Skip to content

Abortion and Keeping the Right to Dream Alive

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Originally post at American Thinker Blog

This week was the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that gave women in pursuit of a ‘dream’ the right to abort a generation of inconvenient children. For those women whose career aspirations and desire for financial security took precedence over the sanctity of life, disposing of fifty or sixty million human beings was but a small price to pay.

President Barack Obama appreciates the stuff that dreams are made of, and has made it clear he believes that an unwanted pregnancy is a “punishment” if it deters a woman’s hopes and dreams.  Obama’s remedy?  Eliminate that which is living if it infringes on that which is not.

Discussing the treatment of black slaves, Obama once said he believed the US Constitution was a document with “deep flaws.” Yet on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, apparently those flaws have faded because the President justified his ardent pro-choice position by cleaving to what he believes is the “fundamental constitutional right” to dispose of lives deemed by some to be valueless.

The President said: “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.” Thus Roe v. Wade enthusiast President Obama, stalwart in his assurance, pledged to those who should choose prior to conceiving that he would protect the right to destroy the result of wrong choices.

Preaching a sermon on Molech’s day of remembrance, Obama reminded the pro-choice congregation that “As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

Government should not intrude? But doesn’t Obama approve of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which appropriates, in the form of federal taxes, tithes and offerings?  Barack Obama wrests from those who refuse to worship at the altar of abortion and forces them, against their will, to finance insurance plans that include options that offend religious sensibility and violate moral conscience.

Therefore, Obama’s objection to intrusion must be highly selective, because while he refuses to tolerate anyone or anything standing in the way of access to abortion on demand, he “finalized regulations that order Americans – unless they work directly at a church - to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.”

To balance out the radicalism and appear to be moderate, after exalting the sanctity of privacy the President then called for unified intrusion into private matters, saying that “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue — no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”

Obama then said something so shocking that its implications should chill anyone who has a soul to the bone: “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”  In other words, dreams live if babies die.

This is a man so committed to daughters fulfilling dreams and so careful not to undermine the “original intent” of Roe v. Wade that as an Illinois state senator he voted four times against legislation that would provide medical care to children that survive abortions.   If a baby destined to die is feisty and hardy enough and refuses to cooperate, Barack Obama, protector of dreams and champion of women’s rights, has voted against giving a shivering infant struggling to breathe the basic human right to hydration, warmth and oxygen.  What a guy.

Nonetheless, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, yet another generation of American women should feel indebted to guardian of reproductive rights President Obama, whose continued oath to support the killing of the innocent will surely keep the right to dream alive. So, happy anniversary to all of those who, for 40 years, have lived that dream, avoided being punished with a baby, and successfully pursued a road that leads directly toward regret and despair.

 

Popularity: 1% [?]

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Obama Fundraiser: Fashion’s One-Percenters Sell Overpriced Garb to Fellow One-Percenters

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

Just like four years ago, another group of legendary Obama 1 percent supporters have stepped forward to lend a creative hand to help the President raise money for his 2012 bid for reelection. Last time around it was “Runway to Change.” This time the design-for-Obama group effort has been dubbed “Runway to Win.”

Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor that hosted Obama’s supporters in her New York townhouse and who recently co-hosted a $35,000 per person fundraiser at Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s home, is heading up the venture. In the past, Wintour’s tony political functions were attended by the likes of Alicia Keys and $70,000 dinner power couple Coldplay singer Chris Martin and his actress wife, the “suddenly everywhere” Miramax “muse,” Gwyneth Paltrow.

So with Wintour now raising reelection funds, you can just forget the $5 raffle tickets for a hot dog dinner with Barry and Shelley. Instead, the campaign will be hawking designer duds to people who, last time around, were in such dire straits they hoped the new president would fill their gas tank and pay their mortgage.

For her latest effort, Anna Wintour has recruited Hollywood notables, designers, pop and hip-hop artists, and other all-around really rich people to raise money for Barack 2012 by designing overpriced T-shirts, tank tops, scarves, wristlets, and bags to sell at inflated prices to people who, in the midst of an Obama recession, really can’t afford them.

Thus, “Runway to Win” is yet another example that Barack Obama and his helpful circle of elite Hollywood friends and Seventh Avenue designer devotees are all pretty much insulated from reality, out of touch, and oblivious to the plight of the common man.

Recently, in order to make a point that a $40 tax cut is needed in order to feed starving American families, Obama asked the question: “What does $40 Mean to You?” Most Americans were probably thinking warehouse club paper towels and lunch for two at Taco Bell, not $45 T-shirts.

Unlike them, Obama was thinking T-shirts!  Apparently, the budget-minded President is comfortable with Mrs. Jay-Z, barely off the delivery table and out of the special maternity suite with the 10-man security team at Lenox Hill Hospital, designing cotton tee jerseys for impoverished Americans.

Beyonce’s creation stands to pull down a hefty profit for merchandise that’s actually worth no more than $5. For 45 bucks, clotheshorses all along the “Flaws and All” campaign trail, instead of buying groceries, will have a chance to wear a cheap quality “Yes we can… Greater Together” T-shirt.

New mom Beyonce is only one of many slobbering Obama supporters who will be joining forces to produce a trendsetting Barack Obama clothing line for 2012.

Thanks to all the participants, Obama for America supporters will have an opportunity to parade around with an Obama-logo tote bag while wearing clothing that shouts to the world that just because a person’s been unemployed for more than three years doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to four more years of watching Michelle Obama wear $2,000 sundresses.

For most Americans, splurging means shopping at Target. In the meantime, while the 99% eat Spaghetti-Os for dinner, the “Runway to Win” list of designers reads like a Who’s Who of attendees at White House Wednesday-night Kobe-beef Conga/cocktail parties.  The list is a couture catalog of who dresses Mrs. Obama in outfits whose one-year cost, when totaled, tallies to an amount that could save 1.2 million American homes from being foreclosed.

