Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Clare Daly Has Had Enough Of The Obamas
Sam Huntington, my blog partner at Always On Watch, today posted this video of Clare Daley, co-founder of United Left, speaking to the Irish Parliament last month:
Monday, February 25, 2013
Quotation Of The Day
Actually a series of quotations (hat tip to Mike's America):
“Obama’s been virtually absent from the legislative process” of replacing his sequester, reports Politico. After getting the $600 billion in tax hikes he wanted last month (with no spending cuts), “there has been no discernible effort by the White House to work on a bill that might pass.”
“The Obama administration seems to be spending far more time warning of the consequences of the sequester — and blaming Republicans for it — than engaging in actual negotiations that would prevent it,” says ABC News.
“The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration,” says David Brooks in the New York Times, “let alone one that is politically plausible.”
“Tuesday's event had the feeling of a campaign commercial that went too far to be believed,” says the Los Angeles Times.
Politico says calls to GOP leaders were “perfunctory,” meant to “inoculate” the president from criticism that he’s campaigning instead of urging Senate Democrats to follow the House and pass legislation replacing his sequester. Their headline asks, “Is President Obama overplaying sequester hand?”
Meanwhile, this morning the mainstream media are so thrilled that Michelle Obama appeared at yesterday's Oscar Awards and, a day or so earlier, danced with Jimmy Fallon.
“Obama’s been virtually absent from the legislative process” of replacing his sequester, reports Politico. After getting the $600 billion in tax hikes he wanted last month (with no spending cuts), “there has been no discernible effort by the White House to work on a bill that might pass.”“The Obama administration seems to be spending far more time warning of the consequences of the sequester — and blaming Republicans for it — than engaging in actual negotiations that would prevent it,” says ABC News.
“The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration,” says David Brooks in the New York Times, “let alone one that is politically plausible.”
“Tuesday's event had the feeling of a campaign commercial that went too far to be believed,” says the Los Angeles Times.
Politico says calls to GOP leaders were “perfunctory,” meant to “inoculate” the president from criticism that he’s campaigning instead of urging Senate Democrats to follow the House and pass legislation replacing his sequester. Their headline asks, “Is President Obama overplaying sequester hand?”
Meanwhile, this morning the mainstream media are so thrilled that Michelle Obama appeared at yesterday's Oscar Awards and, a day or so earlier, danced with Jimmy Fallon.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Henpecked Obama
Obama, commenting on the nutrition bill, which he signed into law on Monday, December 13, 2010:
Obama said that if the bill had not reached his desk for his signature, “I would be sleeping on the couch.”Another dignified Presidential statement from Obama. Pffffft!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Michelle Obama: Displeased To Be In Moslem Garb?
From Weasel Zippers, which as even more photos at the foregoing link:
Or, is she just glaring at Barack?
Or, is she just glaring at Barack?
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
BREAKING NEWS: Michelle Finally Does Something Useful!
Mrs. Obama causes Koranic Kerfuffle by making hyper-moo-slum Indonesian minister shake hands with our kuffar not-his-first-cousin First Lady.
MSNBC has the story and the video.
Indonesian minister says he shook first lady's hand — by accident
Official, known for flaunting his piety, says touch wasn't by choice
JAKARTA, Indonesia — Once the wait for President Barack Obama's return was over, Indonesian anticipation turned to another question: Would a conservative Muslim government minister shake the first lady's hand?
He says he did, but not by choice. Footage on YouTube shows otherwise, sparking a debate that has lit up Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the blogosphere.
"I tried to prevent (being touched) with my hands but Mrs. Michelle held her hands too far toward me (so) we touched," Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring told tens of thousands of followers on Twitter.
While Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, the vast majority practice a moderate form of the faith. But Sembiring has flaunted his piety, making a point of avoiding contact with women who are not related to him.
The minister was among the dignitaries in a receiving line that greeted the Obamas as they arrived in Jakarta on Tuesday — a homecoming of sorts for the president who spent part of his childhood here. Indonesians gathered around television sets across the country to watch the American president touch down. Children at the school he attended practiced a song dedicated to him just in case he visited.
