I did a couple of ads mocking Michelle Obama's efforts to get government's foot in the door or what we eat by hiding behind the skirt of our children in schools...
The holiday theme was a bit limiting, and doesn't really get to the bottom of things....
Hopefully this helps better move that ball forward a bit. ;-)
A lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't understand why anyone would oppose Michelle Obama putting on her nanny cap and keeping a calorie tally over America's kids. After all she's just trying to help prevent what she calls a threat to our national security.
“A recent study put the health care cost of obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year,” Mrs. Obama said. “This epidemic also impacts the nation’s security, as obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.”
If fitness is an emerging problem then surely whipping people into shape is something the United States military can handle better than, say, coping with the potential for sexual tension that congress and the president just invited upon it via the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
This isn't a judgement either way on DADT (this blog has no official opinion on it, yet). I just find it interesting that the left thinks refusing to execute their social engineering agenda is a greater existential threat to "national security" than psychos with nukes.
If this is being done in the name of national security where does it stop? As soon as the government figures out that telling kids what to eat at school does nothing as long as they live under not only their parents' roof, but also their eating habits, what is to stop them from "redoubling their efforts" as a justification to start regulating what everyone eats?
Is anyone prepared for an America where the only ding dongs you'll be able to find are people who vote Democrat?
The colonists went ape-stuff when the King of England imposed a tax on tea. At least he wasn't dictating what people could consume. Imagine how they would react to all of this.