Some of the 22 designers participating in the effort are: Russell Simmons, billionaire business magnate of Def Jam fame; Sean “Diddy” Combs, another billionaire, rapper, and record producer who’s also recognizable by the names Sean John Combs, Puff Daddy, and P. Diddy; and even Tory Burch, the designer of the $500 boots Michelle wore to turn over the White House lawn when instructing Americans on the money-saving benefits of planting an at-home organic vegetable garden.

Many of Michelle Obama’s highbrow clothes designers will also be contributing to the effort: Narciso Rodriguez, Jason Wu, Alexander Wang, Joseph Altuzarra, Rag and Bone, Rachel Roy and Tracy Reese.

For those wanting a “first access pass,” on the tongue-in-cheek “Proudly made in America” campaign blog is the following announcement:

We’re launching something new, and a little different, over the next few weeks: Runway to Win, a collaboration by some of the country’s top fashion designers in support of Obama 2012. In the coming weeks, we’ll be rolling out Obama-inspired designs by everyone from Tracy Reese to Jason Wu to Tory Burch at runwaytowin.com. The details are still under wraps, but sign up for your First Access pass to get updates—and a first look at the new designs. Then invite your friends and family to do the same.

The truth is, any designer invested in Obama winning another term is probably secretly hoping their names will continue to be printed on the tags of what fills Mrs. Obama’s sartorially-stuffed clothes closet.

On the other hand, previous Obama supporters like Donna Karan, who participated in 2008, decided this year their idea of change would be to put Republican customers and capitalism first. Apparently, some decided to bow out because maintaining a customer base means more to them than being introduced by Scarlett Johansson at an Obama 2012 fashion show/fund raiser.

So, while Americans continue to suffer, big-name fashion designers and a diverse group of entrepreneurs like ‘Let’s Move’-Beyonce will be directly involved in “Runway to Win.” And yet, aside from the all the glitter and glamour, in light of 2008’s “Runway to Change,” the whole thing is really a bit scary. Why? Because if “change” is any indication of what four years of “winning” will be like, instead of walking the runway, if Mr. Fashionista manages to win a second term, America will more likely be walking the plank.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged alexander wang, anna wintour, Beyonce, clothing designers, donna karan, Fashion, jason wu, Jay Z, joseph altuzarra, Michelle Obama, narciso rodriguez, Obama, P. Diddy, rachel roy, rag and bone, reelection campaign, Runway to Win, Russell Simmons, Sean Combs, Tory Burch, tracy reese | Comments (0)

Is Newt Gingrich the Republican Party’s King David?

Friday, January 20, 2012

Remember King David?  David was God’s man of faith and power: a psalmist, a great leader, and a man after “God’s own heart.”  Unfortunately, David had issues with temptation, lust, adultery and murder.  Sound familiar?

Now the Republican Party is grappling with similar issues concerning a conservative candidate who, if he had comported himself in his personal life in a manner similar to progressive Republican Mitt Romney, we wouldn’t be having discussions about what happened 20 years ago.

But here we are, and Newton Leroy McPherson, aka Newt Gingrich, is a man with David-like qualities, likely the best representative for what the conservative wing of the Republican Party stands for, and the most likely able to slay a Goliath named Obama.

The Republican Party is desperate to find a candidate that can trounce Obama and dial back the country to its more Reaganesque past, thus Newt Gingrich is a candidate on the rise.  If Newt is taken down, it will be because when he wasn’t about the business of finding “American Solutions,” he spent too much time like King David, walking on rooftops and gazing upon Bathshebas in or around the halls of Congress.

Despite his brilliance, Newt’s one drawback is past appreciation for women who weren’t his wife. Gingrich is guilty of what King David did, and not once, but twice.  The former speaker’s ex-wives paid for it, and his grown daughters, regardless of what they say, surely carry the pain of their father’s betrayals.

Repentance or no repentance, conversion or not, like a pebble being thrown into a pool of water, even years later adultery has ongoing repercussions.  All American voters will be affected if Newt is Herman Cain-ed and shoved out of the running because of a salivating media who blithely excused Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes, but are more than willing to crucify Mr. Gingrich for his past mistakes.

Jackie Battley Gingrich was Newt’s first wife of 19 years.  Infamously, the Congressman surprised her while she was recovering in a hospital after surgery to remove a potentially cancerous tumor by asking her for a divorce.

At the time, Newt was anxious to be unattached from the mother of his children because he admittedly was seeing 28-year-old congressional aide Marianne Ginther Gingrich.  They married six months after his divorce from Jackie was finalized.

Nineteen years after Newt married Marianne, Callista became the third Mrs. Gingrich, and the duo have been gloriously joined at the hip now for 12 years. Question: What exactly was Gingrich thinking when he criticized Bill Clinton for committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky when he himself was married to Marianne and carrying on with a woman 23 years his junior?

With that in mind, until that 19-year mark comes and goes, the present Mrs. Gingrich shouldn’t get too comfortable.

And the Lord said to David: “You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.” Thus, twenty-odd years later, those initial adulterous ripples have made contact with Newt’s aspirations to become President of the United States, and have grown into waves smashing with great force against the side of his campaign.

Despite his admitted repentance and ability to explain his way out of any situation, Newt is presently being sucked into a vortex of disgrace. Why? Because there are four people involved in a twenty-year-old scandal: three wives – two of whom are former mistresses – and the perpetually married Mr. Gingrich.

Based on his own admission, we know that the presidential hopeful cheated on his two ex-wives with two congressional aides, both of whom he eventually married. That means at the bare minimum we have three people with a history of being less than truthful.