In footage of the official welcome, Sembiring appeared to share his countrymen's enthusiasm. He smiled broadly as he shook the president's hand and then reached with both hands to grasp Michelle's. But later he said she forced their contact.
His denial was in a response to tweets from Indonesians who noted the handshake, saying it called into question his long-standing claims that, as a good Muslim, he restricts his contact with women.
Many posts had a "gotcha" quality to them.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Michelle Obama Satirized In Thailand?
With a hat tip to Z!:
Remember when the Dems used to say that foreign nations despised GWB's cowboy ways and that America was a laughing stock overseas?
Well, looks as if BHO and his wife are laughing stocks there too. Heh.
Remember when the Dems used to say that foreign nations despised GWB's cowboy ways and that America was a laughing stock overseas?
Well, looks as if BHO and his wife are laughing stocks there too. Heh.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Tea Party and Michelle Obama Are Culturist Not Racist
First Lady Michelle Obama made a brave culturist speech about obesity in the African – American community and the antiquated NAACP used the occasion to slander the Tea Party as racist. The American people and the Tea Party are sick to death of this tired of the media and race baiters like the NAACP using such smear tactics. These race baiters’ tactics dismantle our national discourse, are dangerous, and hurt minority children more than racism does.
The NAACP is not the only organization obsessed with the titillating, malicious charge of racism. The media’s coverage of Mrs. Obama’s NAACP speech highlights their rancid guilt in this technique. ABC’s coverage of her speech claimed that she had denounced the Tea Party as racist.[i]
Yet she never said a word about the Tea Party. This coverage completely obscured the important culturist message she delivered. The focus of First Lady Obama’s speech dealt with childhood obesity. She told her audience that, “one in three children is overweight or obese.” Yet the race-obsessed coverage took us away from the vital issue that the First Lady wanted us to discuss.[ii]
Mrs. Obama’s speech was culturist. She laid the blame for childhood obesity at the door of cultural changes. She told of walking to school as a child and having gym class twice a week. Furthermore she discussed the impact of television replacing outside activity. She also discussed the decline of family meals and accessibility of candy as malicious dietetic factors. Her talk had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with culture.
First Lady Obama spoke of her hope that her White House garden would “spark a broader conversation about the health and well-being not just of our kids but of our communities.” Obviously, the abuse of the word “racism” in reference to her speech and the attention on the Tea Party completely obscured her message. It spawned virtually zero discussion of childhood obesity. ABC and the NAACP not only slandered good Americans belonging to the Tea Party, they diminished, and thus insulted, the First Lady with their repetition of charges of racism.
We need the ability to discuss issues in terms of culture, not race. After the NAACP accused the Tea Party of being racist, this non-issue became the focus of valuable media time. David Webb, a prominent African – American Tea Party leader, had to spend much of his resulting media time and attention discussing racism issue instead issues he and his Tea Party brethren would rather focus on like fiscal conservatism. Ironically, after Webb agreed to a summit on racism, the NAACP President, Benjamin Jealous, said, “there should be no debate about racism.” Exactly Mr. Jealous! It is a moot point. Our nation is as united as any in the world on the idea of combating racism.[iii]
Mrs. Obama and David Webb are not the only ones distracted by constant charges of racism. The Tea Party has stayed away from the vital issue of protecting our borders for fear of being called racist. Every step of our powerful Tea Party organization becomes tepid in this environment. The drug-running criminals of Northern Mexico represent a cultural threat to America, not a racial one. Yet the media seems obsessed with smearing those who worry about this issue as racist. The Tea Party needs to eschew this red herring of racism and talk in cultural terms if we are to feel free to discuss vital issues again.[iv]
Mrs. Obama speech itself could be called racist. She told her audience, “African American children are significantly more likely to be obese than are white children. Nearly half of African American children will develop diabetes at some point in their lives. People, that’s half of our children.” But rather than claiming racist attitudes caused this, rather than calling America racist, the First Lady highlights cultural patterns. Her “Let’s Move” initiative (www.letsmove.gov) targets "food deserts" in poorer neighborhoods underserved by major supermarkets. If she were white, the media would have called her racist. But her analysis is cultural, not racial.[v]
Elaborating, First Lady Obama told the NAACP that “inequalities still persist - in education and health, in income and wealth.” The NAACP considers these disparities the result of “racism.” But, needing to use desperate race-baiting tactics to stay in the news reflects the complete lack of relevance of their analysis. Culture explains differences in achievement in health, income, and education much better than phantoms of racial attitudes. As the media and the NAACP constantly ignore such issues and bring the focus back to racism, it robs America of an opportunity to have useful cultural discussions that could especially help the very minority groups they purport to care about.
