Michelle Obama is leading a campaign to fight child obesity.

"We want to eliminate this problem of childhood obesity in a generation," the First Lady told Good Morning America in 2010 to kick off her Let's Move nutrition program.

"We all know the numbers," she said. "I mean, one in three kids are overweight or obese, and we're spending $150 billion a year treating obesity-related illnesses."

I'm politically aware enough to realize that her campaign is all about politics, designed to showcase her leadership skills in a safe arena, in what's become a tradition for previous First Ladies, including Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.

However, that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the issue selected for Michelle Obama to crusade against. The CDC reports that childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years. American kids, like American adults, are fat. Food is easily obtainable and cheap, even for poor people.

Sure enough, a study from the Oakland-based nonprofit Children Now showed that 37% of low-income children are overweight or obese.

But while Mrs. Obama complains about kids eating too much, other Progressives say they're starving. Kids can't be fat and starving at the same time, can they?

In the Progressive world we live in, they can.

CNN reported that one in five children are "at risk of hunger." And no, they don't mean hungry the way fat people are always hungry--CNN means they're starving, and cited a report from Feeding America.

The nonprofit Feeding America, a network of more than 200 food banks around the United States, reports one in five children are at risk of hunger.

CNN also referenced a 2010 Department of Agriculture report that 14.5% of households in the United States "lacked the resources to provide enough food for everybody." Kids don't have access to food and are starving, they say.

Michelle Obama and Children Now says kids are fat. The USDA, Feeding America, and CNN say they're starving. So what's going on?

Despite the opposing messages, Mrs. Obama, CNN, the USDA ,and the nonprofit groups are coming from the same place--they're just using two different tactics.

The overarching concern of each of those Progressive entities is to lead you stupid people to do the right thing. You see, you're not responsible enough to take care of your children's nutrition. You feed them too much fast food and not enough veggie wraps like enlightened people do. You need to be nudged to do the right thing.

In a world of socialized medicine, we can't have a bunch of fat people increasing the cost for everybody. So, we're going to treat you like infants and, in Mrs. Obama's case, we'll teach you how to shop at a grocery store, and in CNN's case we'll lie to you and say that children are starving to get your attention to get you to part with even more of your taxpayer dollars to fund more government programs to tell you how to live your life.

Tragically, we waste time, money, and energy worrying about getting food into the mouths of people that are already suffering from obesity instead of committing those resources to helping truly starving people in other countries.

Things are never quite so disgusting while they're still happening. It's only when we look back when we see how bad things were. Had we read that in Ancient Rome well-fed Romans complained they didn't have enough food as they engorged themselves on lavish sofas while non-Roman children died in the street of starvation, we'd shake our heads in disbelief.

But the same thing is happening in the United States, it's just not obvious to most people, particularly Progressives. If Progressives were eating ants off an anthill in Africa to stave off starvation, however, they might see how disgusting it is to spend your time fighting to get more money to pay for food to go into the mouths of already-fat American children.

 Yet in our backwards society, those Progressive elites are the smart ones that we get our information from and lead us, even though a child has more sense than they do.

Controversial TV commentator Lou Dobbs--"controversial" because he delivered his conservative views on left-leaning CNN--will join Fox Business Network, according to the cable channel.

The news comes exactly a year after Dobbs' final program aired on CNN after almost 30 years with the cable news pioneer.

CNN couldn't quite stomach Dobbs' strong stance against illegal immigration and that he aired some segments on Barack Obama's citizenship (even though he said he himself believes Obama is a citizen).

While CNN shied away from reporting on rampant illegal immigration--an ongoing event that has shaken this country loose from its fiscal and social moorings--it eagerly airs specials such as Black in America, Gay in America, and Planet in Peril, all politically correct milquetoast pieces. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism.

Dobbs must have offended some liberal sensibilities by not being so politically correct. In other words, he addresses real issues, and in doing so will join fellow liberal media refugees John Stossel and Glenn Beck.

Like them, he'll have the opportunity to speak his mind freely on Fox Business Channel, when his show airs early next year.

Here's something I ran across while perusing news on CNN's website.

I bet they do! But I'm sure it has nothing to do with polls that indicate Fox is one of America's most trusted news sources.

Remember the days when the media understood that its role was to act as a watchdog of government? When Woodward and Bernstein exposed the corruption in the Nixon Administration and helped bring it down? The Enemies List?

Grizzled, chain-smoking newspaper editors viewed themselves as the only people protecting America against totalitarianism, acting as the country's ombudsmen. White House Press Corps veterans are supposed to report on the President's policies with a healthy skepticism, taking pride in adopting a contrarian stance to act as a counterbalance against that powerful office.

You would think, then, that news organizations would have a sense of kinship with each other, and if the President tried to freeze one of them out for asking too many questions, the others would protest--not join in on eliminating their competition.

A brand-new poll shows that 81 percent of Americans get their election information from cable news sources, with Fox News Channel blowing away the competition. Millions of people tune into FNC, which is the only major news source that has adopted the contrarian stance with the President that the other news organizations used to do with other presidents.

Consequently, FNC is killing CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, and the damage they are doing has resulted in President Obama singling them out for attack.

He's so outraged at their coverage of his presidency that he told Rolling Stone that FNC is "destructive" to U.S. growth.

They scrutinize his policies and that's bad? That's their job, and frankly the rest of the media isn't picking up the slack.

It's a bit disturbing to anyone who knows what the Commerce Clause is to hear him say they are a threat to the economy.

But aside from that, shouldn't the other members of the press sort of speak up in the name of Freedom of the Press, like they did earlier this year when Obama tried to exclude Fox from the White House Press Corps?

Instead, they are silent because Obama is helping to wound a competitor of theirs. Some journalists they are, siding with the people they are supposed to watch to help kill a news organization that dared to ask too many questions.

If Obama succeeds in diminishing Fox, who's next? Anybody else who questions the administration, I suppose.

CNN," the most trusted name in news," airs a clown show for two hours in the middle of the day, presided over by Rick Sanchez, who is rapidly becoming an industry joke.

Listed as one of the cable network's Newsroom Anchors, Sanchez doesn't even bother pretending to be objective. His penchant for saying the first thing that comes to mind lands him routinely on Comedy Central's Daily Show, hosted by fellow liberal Jon Stewart.

Just last week, Sanchez read the parenthetical prompter instructions out loud to the camera.

"Up next, ad-lib a tease," the anchorman told viewers before catching himself, conjuring up images of Ron Burgundy telling San Dieg-oans to, well, you've seen the movie.

Earlier this year, Sanchez repeatedly questioned guests on the metric system. "Nine meters in English is....?"

That same day, he pointed to the Galapagos Islands on the map and asked if they were the Hawaiian Islands.

But while Sanchez may be the unintentional clown prince of cable news, there's a darker side to him.

In 1990, Sanchez left Miami's Joe Robbie Stadium and ran over a 31-year-old man, leaving him paralyzed in an apparent drunk driving accident. The then WSVN-Channel 7 anchorman denied he was intoxicated. He fled the scene of the accident, and--his story goes--he went home to get his insurance information and then had a couple drinks to calm his nerves before returning to the scene and getting his blood tested.

Sanchez's victim died in 1995 in a Pennsylvania nursing home. Six years later, the anchorman graduated to the big time, going to MSNBC and finally to CNN.

Sanchez was never charged in the man's death.