There’s Newt, who may be a great debater, historian, and politician, but who’s past track record in the veracity department does leave a lot to be desired.  Then there’s Marianne Ginther Gingrich, second wife/woman scorned.  Marianne’s tawdry story may or may not be true, because let’s face it – when Ms. Ginther was a congressional aide she had no problem skulking about with a married man.

And let’s not forget the perfectly-coifed Callista who, besides carrying on with another woman’s husband, is also a published author, player of the French horn, singer in the choir at the Basilica of the National Shrine, and creator of Ellis the Elephant. First lady hopeful Callista followed in Marianne’s footsteps and did to Marianne what Marianne did to Jackie.

Even still, like King David, Gingrich does have the potential to be a great leader.  The American people would benefit greatly with Newt as president, but if what happened to Herman Cain – with a lot less evidence – is any example, it remains to be seen whether Newt’s dream will ever come to pass.

A modern day reenactment of an ancient king’s fall from grace may or may not end up being Newt Gingrich’s downfall. Unlike King David, who slew Uriah to cover his sin, thankfully in Newt’s case no one lost their life in the literal sense.  However, if the resurrected scandal sticks, conservatives who have been faithful to Newt and the principles he espouses could be in for a political death of epic proportions.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged adultery, Callista Gingrich, Jackie Gingrich, King David, Marianne Gingrich, Newt Gingrich, repentance | Comments (4)

Smaller Government’s Newest Politician: Barack Obama

Monday, January 16, 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Seems Barack Obama has slipped on his Mitt Romney mask.   The President hosted a White House smaller-government event complete with a bubble graph slide show and CEOs.  One difference: Obama is proposing lessening the grip of government on jobs and the economy by asking Congress to transfer more power to him.  Obama asking for more power to curtail government could be likened to quitting marijuana by shooting heroin.

Come on now, is America supposed take seriously that a government-loving liberal who’s promoted big budget-busting bureaucracy as the catalyst to job creation for the last three years, is suddenly into saving money and jobs by consolidating government?

By now, when Americans hear the name Barack Obama they instantly think: great teeth, questionable golf skills and a wife who shops at Target.

However, to many, the name Obama also calls to mind things like: union thuggery, socialized health care, unelected and unaccountable czars, demonization of the rich, punishing businesses, widespread unemployment, limiting Constitutional liberties, borrowing $6.2 trillion in one term, maligning conservativism, and thinking government should fund everything from education for illegals to abortion on demand.

Now, nine months prior to the next election, with less than stellar approval numbers and the unemployment rate still unacceptable, supposedly in an effort to save “$3 billion and 1,000 to 2,000 jobs over ten years,” Obama suddenly wants to streamline federal trade policy by requesting the “power to consolidate agencies that promote U.S. exports.” The plan is to close down the Commerce Department and merge together the “small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency.”

Sorry, but giving Obama more power over business doesn’t accomplish the goal of less government. It just puts governmental-style control into the hands of one person, which feels a tad uncomfortable — control over which companies get government help in trade issues.  Doesn’t this smell of crony capitalism in the hands of a veteran of pay-to-play in Chicago?

During remarks at the White House and without informing Congress, Obama said:

Today, I’m calling on Congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline and reform the executive branch. This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. And let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government.

If the same Congress that Obama said he’s planning on working without gives him the “green light,” he would gain “fast-track authority — that is, the ability to bypass a Senate filibuster — for any number of government consolidation proposals.”  All that’s required is that he present his bids as being “aimed at saving taxpayer dollars and boosting efficiency,” which three years of economic disaster has proven, with Obama in charge, probably isn’t the case.

Let’s remember that thus far, although he’s asking for greater authority, Obama hasn’t earned it.  He’s been neither efficient, adept at saving taxpayers money, nor a man fond of “leaner government.”  If Congress agrees, “The House and Senate would have to hold an up-or-down vote within 90 days of receiving such a proposal.”

It’s not surprising that the usual RINO suspects like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee support Obama’s efforts.

However, what is surprising is the normally tough Obama administration skeptic Darrell Issa (R-California), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, being positive about giving the President more clout.  Issa wants to prevent Eric Holder’s ”Fast and Furious[ly]“-tainted Department of Justice from having the power to police the Internet through the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), yet he’s optimistic about Obama’s Gimme More Power proposal?

Thankfully, other Republican politicians are more cautious. Seasoned Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is wary of the normally disingenuous anti-Congress Obama sincerely “calling on Congress,” and is skeptical that Big Government Barry wants to reform government at all.

Hatch raises a great point. After finding the time to bus CEOs to the White House and set up alongside the trusty Teleprompter a slide show as slick as anything at Bain Capital, couldn’t Obama also find time to consult with Congress before making his big announcement? Especially since the President forcefully requested that Congress reinstate the type of powers last exercised by Ronald Reagan, a leader everyone knew consistently promoted small government.

Taken aback, Hatch said:

What’s disconcerting is that the president has again chosen not to work with Congress — even after I specifically asked the Obama administration to fully brief Congress if it chose to reorganize our trade agencies. As the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, I will discuss this matter with my colleagues and will expect a fullaccounting by the administration in short order.

The Utah Senator better hurry, because if he asked the Obama administration to follow a certain protocol and they refused, it’s questionable whether the President (checks and balances be damned) can be trusted to handle increased autonomy.

While cynical, it appears that crafty Obama may be luring Republicans into a ‘smaller-government/more power for me’ Catch-22.  If lawmakers refuse to comply, the President can then say, “See, even when I do what they say they want, they refuse to work with me.  That’s why I must work around them.”

That sort of slick ploy could garner the additional power Obama seeks, reaffirm his anti-Congress contention and deliver a few more “We can’t wait” campaign slogans for 2012.