To facilitate this transition away from constant accusations of racism, we need to supplement our vocabulary with the words “culturist” and “culturism.” Whenever the media or the NAACP smear citizens who speak about cultural issues as racist, we need a word that clarifies our concerns. Our PC multiculturalist leaders slander all those who would point out that diversity includes less-than-ideal characteristics as racist. But, we know that achievement gaps in education, health, and income have long been more profitably discussed as stemming from cultural maladies than reflecting the white man’s residual racist attitudes. America and the Tea Party must reject the race obsession of the media and the NAACP and follow Mrs. Obama’s lead in speaking in culturist terms.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Why Didn't Obama Take Michelle Along When He Visited Islamic Countries?
A very good question posed by an Anonymous commenter.
I would like to know the answer to that. She goes everywhere with him, doesn't she?
You'd think our media would ask this question, but no. Instead it is left to people like us.
Damien points out that Michael Savage was, apparently, the first person to ask this question. Listen to the points he makes here.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
"For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime..."
What is the deal with FLOTUS??? This is beyond nasty...psycho bitch could potentially start an international incident with key allies! Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Urge to Make Aggressive Statements at Any Possible Occasion
And now for something completely different!
I am not really fit to have an opinion on fashion, let alone criticize the sartorial choices of others. My only advice would be: "If you can't afford designer clothes, wear black." Luckily, black goes very well with my colours. When I buy shoes, I always buy expensive and classy ones to wear them for decades. I buy, too, good clothes and have forgone about 10 years ago to wear short skirts. I thought that it would be better if people regret that I do it instead of wishing I'd do it. I think long skirts and pumps look very dressy. The fact that I do not like patterns and prints adds to the lucky circumstance that I can wear my duds for many years without looking too obviously out of place. And to reveal one of my dark secrets: I have a "thing" for ball gowns and evening dresses and own several I have never, or only once, worn. Apart from that, fashionistas can bite me!
But I will explode if I don't say something about Michelle Obama's sartorial choices. That is not because I find the hype about dressing matters worth adding to, but because the hype about the Obamas, who seemingly can't do wrong in the eyes of the world (at least of my part of the world) creeps me out. Here we have examples from the gutter-, as well as from the "quality" media.
Michelle Obama is a great looking woman, or at least she would be wouldn't her resentful nature be written all over her face. At almost six foot, slim and trim, with great legs and arms and a curved figure -- far from the clothes rack appearance of most "supermodels", one should think she couldn't do much wrong in the sartorial field, yet she goes from bad to worse to the sycophantic acclaim of the world.
At her husband's inauguration she wore a cat-sick-yellow (widely described as "golden") thing with ugly texture and an even more ugly meant-to-be "decorative" neckline, together with cow-pat green, voluminous leather gloves.
At the inauguration ball she wore a dress that looked like a wedding dress for a teenage- or early twenty-ish bride from one of the cheaper off-the-rack lines.
To be realistic, that was only what we could expect. I mean... look at the dresses in the pictures below. The first one resembles a Haloween-horror costume, the second would be alright, albeit a bit too tight, weren't it for the colour that would suit hardly any woman's skin tone, and the purple and black colouring of the third, together with the cheap-looking accessories, is a mess as well.
The Obamas are not the only megalomaniac phonies who like to be compared with the Kennedys. The futility of the claim is obvious.
(Wasn't Jackie heavily pregnant at her husband's inauguration?)
