During the 2004 election campaign, opponents of President Bush accused him of ‘fear mongering’ for re-election purposes. Democrats alleged that Bush raised the terror threat level as elections neared so that voters were more inclined to vote Republican.
Similarly, Obama cried foul during his 2008 campaign against Sen. McCain. The McCain campaign platform was built around the troop surge and the imperative for victory in Iraq. But Obama responded by claiming that his opponent was over-hyping the facts. “They’re trying to fool you, and trying to scare you, and they’re not telling the truth. And the reason is because they can’t win a foreign-policy debate on the merits. But it’s not going to work,” Obama told a crowd in South Dakota.
But now it seems the Democrats are having some merit problems of their own. This past week, Arizona’s Rep. Gabrielle Giffords endorsed Michelle Obama’s initiative aimed at childhood obesity. Granted, there are plenty of reasons why this might be a worthwhile cause. But Rep. Giffords gave new meaning to the term ‘twinkie defense’ when she mused that overweight kids present ‘national security implications’.
According to the press release issued by Rep. Giffords, “About one-third of all potential recruits can’t join because they’re too heavy and out of shape.” Perhaps the military does have recruitment obstacles. But if the Congresswoman is going to single out an overweight kid, then shouldn’t she be at least as critical toward our nation’s legitimate security threats? Did she issue a similar press release holding Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano accountable for the national security breach this past Christmas?
But Rep. Giffords’ fear mongering is amateurish when compared to the logic used by some environmentalist do-gooders. This past December, Arizona’s Rep. Raul Grijalva and 72 other Congressmen signed a letter urging President Obama to include $1 billion in the budget to fund international ‘family planning’.
Such requests for money is nothing new but the letter says “family planning and reproductive health should be part of larger strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation.” So do Rep. Grijlava and our other elected officials not see the moral hazard of tying global warming mitigation to population control?
It’s a dangerous calculation of humanity to measure life by the size of its carbon footprint. A higher respect for life emphasizes the good things that can be accomplished with more hands and minds.
Photo courtesy of U.S. Army
Neil Rosekrans is a founder and partner of StateBrief.com. He has been a guest political commentator for the Arizona Law Channel, NBC's Sunday Square Off and The Terry Gilberg Show on KFYI. Neil earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University and earned his MBA and Masters in Public Policy, with an emphasis in International Relations, from Pepperdine University.
Neil and his wife, Beth, live in Scottsdale, Arizona. 
While it may be true that childhood obesity is a problem here in Arizona, which I was not aware of, there was no mention in this article regarding the group that was being studied for childhood obesity. Was it the Hispanic child, the Indian child, who? On the other hand, Ms. Giffords mentions that childhood obesity is a “threat” to national security because there are approximately 1/3 potential military recruits who are out of shape. Well, no offense to Ms. Giffords, but how else does an individual get into shape than to join those who also get into shape? This would be a great way for potential recruits to get into shape. Just give them some time and eventually they’ll be in better shape than most. Ms. Giffords is correct in stating that it’s up to the parents and the schools to educate their children on nutritional foods, however, I don’t think this needs to become a federal case taken to the federal level. Perhaps more importantly is to crack down on some of the food companies: for example, those who sell cereals loaded with lots and lots of healthy sugar. I know, I love them too, but hey, this isn’t how we want our children to get used to eating. If we’re so concerned about obesity, which we all should be, then why not target those who put all the crap in our food? Processed foods, anyone? MSG anyone? etc. etc. Yes, this should all be taken to the federal level. And, if a kid is overweight by the time he’s 18, he should be thrown in the penitentiary. Give me a break!
Oh, and by the way, how else would our airlines be able to make lots of money if they can’t charge a heavy weight person for two seats. No, being obese adds to our economy!!!