For astute politicians, Barack Obama promoting less government in a venue that would exclude Congress should send up a red flag. Vowing that he would ”only use” the authority in a certain way shouldn’t fool anyone. It seems as if Obama’s real plan may be to expand presidential power by tickling the ears of hopelessly naïve Republicans while simultaneously fashioning a platform of accusation upon which to condemn Congress.  Hedging his bets, President Obama is probably convinced that either way – he’ll win.

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged Daniel Issa, Eric Holder, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, presidential power, Senate filibuster, Susan Collins, the Commerce Department | Comments (1)

Misquoting MLK

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

To the amazement of many, President Obama actually counts himself among a short list of historical greats, and in fact perceives himself to be a little bit Lincoln and a little bit MLK. So much so that in 2010, along with quotes from John F. Kennedy and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King were both honored in a redecorated Oval Office.

Indelibly embroidered into the Oval Office rug was a quote attributed to King: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  But the problem is that the words were actually those of “abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker” Theodore Parker.  Civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was such an admirer of Parker that he often wove the minister’s eloquent words into the tapestry of his own powerfully moving speeches.

Misappropriation of words is not unusual; even Constitutional law professor Barack Obama has been known to confuse the United States Constitution with, and has also misquoted, the Declaration of Independence.

Out promoting liberal policy, Obama once attempted to build a consensus of likeminded people when, concerning the torture of prisoners of war, he assigned words to conservative British politician Winston Churchill that he never actually said.  On occasion, Obama has even been known to distort the Word of God by bumbling a Bible verse or two.

Not that America holds Obama responsible for the accuracy of every word spoken or written, but one would think that during the first African-American presidency, quotes attributed to a civil rights leader of the caliber of Martin Luther King Jr. should at least be accurate.  Especially since the President takes every possible opportunity to compare himself to King whom, unlike Obama, was a humble humanitarian.

Now, just prior to Martin Luther King Day 2012, we come to find out that the monument situated on the National Mall between the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials has an out-of-context quote inscribed on the “north face of the 30-foot-tall granite statue.”

The quotation reads: “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” Dr. King’s son, Martin Luther King III, told CNN, “That was not what Dad said.” Maya Angelou, poet, civil rights activist, and friend of the Kings, says the shortened version is boastful and makes MLK sound like an “arrogant twit” when in reality he was nothing of the sort.

Taken from a sermon given two months prior to his assassination entitled “The Drum-Major Instinct,” King’s self-written pre-mortem eulogy’s goal was to expose the evil danger of promoting oneself.  The accurate version was: “Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.”

Nonetheless, because President Obama spoke at the dedication of the monument, there is an upside to having an error etched in stone. Purportedly there to honor King, as usual Obama used the opportunity to extract sympathy for his own misguided partisanship woes by linking King’s struggle for equality was his own self-inflicted wounds, and in so doing accomplished exactly what Dr. King’s speech condemned.

Had self-aggrandizing Barack Obama not been a small boy at the time, if he had had the honor of attending the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, on February 4, 1968 and stayed to listen, he would have been chastised by King for the folly associated with the type of behavior that appears to be part of Barack’s DNA. Thus, it was a good thing at the dedication ceremony MLK’s words were not yet clarified, as inaccuracy averted an embarrassing situation for the President.

Standing in the shadow of the monument, if King’s quote had been in proper context the President would have looked just like the egotistical braggart he is.  Unlike Barack Obama, Reverend King was unassuming and self-aware.  A godly man, he recognized the weakness of humanity and assigned to the fleshly nature the “basic human instinct” to be your own drum major, a quality Barack Obama excels at.

Prophetically speaking, Reverend King rightly said that seeking “recognition and praise…is dangerous and can lead to many social ills, including bigotry.” He argued that the drum major “instinct [could] be harnessed for noble ends, but only by doing good works and not by seeking accolades for doing them.”

Not seeking praise for charitable works is the basic principle of “when you give to the needy, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,” a habit look-at-me liberals like Barack ‘entitlement’ Obama seem incapable of breaking.

Although on what would have been Martin Luther King’s 83rd birthday the rug in the Drum Major-in-Chief’s Oval Office will remain incorrectly inscribed, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has given the National Park Service 30 days to correct the quote on the MLK monument and put it into proper context.

The only problem is that, after the drum major quote is corrected, it will be quite awkward for Barack Obama to speak at the monument again if modest words are to be the backdrop to his speech. So, if the President does choose to return, just like the last time he should make sure to position his podium on the south side of the monument under the MLK quote: “Out of the mountain of despair, a stone of hope,” which more accurately describes the rocky condition of his desperately hopeless “Hope and Change” presidency.

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., misquotes, MLK, Oval Office, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Parker | Comments (2)

Contradicting Reports Cast Doubt On Whether Michelle Obama Felt ‘Alone, Frightened and Unsure’ Before DC Move

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Originally posted at BIG Journalism

In the March 2009 issue of Vogue in an article entitled “Leading Lady,” editor at large André Leon Talley pays homage to Michelle Obama, who he believed was “poised to be the most transformative First Lady in history.” In the opening paragraphs of the article Talley describes Michelle Obama, two weeks prior to the Inauguration, standing in front of a window in the Hay-Adams Hotel, where the Obamas had moved so Sasha and Malia could start the spring semester at Sidwell Friends School.

It was there that the woman Talley described as a “long, lean…Alvin Ailey [dancer] in another life,” turned to her smitten admirer, pointed across the street, and asked him the question: “Do you see our new house?”