To prove our lack of political bias, here is Laura Bush at the same occasion. Nobody has ever accused her of being well dressed, but THAT even beats Michelle Obama's blunders by several lengths.
Hillary at her husband's second inauguration ball: Perfect! She must have a whole staff of extremely competent advisers. Now she is a political heavy-weight herself, she is one of the few female politicians, maybe the only one in the higher echelons of that class, who has escaped the trap of appearing either as butch or simpering. I just wish she would just sometimes wear a skirt.
Mamie Eisenhower in her inaugural ball gown: Timeless chic! I am glad that this is a black-and-white photo, though, because I have a hunch that the dress was in that awful pink she so loved.
Nancy Reagan: Very nice -- for a woman thirty years younger. It is fair to assume that this influenced Hillary's above choice of an inaugural ball gown.
But back to the Obamas. I seem to remember that Jackie Kennedy was much criticized for her choice of French over American designers, when all the world is gushing ecstatically now over Michelle Obama's third-world chic. To suppress the urge to make an -- aggressive -- statement at any possible, and impossible, occasion would do her appearance a world of good.
Cross posted at The Evil Style Queen!
I am not really fit to have an opinion on fashion, let alone criticize the sartorial choices of others. My only advice would be: "If you can't afford designer clothes, wear black." Luckily, black goes very well with my colours. When I buy shoes, I always buy expensive and classy ones to wear them for decades. I buy, too, good clothes and have forgone about 10 years ago to wear short skirts. I thought that it would be better if people regret that I do it instead of wishing I'd do it. I think long skirts and pumps look very dressy. The fact that I do not like patterns and prints adds to the lucky circumstance that I can wear my duds for many years without looking too obviously out of place. And to reveal one of my dark secrets: I have a "thing" for ball gowns and evening dresses and own several I have never, or only once, worn. Apart from that, fashionistas can bite me!
But I will explode if I don't say something about Michelle Obama's sartorial choices. That is not because I find the hype about dressing matters worth adding to, but because the hype about the Obamas, who seemingly can't do wrong in the eyes of the world (at least of my part of the world) creeps me out. Here we have examples from the gutter-, as well as from the "quality" media.
Michelle Obama is a great looking woman, or at least she would be wouldn't her resentful nature be written all over her face. At almost six foot, slim and trim, with great legs and arms and a curved figure -- far from the clothes rack appearance of most "supermodels", one should think she couldn't do much wrong in the sartorial field, yet she goes from bad to worse to the sycophantic acclaim of the world.
At her husband's inauguration she wore a cat-sick-yellow (widely described as "golden") thing with ugly texture and an even more ugly meant-to-be "decorative" neckline, together with cow-pat green, voluminous leather gloves.
At the inauguration ball she wore a dress that looked like a wedding dress for a teenage- or early twenty-ish bride from one of the cheaper off-the-rack lines.
To be realistic, that was only what we could expect. I mean... look at the dresses in the pictures below. The first one resembles a Haloween-horror costume, the second would be alright, albeit a bit too tight, weren't it for the colour that would suit hardly any woman's skin tone, and the purple and black colouring of the third, together with the cheap-looking accessories, is a mess as well.
The Obamas are not the only megalomaniac phonies who like to be compared with the Kennedys. The futility of the claim is obvious.
(Wasn't Jackie heavily pregnant at her husband's inauguration?)
To prove our lack of political bias, here is Laura Bush at the same occasion. Nobody has ever accused her of being well dressed, but THAT even beats Michelle Obama's blunders by several lengths.
Hillary at her husband's second inauguration ball: Perfect! She must have a whole staff of extremely competent advisers. Now she is a political heavy-weight herself, she is one of the few female politicians, maybe the only one in the higher echelons of that class, who has escaped the trap of appearing either as butch or simpering. I just wish she would just sometimes wear a skirt.
Mamie Eisenhower in her inaugural ball gown: Timeless chic! I am glad that this is a black-and-white photo, though, because I have a hunch that the dress was in that awful pink she so loved.
