises, and in Oahu, Hawaii.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.