The “No-Churchgoing” Mrs. Obama told Talley that after “checking out churches to join [and] helping her kids adjust to unfamiliar surroundings,” she intended to “open up the White House again.” After implying that there had been years of exclusion, with Michelle as grand hostess, Talley looked forward to a day where “in a spirit of diversity and inclusion,” life at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would finally become a “collective experience.”

The following month, Michelle’s BFF Oprah Winfrey interviewed the First Lady for O Magazine in an article entitled “Oprah Talks to Michelle Obama.”  In that article Oprah shared that Michelle, while contemplating what Winfrey called the “weight of history,” oftentimes said, “This is not about us.”

In that same interview, Oprah observed “Yet for all the majesty of the White House, the First Lady has already infused it with a palpable ease; her presence makes the place feel open and approachable. When we sit down to talk, she seems as relaxed as she did when I first interviewed her and her husband in their Chicago apartment in 2004.”

Now the American public comes to find out that in “The Obamas,” a new book by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor, the woman who Oprah said was excited about living in the White House because “if you want pie, there’s pie,” and who Talley perceived was “like the neighbor organizing a block party,” really wanted to stay in Chicago and delay moving to Washington DC.

In one section of André Leon Talley’s article, the part-time fashionista goes on and on about Michelle Obama’s sense of community and how Chicago’s South Side native exudes the impression that once in the White House,  ‘everyone is invited’ to the “ never ‘me’ and ‘mine’ and ‘some,’ but ‘we’ and ‘our’ and ‘all’ people’s house.”

If that was true, then why, according to Jodi Kantor, was Michelle so “worried about her children bumping into White House tourists during play dates?”

Admittedly, it is easy to understand the difficult transition from Chicago, which Michelle told Talley was the Obama family “Kennebunkport,” to what she soon felt was a “tough life in Washington DC.”  But, to say that the woman who had the water dyed green in the fountain on the White House lawn for St. Patrick’s Day a few weeks after moving in was “alone, frightened and unsure of what to do next” may be stretching it a bit.

When Oprah asked the first lady if she felt the glare of the fishbowl, Michelle said, “I don’t pay attention to it. There isn’t a bigger fishbowl, but I don’t own the glare.” In Jodi Kantor’s book the author differs when she claims sources told her that Mrs. Obama said, “Sometimes it becomes difficult to live in what we call a bubble.”

Which may be why, to distract attention from herself, in March of 2009 the unobtrusive Michelle stomped into the yard out back in $500 Tory Burch gardening boots; turned over 1,100 square feet of the White House lawn; and planted a low key garden that included “cilantro, tomatillos and hot peppers…red romaine, green oak leaf, butter head, red leaf and galactic lettuce… spinach, chard, collards and black kale.”

The first lady, allegedly anxious and hesitant, also included in her garden “a patch of berries…anise hyssop and Thai basil,” and acquired two beehives for honey to drizzle on exotic desserts and to add to White House Honey Ale.

One thing is for sure:  despite her angst, Michelle was never too lonely or frightened to shop for hundreds of thousands of dollars in designer clothes and accessories.  Nor was she unsure of which pair of pricey sneakers to wear when volunteering at soup kitchens.

To quell her despair, Mrs. Obama spent the first year (and every year since) soothing her confused, lonely self by subbing as a mannequin for the likes of Alexander McQueen, Maison Martin Margiela, Narciso Rodriguez, Nina Ricci, Thakoon and an endless roster of high-end designers.

In Vogue, Talley was so enamored with Michelle that he said her gaze was “akin to hearing a chord from John Coltrane’s ‘A Love Supreme.’ Or maybe Ralph Vaughan Williams’ ‘The Lark Ascending.’”  Spending time in Michelle Obama’s company right around the same time that Kantor claims she was full of fear, insecurity, and indecisiveness, André claimed he had a sense that “All [was] well and right and real.”

Well, was “all well and right and real,” or wasn’t it?  Because either way, based on which person got it right, the three opposing accounts pose a bit of a credibility problem for someone who was either lying, perceiving something incorrectly, or flat out got the story wrong.

In the “Time 2009 100” issue, Michelle Obama groupie Oprah did the honors again by poetically describing Michelle Obama: “How sweet it is that America has a First Lady who embodies the vibrancy and confidence of a seriously prepared 21st century woman. A phenomenal woman indeed.”

Comparing the statements Michelle made to Oprah and André Leon Talley during the months following the inauguration and subsequent move to the White House with Jodi Kantor’s account, either the first lady was really “alone, frightened and unsure of what to do next,” had no idea what she was saying, or she, like her phenomenal husband, is a phenomenal phony “indeed.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged 'The Obamas', Andre Leon Talley, Jodi Kantor, John Coltrane, Oprah, Vogue | Comments (1)

Does Barack Obama Survive Because He’s Unfit?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

According to a fired-up President, “We are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest.” Oh! So that’s how Barack Obama managed to become President of the United States.

A little less gray than he was when he “reached out” last week via live video to Democratic Iowa caucus-goers, this time at a Capital Hilton fundraiser in Washington DC Obama reached into the pockets of 700 people and pulled out 100 bucks a head.

Commencing with the first campaign speech of the season, Obama defended big, bloated, bureaucratic government and censured what he called Republicans’ “brand of you’re-on-your-own economics.”  In other words, the President registered his disapproval of liberty, individualism, and industriousness, and applauded the progression of collective weakness rather than job-creating small business by promoting economic policies that have been proven to fail.

Advancing the idea of communal mediocrity, Barack Obama pushed his interpretation of American history saying: “We are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest.”

In the minds of big-government liberals like Obama, fairness means the fittest must be weighed down by the motionless mass of dead weight – the best and brightest submitting hard work and effort to a parasitical entitlement mentality Obama feeds when he says, “We thrive when we work together, all of us.”

