In an effort to slash waste from the federal budget, President Obama broke out a new rack of 22 pens today to sign into law a Bill that will protect us all from the latest threat to our National security. Did we find a terrorist with a suitcase bomb? No. We found a fat kid with a back pack full of twinkies. And with $4.5 billion of taxpayer dough, Michelle Obama's Twinkie Tour should be riding in style. The bill, called "No Kid Hefty Behind" (okay, I made that part up) is said to be deficit neutral, which of course leftists take as meaning that it costs us nothing. It should be pointed out, however, that the mere fact that we saved some money somewhere else doesn't mean we have to spend it here. I'll ignore the obvious question of how feeding kids less costs more, and I won't even delve into why parents can't feed their own kids, to open up this can of worms. Remember when Michelle Obama appeared on Mike Huckabee's show to discuss this issue? He asked her about Government involvement at the time. Here is how that went down.
HUCKABEE: … and some say, "Oh, this is going to lead to a mani (ph) state. The government telling us what we can eat." Are those fears fair, or are they unfounded? OBAMA: Well, this is the one thing that this initiative isn’t. Because I’ve spoken to a lot of experts about this issue, and the one thing that they haven’t said is that government telling people what to do is the answer. This is not government intervention. I mean, as you know, as governor, you know, this isn’t a one-size-fits-all kind of solution.
So, since the one thing they hadn't suggested was the Government telling people what to do, the Obama's decided that the only logical course of action was for the Government to tell people what to do via the brand new law. Genius! So how exactly will this Bill make our kids thinner? It does this in two ways.
- By giving kids more food. "The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier."
- By not letting them buy junk food, but letting them get junk food for free. "The nutritional standards apply if the food is being sold at a bake sale, but not if it's being given away free, such as by a parent for a child's birthday."
What could possibly go wrong there?
Now, for the record, Media Matters was able to source Michelle's claim about childhood obesity being a threat to National Security. First, the quote.
And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, they tell us that childhood obesity isn't just a public health issue; they tell us that it is not just an economic threat -- it is a national security threat as well.
Here is the source from ABC. Not to get too technical here, but reading this article first off shows that it is actually retired Military leaders making the claim, not current ones as was suggested by the first lady. A further analysis shows that in the said article, no one is actually quoted as making such a claim. It is rather a headline that is repeated in the story, but never sourced to an individual.
Furthermore, nowhere on the Mission Readiness website can I find the claim that this is "a threat to national security". They instead make much more reasonable claims like "A limited recruitment pool will hold back our military readiness and erode our national security in the long run." So where does this idea come from? I was able to source it directly to one man, and one man only. Retired General William Wallace. Here it is.
The U.S. Army today faces an imminent and menacing threat to our national security.
So, this means that Michelle Obama was close to right. It isn't Military leaders, but it is a retired Military leader. Close enough, right? Not exactly. Let's look at her quote again.
And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, they tell us that childhood obesity isn't just a public health issue; they tell us that it is not just an economic threat -- it is a national security threat as well.
What was actually said?
Many young Americans are willing to serve but too little is made of the declining number of young people who are qualified to serve. This is the real story and it’s a shocking one. Only 28 percent of the 17 to 24 year-old population qualifies to wear a military uniform. The other 72 percent fail to meet minimum standards on education, character and health. The problem gets worse. Of those eligible to serve, a significant portion chooses not to for a variety of reasons.
Since Michelle does not source her information, I have to assume she combined the 25% number from Mission:Readiness and the "threat to national security" from TNS to come up with the concept that fat kids are a national security threat. Pretty good work for a woman who doesn't follow the news because she would rather her opinions not be shattered by fact, huh?
