Popular Posts

Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Michelle Obama vs. The Fat Kid

I feel it is my duty to provide Michelle Obama with a reality check. So here we go...Mrs. Obama, you can thank me later! So she said...just yesterday..."Childhood obesity isn't just a public health threat, it's not just an economic threat, it's a national security threat as well." Now don't get me wrong, parts of the bill that just passed are great, like not letting kids go hungry. BUT...The emphasis on the statistics regarding how many children live in poverty and go to sleep hungry each night was sorely missing from this legislation.

For example, In 2009, 50.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33 million adults and 17.2 million children. But Ms. Obama didn't talk about this, she was too focused on all those fat kids who seem to be eating quite well and who aren't hungry...ever!

Michelle, did you know Arkansas has 17.7% of families not getting enough food?

I think she is completely misguided by her socialist husband's need to control all we do...and her focus ended up not being about hunger but rather about forcing YOU not to eat devil dogs anymore!

kid + twinkie = security breech
kid + chips = heightened terror alert to red
kid + snickers= name on the no-fly list

Yeah, ok Mrs. O, so I'm guessing this applies to your fancy White House Christmas dinner too, right?  So Mrs. Obama... you are not allowed to eat any cream-based soups, no dinner rolls with pointless calories, no butter on the table, no candied yams dripping in maple syrup, no gravy, no mashed potatoes, no cheesecake, no pie, no ham, and definitely no ketchup....which has 233 calories per serving by the way!!

I declare, by the socialist powers that be, that you may only eat a garden salad with lemon spritzed on top for your Christmas dinner. Got it?!?


Frank said...

I agree wholeheartedly with you YET AGAIN! Your witticism is dead-on!

Anonymous said...

Michelle Obama's statement is true. And if you're so blinded by your own party ideology to see that, well then you can pull figures you don't truly understand (do you even know how food scarcity is defined or what criteria it is measured by?)all day...it still doesn't mean you're right.

So it's okay for Arnold Schwarzenegger to travel around the country in the 1980's promoting exercise and speaking out against the health dangers of obesity, in conjunction with a Reagan administration federal program to set a standard of physical fitness? But it's not acceptable for the first lady to want to lower childhood diabetes? This is a looming healthcare cost for a life long disease that is overwhelmingly diet induced in children? Why should my health insurance have to go up for your gastric bypass surgery? Why should I have to help pay for your Lark when you can't walk around anymore on your own due to obesity?

And as for hungry kids? Yeah, I know all about it...I grew up poor and worked my way through college. I also know that the term socialism means in complex and varied forms, Obama is barely a centrist...BARELY. I bet you would have said my free school lunches were just a government handout that should be cut from spending. You really don't care about this topic, you just want to blast the President and First Lady on legislation that is actually important. There's plenty of Obama's policies that you can debate and show legitimate issues with, why manufacture them for really surface level petty reason?

Control all food? Maybe if the fat kid's parents were doing a better job controlling the excess amounts of crappy food they allow their child to consume, maybe then the government wouldn't have to get involved in epidemics like obesity.

Wake up... It's good to be angry and challenge power, but for crying out loud...be angry for reasons that matter and impact the change you want to see in the world.