All that aside, isn’t Obama’s premise a bit of a problem for someone who is asking for money to run for an office he wants everyone to believe he’s the best suited for?  Here is a man who just last week told America that he couldn’t work with Congress and plans to do things on his own.  This week he’s asking for money and blathering on about thriving by working together.

President Obama’s self-perceived problem is that he cannot work with others because he’s smarter, better, and has a vision superior to everyone else’s.  But Mr. Obama shouldn’t ask for monetary support if he’s going to promote his own competence above all others while at the same time talking down individual excellence, or telling supporters that working together is what benefits the nation while he digs in and refuses to work with other branches of government.

This guy is embarking on an alleged billion-dollar presidential reelection campaign and he chooses to get the ball rolling by telling Democrats, who tend to be confused already, that they should invest in him because he’s the best – the fittest, as it were – and then, almost in the same breath, saying that in America the fittest shouldn’t survive?

And so as the 2012 campaign season starts, those 700 people should immediately ask for their $100 back, because either Obama is even more confused than they are, or he has no idea how absurdly contradictory his statements are; it’s as though he’s trying to solicit votes for himself by telling voters he’s the worst person for the job.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged Iowa Caucus, Obama 2012, Survival of the Fittest | Comments (0)

Cordray Nomination Jeopardizes Constitutional Checks and Balances

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Originally posted at BIG Government

Forty-four of 46 Republican Senators vowed they would not approve “any consumer financial bureau director unless the agency was put under a five-member outside board, had its work checked periodically by bank examiners and had its budget approved by Congress rather than the Federal Reserve.”

So when Republicans refused to confirm the President’s nominee, Richard Cordray, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, America’s number one duffer shouldn’t have been surprised.

Senate Republicans maintained that voting down the nomination of Cordray had everything to do with the Dodd-Frank financial reform agency lacking oversight, and nothing to do with the candidate Obama chose to head it up. In other words, Republicans wanted to take consumer protection a step further than the President was willing to go, vowing that they’d agree to confirm a director, but not before additional consumer safeguards and supervision are put in place.

As for Obama’s nominee Richard Cordray, besides being the former Attorney General of the state of Ohio and acting as chief enforcement officer at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the last year, Cordray is a five-time undefeated Jeopardy champion. Which may be why, when chiding Republicans for blocking his appointment, the President kept mentioning game playing.

According to Barack Obama, champion Jeopardy player Cordray has the expertise to “protect American families from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders, payday lenders and debt collectors.”

After his pick was rejected, posing a few questions of his own, an irritated Barack Obama wanted to know if “Republicans in Congress think our financial crisis was caused by too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?”

Apparently not, because “What was the attempt by the Bush administration to set up an overhaul agency within the Treasury Department to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?” would have been one of the correct responses for the Jeopardy answer “Busting the housing bubble.”

At the time, a report by outside investigators “concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae [did] not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.”

Minor details like those do not stop President Obama from continuing to attribute three-plus years of his own economic failure to GW Bush, a man who saw it coming and sincerely attempted to head it off, but was thwarted by Barack Obama’s Democrats.

In response to the GOP filibustering Cordray’s nomination, leaving him “7 shy of the 60 votes needed to get a final confirmation vote,” the President indignantly defended his pick, saying, “Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It’s time consumers had someone on their side.”

‘Potent Potables’ aside, is Obama referring to consumer protection watchdogs such as Maxine Waters (D-CA) who, when referring to Fannie Mae, claimed Bush was trying to “fix something that wasn’t broke,” or push-for-homeownership Democrats like Barney Frank (D-MA), who promised that we wouldn’t “see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble?”

Is that the kind of protection the president hopes to establish on behalf of the American consumer?

Either way, Barack Obama vowed he would not back down on Jeopardy champ Cordray’s appointment, and prior to Christmas Obama simply refused to “take ‘no’ for an answer.” Just as he did on immigration reform, the President let it be known that he’d be open to “bypass Congress and change things on [his] own” and “circumvent Congress and seat Cordray as a recess appointment.”

If nothing else, Barack Obama is really proving to be a man of his word, because that is exactly what he did. He used recess appointment powers to install Cordray as head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  One small problem: the “recess appointment” was made when the Senate was still in session.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- KY) said that “Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people.”

For the White House, this is not a problem, and it continues to soldier on, arguing that “Republican senators have been stonewalling his nominees for so long that Mr. Obama had no choice but to circumvent them.”  President Obama called the “Senate Republicans’ ongoing blockade of his nomination ‘inexcusable.’”

Prior to leaving for Oahu, right before Congress agreed to a temporary payroll tax extension contingent upon a “Republican-written provision compelling [Obama] to make a speedy decision on whether to build the [Keystone] pipeline,” the President said that what goes on in the game of politics “cannot be about who wins and loses in Washington.”

Yet to prove how much he wants to be the one seated in the ‘Winner’s Circle,’ one day after returning from Hawaii to DC, against the wishes of Republican lawmakers and in opposition to his own Justice Department, Obama flagrantly cheated at the game he was just talking about prior to going to Hawaii by appointing Mr. Cordray to oversee consumer concerns.

In the run-up to the 2012 election, champion game-player Barack Obama is attempting to send a message to America that he cannot be stymied by an unreasonable Congress, and that any “inexcusable” attempt on his part to outwit the balance of power and neuter the American Constitution is purely a concerned President working on behalf of the American people.

By flouting established precedent in what House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH) called an “unconstitutional power grab,” once again Barack Obama is the one who has put the nation in jeopardy with another renegade decision that, according to Boehner, could have a “devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Cordray nomination, Dodd-Frank, Jeopardy, Maxine Waters | Comments (0)

Obama, Tebow and America’s Hunger for Heroes

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker

Ever hungry for an authentic hero, Americans have turned to Tim Tebow.  Greek columns and Teleprompters have schooled us on how to discern the sincere from the bogus, and with Barack Obama as the measure, Tim Tebow’s gold stands in contrast to Obama’s dross.