Nancy Reagan: Very nice -- for a woman thirty years younger. It is fair to assume that this influenced Hillary's above choice of an inaugural ball gown.But back to the Obamas. I seem to remember that Jackie Kennedy was much criticized for her choice of French over American designers, when all the world is gushing ecstatically now over Michelle Obama's third-world chic. To suppress the urge to make an -- aggressive -- statement at any possible, and impossible, occasion would do her appearance a world of good.
Cross posted at The Evil Style Queen!
Friday, October 24, 2008
What's The Latest On The Following?
My online time lately has been severely restricted. Who can clarify with some facts so that I don't have to plow through Google searches and numerous blog-posts? Thanks in advance.
From the YouTube link:
Another related article
From the YouTube link:
Michelle Obama reportedly blew her top, on the telephone with the African Press International, for running a story about the Berg Vs Obama law suit, and Obama's adoption by Lolo Soetoro, which caused him to become a citizen of Indonesia. She called all those not supporting her husband, racists.Related article
Another related article
Monday, August 04, 2008
Michelle Obama: What's $600 To Me? Only One Pair Of Earrings
While the rest of us might see a $600 as an opportunity to catch up on some bills, of do some much-needed repairs on our home, the first thing that comes to mind for Michelle Obama is that she only buy "one pair of earrings" with that kind of dough.
Michelle Obama lives in a parallel reality to the rest of us. She is First Lady Barbie. The bitch thinks she has everything. I say she lacks common sense and empathy.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle,
complained the government’s $600 economic stimulus check was only enough to buy
“a pair of earrings” while stumping for her husband.
“You're getting $600 - what can you do with that?” Mrs. Obama said in
Pontiac, Michigan last week. “Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it
pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term
quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month
when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."
She made these remarks at a “working women’s roundtable discussion.”
Michelle Obama is Barack's own version of the Bimbo Eruption. I'll bet all the working women can really relate to her crap, huh?
Keep talking Michelle, you bimbo.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Obama Makes The Cover Of The New Yorker
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
From Politico:
The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Go read the whole thing at Politico.
The full article on this is up now.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Or Get Off the Pot, Please
Continuing in the spirit of the previous post, here's the latest update in the do-they-or-don't-they-have-it? debate concerning the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape. Either this thing is starting to look promising or it will rank as the top hoax of the 2008 campaign. Not counting Obama himself, that is.
From Gateway Pundit we have the latest. The post referenced is from Sister Rosetta of HillBuzz and is still in the realm of speculation, yet is specific and documented as to time and place: a Rainbow Push Coalition Conference held in Chicago June 26-July 1, 2004, at which Michelle Obama was listed as a "special guest". According to Sister Rosetta,
GP reports that according to the No Quarters blog,
If this report is accurate, then we need to see the entire 30 minutes of the would-be First Lady's anti-American rant, not just the couple of "whitey" lines.
If Bill Clinton spoke at the same event, would it not be likely that he took owns a record of that event? Also, since the pertinent part of the event was a panel and not a "speech", might there be legal questions to consider with regard to other speakers before the tape can be made public?
If this tape exists America needs to see it. And soon.
From Gateway Pundit we have the latest. The post referenced is from Sister Rosetta of HillBuzz and is still in the realm of speculation, yet is specific and documented as to time and place: a Rainbow Push Coalition Conference held in Chicago June 26-July 1, 2004, at which Michelle Obama was listed as a "special guest". According to Sister Rosetta,
Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks. Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference... but not at the panel Michelle attended. Michelle Obama... referenced Bill Clinton in her rant -- his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems. For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launced into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launced into and attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America.
GP reports that according to the No Quarters blog,
the "tape" is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity's site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale. This outburst happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered the keynote address.
If this report is accurate, then we need to see the entire 30 minutes of the would-be First Lady's anti-American rant, not just the couple of "whitey" lines.
If Bill Clinton spoke at the same event, would it not be likely that he took owns a record of that event? Also, since the pertinent part of the event was a panel and not a "speech", might there be legal questions to consider with regard to other speakers before the tape can be made public?
If this tape exists America needs to see it. And soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)