One definition of a hero is “a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability; a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities; one who shows great courage; the central figure in an event, period, or movement.”

The only way to explain the type of idolatry Barack Obama received when first emerging on the national scene was that America was longing for a national hero.  Barack the narcissist recognized an opportunity, stepped forward, and accepted the accolades of a ravenous public who wanted to view someone they knew nothing about — a legendary figure in  the most basic sense.

Having done nothing but talk, Obama feigned heroic strength and ability and, with nary an achievement to speak of, accepted admiration for untested noble qualities and nonexistent accomplishment.  Despite a shadowy past, in a stunning exhibit of egocentric self-delusion, Barack Obama even dared to align his razor-thin resume with true heroes like Abraham Lincoln; Teddy Roosevelt; and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Obama quickly became an object of mythological, almost divine adulation, and he reveled in it.  So much so that he sowed the seeds of one possessing celestial abilities and promoted himself as the hope for future generations, with declarations such as “[t]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

After all the hype and verbose rhetoric carried Obama into the Oval Office, Charles Krauthammer aptly described him as a modern-day Icarus, “exhilarated by the thrill of flying” and buoyed above mortal man. But then superman Barack Obama got too close to a sun of his own making.  Now with wax-wings melting, Obama finds himself drowning in a sea of his own false promises and incompetence.

Apart from Obama’s non-accomplishments in politics or Tebow’s impressive success in athletics, heroes are heroes not because of politics or sports.  Lasting heroism is born not of style-icon status, but of the lasting genuineness that comes from inherent moral fiber.

Tebow is the type of champion who is everything Icarus-types like Barack Obama are not and can never be.  Unlike Barack, Tim has claimed to be neither “mythological” nor “legendary” and yet, without self-promotion, has proven to be a man “endowed with great strength and ability” — none of which he takes credit for, instead rather meekly giving glory to the One he views as greater than himself.

Unlike Barack Obama, Tim Tebow has achieved great things.  For starters, his first stunning achievement was proving anti-life progressives wrong.  Thanks to a loving mother and against the odds, Tim managed to make it out of the womb alive after abortion-minded doctors dismissed his chances.  Tim Tebow’s life is a living, breathing testimony for a world steeped in the selfishness and darkness that pro-abortion leftists like Barack Obama condone.

Through hard work, conviction, and dedication, Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow actually won an award he earned, as opposed to Obama receiving and accepting a Nobel Peace Prize that both he and the rest of the world knew full well he did nothing to earn.

Quite different from pseudo-hero Barack Obama, Tim Tebow takes pride in personal responsibility and has yet to blame anyone for his failures, on or off the gridiron.  Rather than make excuses for inadequacy and laziness, Tebow motivates and inspires others to look for the best within themselves and identify their God-given gifts.

 Obama talks the liberal talk about bettering the lives of poor children but then transfers the monetary burden of caring for the underprivileged onto the backs of taxpayers and makes it a governmental bureaucratic endeavor.  For years, Tebow has made it a mission to go to Uncle Dick’s Home, an orphanage in the Philippine Islands, where he walks the streets ministering — not with empty words, but with life-changing deeds.

Upbeat and optimistic, having both physical and spiritual strength, unlike Barack Obama, Tim Tebow tends towards the positive and thus far appears to be doing a much better job of ensuring his team’s victory than hero Obama is at ensuring victory for the Democratic Party.

Ironically, Denver Bronco number 15′s home is the same Mile High Stadium where Barack Obama, positioned betwixt two Greek columns, made his celebrated acceptance speech, followed by the adulating roar of a packed house.

Yet the difference between Obama and Tebow is that, rather than wallow in the misguided adoration of star-struck people void of a relationship with God, true heroes exhibit an intrinsic reticence that issues forth from a heart that worships someone greater.

Tim Tebow speaks highly of others and humbles himself.  He once said, “There are several things that keep me grounded and focused … When you can humble yourself to say ‘I’m no more important than anyone else. I just have a gift.’”  That is quite different from Obama, who, in his first year in office, mentioned himself 1,200 times in 41 speeches.

Unlike Obama, who referred to his critics as “purveyors of vitriol,” Tim has yet to retaliate to his critics with harsh words or angry retorts.

Thus far, not humbled by shortcomings or failures, and as Obama prepares to inundate the nation with even more overconfident praise directed toward himself, the election season promises to bring personal exaltation to new heights, which is against everything Tim Tebow stands for.  Yet hope springs eternal that America will not be duped a second time.

Regardless of the outcome, Tim Tebow could teach Barack Obama a thing or two about how heroes wait patiently for vindication to come based on the merit of their own character and performance. That patience may be why, after being told to discontinue writing Scripture references in his eye black, God stepped in and guided a dedicated servant’s arm to write John 3:16 in the wind, an impossible occurrence that reminded a world searching desperately for a hero of the one achievement, in all of history, that really mattered.

Hence, if even for a season, while Icarus attempts to repair those melted wings, America has turned its eyes from Obama toward a young man who, with renewed strength, soars like an eagle; runs but does not grow weary; walks and does not faint; and whose hero is not himself, but whose hope rests solely in the Lord.

 

Popularity: 2% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged Charles Krauthammer, heroes, Icarus, Tim Tebow | Comments (0)

Michelle Obama: Critical Advocate

Monday, January 9, 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker

Michelle Obama is not one who can easily hide her feelings; usually her emotional state is visible on her face.  Think civil rights leader Dorothy Height’s funeral, or Michelle staring down French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozi.

So it wasn’t a shock to find out that some of the less-than-thrilled expressions Americans have witnessed over the last three years may be rooted in how Mrs. Obama thinks her husband and his team should be handling the affairs of the nation.

One has to admit, if Jodi Kantor’s New York Times article, “Michelle Obama and the Evolution of a First Lady” and forthcoming book “The Obamas” is an accurate portrayal, Michelle Obama going toe-to-middle-finger with Rahm Emanuel indicates she’s one tough cookie.

Kantor’s book points out that despite Mrs. Obama’s initial hesitation to involve herself in her husband’s administration, she has been an “unrecognized force …[and]… her story has been one first of struggle, then turnaround and greater fulfillment.”

The book says that Mrs. Obama was a “supportive but often anxious spouse, suspicious of conventional political thinking, a groundbreaking figure who has acutely felt the pressures and possibilities of being the first African-American in her position and a first lady who has worked to make her role more meaningful.”

According to Kantor, Mrs. Obama was often “caught in an internal debate about how the Obamas should look and live, travel and entertain.”

Her feelings for a country she only recently became proud of are evident in her ongoing disregard for the opinion of its people by blatantly indulging her affinity for opulent vacations, epicurean Xanadus, and closets full of couture.

The forthcoming book exposes Michelle projecting her own racism onto a colorblind America. Even after a white majority put her husband into the White House, Michelle felt that “As the first African-American first lady, [she] wanted everything to be flawless and sophisticated; [because] she felt ‘everyone was waiting for a black woman to make a mistake.’”

Supposedly fiercely defensive on her husband’s behalf and seeing him as a “transformational figure,” her allegedly hostile clashes with the likes of ex- Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel indicate Michelle is someone other than who she projects herself to be while hula-hooping and gardening with Big Bird on Sesame Street.

According to longtime Obama strategist David Axelrod, behind the scenes, if Mrs. Obama “thinks things have been mishandled or when things are off the track she’ll raise it, because she’s hugely invested in [her husband] and has a sense of how hard he’s working, and wants to make sure everybody is doing their work properly.”

Discussing with aides the first lady’s displeasure about the direction the administration was taking on issues like healthcare reform, President Obama once confided that “She feels as if our rudder isn’t set right.”  Does “our rudder” include his rudder?

So apparently if everybody isn’t “doing” what Michelle thinks they should be doing, or someone criticizes what she is doing, the “rudder” adjuster believes “things have been mishandled [and] are off the track.

The book says that Robert Gibbs tried to protect the White House from being seen for what it is: “oblivious to public anger about joblessness, banker bailouts and bonuses.”  Apparently, Gibbs had the wherewithal to try to tamp down the “vacations, décor, entertainment [and] even matters as small as whether to announce the hiring of a new florist.”

According to Kantor’s account, Michelle was as thrilled with being told what to do by her husband’s team as she was being prohibited from walking her dog, or “monitored by her husband’s aides for everything from how she decorated the family’s private quarters to whether she took makeup artists on overseas trips.

So to show advisors who was in charge, Mrs. Obama flew the dog she couldn’t walk to vacation spots all around the world, called in a high-end Hollywood decorator to gussy up the living quarters, and hired a makeup artist that charges $15K per day.

Kantor’s book maintains that Mrs. Obama has no problem expressing her opinion behind the scenes about issues such as: how health care reform should’ve played out, the direction the 2012 reelection effort should take, and who should call the shots.

However, the book does say that publicly, the first lady has been reluctant to step into the limelight, except on signature issues like “Let’s Move” and assisting military families.  That was until recently when, in between vacation junkets, dutiful wife Michelle has taken to appearing on behalf of her husband in an attempt to exploit her popularity to “buoy [Obama] personally and politically.”

And while politics and policy intricacies are telling, more telling by far was the way Mrs. Obama handled the President’s 50th birthday, which said a lot about her domineering nature and how convinced she is that we, as well as he, need her to show us, and him, how it should be done.

According to Kantor’s book, in preparation for the coming election, Michelle exercised a practice run on birthday party guests, warning them not to leave early – under penalty – of what?  Then, she commenced with delivering a “stem-winder of a toast in praise of her husband,” who sat there like a schlemiel.

Minus the soaring orchestration and slide show, Mrs. Obama subjected those supposedly already her husband’s friends to her deluded version of Barack Obama: the “tireless, upright leader who rose above Washington games, killed the world’s most wanted terrorist and still managed to coach his daughter Sasha’s basketball team.”

A more apt description would have been: a president who, between vacations, ‘tirelessly’ works from 9:30 am – 6:30 pm and has played more golf standing ‘upright’ than any other president in American history; a president who “rose above Washington games” so well that, against Congress’ wishes during a “recess” that was still in session, he appointed a five-time Jeopardy champion to the position of director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The man who shamelessly takes credit for killing Osama bin Laden – an end that would never have been achieved without GW Bush’s committed determination, and a father who, when not out golfing, will use any excuse, including spending time with the kids, to pop a few shots through a basketball hoop.

However, besides the ‘everyone was waiting for a black woman to make a mistake’ -portion of Jodi Kantor’s “critic and advocate” book, the most revealing moment of all was what allegedly happened during that laudatory 50th birthday party soliloquy.

Kantor recounts that in front of 150 guests, Michelle admitted to being hard on an embarrassed Obama, who attempted to cut her off only to be firmly told “to sit and listen,” which he submissively did, summing up in three words Mrs. Obama’s ever-evolving attitude toward the President of the United States and all of us as well.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Filed in Politics | Tagged 'The Obamas', Big Bird, Carla Bruni, Jodi Kantor, Michelle Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Sesame Street | Comments (0)

© 2009-2012 jeannie-ology All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline