Skip to content

Just Wondering: Did America Let Barack Obama Suck Her Toes?

yuckOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

A lot of people believed Barack Obama when he predicted that his presidency would slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. Pretty amazing, isn’t it?

Are some Americans really that gullible?

After campaigning in “57 states,” thanks to those same gullible people, Obama managed to make it all the way to the White House.

Here we are six years later, and since America still hasn’t seen his college transcripts, next Obama may claim that before he went to law school he was a podiatry student.  After which he’ll recommend something absurd like leveling the playing field via toe-sucking, and voilà, those that still take him at his word will be convinced that fairness is furthered through toe-sucking.

Anyone who thinks a scenario like this is impossible, think again – it’s possible.

A similar thing happened in Lincolnton, North Carolina at a local middle-class Walmart. A black man clad in a sweater and tan pants pretended to be a podiatry student and pulled a “Barack Obama” on a 35-year-old woman minding her own business while shopping for a pair of cheap plastic shoes.

According to police, the toe enthusiast started a friendly chat with the victim and managed to “talk [her] into trying on several pair of shoes in the shoe department. At one point the suspect took the victim’s foot, put it into his mouth and sucked her toes.”

What would have happened if the man doing the sucking masqueraded as a proctologist, a gynecologist, or perhaps a breast surgeon? Would the compliant woman have found herself in a far worse situation than having to yank her moist toes out of the maw of a guy pretending to be a foot professional?

Either way, isn’t that similar to what Mr. Obama has done to America?

Barry Soetoro snuck up on us when we least expected it and struck up a friendly conversation, pretended to care about all of America’s concerns, and got a lot of easily-swayed people to believe he was something he was not.

Both the toe stalker and the president came out of nowhere, conversed with strangers, and somehow managed to sweet-talk the unsuspecting into buying and trying on for size what they proposed would look good on their prey. Then they came in for the kill.

Granted, unlike the North Carolina podiatry quack the president isn’t a “toe-sucker” per se, but based on the way he was able to dupe such a large portion of the country, if toe-sucking was part of his platform, those who voted him in would probably have thought that was a brilliant idea.

Just like the lady in Walmart, America finally noticed that Obama has been promoting himself as a political genius. Although innocent – as far as we know – of having a foot fetish, there’s no denying that America is trapped in the aisle of life with a president who continues to put his large foot in his own mouth, and has also been very successful at sucking the living daylights out of everyone else.

In this case, Barack Obama convinced America he’s a healthcare expert rather than a podiatry student. He presented an array of ideas that sounded too good to be true, but instead of questioning him, many believed him and tried on what he suggested we buy. We may not have let him grab our foot and put our toes in his mouth, but we certainly did bend all the way over and smile as he proceeded to perform a painful prostate exam on our economy, social culture, job market, and health care system.

So, the next time a story comes out about a pervert conning an unsuspecting shopper into letting him slurp on her brightly colored digits, remember that toes do not fall into mouths; the victim was present when the toe-sucker placed them there. For however long it took to get from the floor to his lips, the shoe shopper cooperated.

Then remember that that’s precisely the reason Barack Obama is in the White House. A deceitful fraud didn’t just fall from the sky and land at the desk in the Oval Office – he was put there by a disturbingly large portion of the same type of Americans who would let a fake podiatry student suck their toes.

 

Share

Zoinks! Lena Dunham’s Liberal Lunacy

lena-dunham-picOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

Most people don’t care what Golden-Globe-winning 27-year-old Lena Dunham, the creator of HBO’s hit show Girls, says or does. However, in an attempt to understand a liberal’s approach to life, any opportunity a conservative gets to study how those on the left think is an opportunity to grow in both knowledge and discernment.

One woman who never disappoints when it comes to providing insight into how irrational, disingenuous, and baffling liberal thinking and behavior are is the deliberately ordinary Barack Obama sycophant, Lena Dunham.

Actor/television and film director/ screenwriter/television producer Lena acts up every chance she gets and does it by pretending eccentric behavior is the norm. Lena is so good at acting up, she’s earned $10 million doing it.

In a recent interview, Ms. Dunham told Glamour magazine, “I don’t know if I’m going to want to act anymore. I’m always relieved on the days I don’t have to,” which explains why Lena stars in her own HBO show.

Ms. Dunham, who prides herself on being unglamorous, told Glamour magazine, “I’d rather give parts to other women than be the woman having the parts.”

Based on her “parts” usually being in a brazen state of undress, maybe what Lena really meant to say was that she’d rather be the woman “exposing her girly parts.” Or maybe not, because the title of the article is “Girls‘ Lena Dunham: Why she’s OVER talking about her body.”

To the liberal mindset, Lena saying she’s “OVER talking about her body” doesn’t mean she’s “OVER” exposing her body. Clearly a committed exhibitionist, Lena just doesn’t want anyone noticing she’s naked, and although she plans on continuing to be naked doesn’t want to talk about being naked anymore.

After announcing she was done with acting and talking about being in the buff, Lena hosted SNL, where she starred in an “Adam and Eve” sketch that overlaid a Girls attitude on the Genesis story in which Lena (playing an unclothed Eve, of course), didn’t squander the chance to call attention to, you guessed it – her naked physique, such as it is.

Despite what she says, liberal Lena bares her anatomy with predictable regularity. She maintains that her unembellished butt depicts real life, because as Lena explains, “it’s a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive.”

In Lena’s case, maybe she identifies with nudity so much because her parents are Laurie Simmons, a photographer/artist, and Carroll Dunham, also an artist, both of whose artwork fixates on women, female mannequins, mammary glands, and gargantuan cartoonish genitals.

Artists Carroll and Laurie create art that features explicit renderings of women in provocative poses. Their progeny bypasses all that, strips down herself, strikes awkwardly provocative poses, and calls it art.

Lena’s parents must believe that over-sexualized art exhibits convey the message that nude women, mammary glands, and shockingly gargantuan cartoonish genitals should be seen as unremarkable, which may be why Lena is now trying to convince America that all her gratuitous nudity is really very boring.

As is always the case with liberals, especially Hollywood liberals, things can get confusing.

For instance, Ms. Lena is a woman who has built a career typecasting herself as a girl who refuses to be typecast by daring people not to notice that she’s strutting around in her birthday suit.

Furthermore, because the career of Adam Driver, the male star of Girls, has exploded, Ms. Dunham is upset because she believes the female stars of Girls are being pigeonholed – as girls. If Lena didn’t want to be typecast as a “girl”, maybe she should have called her show something else.

Here’s an idea! Instead of threatening to quit acting, Ms. Dunham should put her funky shrunken girl clothes back on, take those ridiculous plastic baby-girl barrettes out of her hair, and maybe, just maybe, she’ll stop being typecast as a naked girl working hard to typecast herself as a frumpy girl who refuses to be typecast.

So, for today, Lena Dunham is the naked liberal poster child whose muddled view of the world lends valuable insight into how those currently in charge of America really think, or better yet, fail to think.

Most people don’t care what Golden-Globe-winning 27-year-old Lena Dunham, the creator of HBO’s hit show Girls, says or does. However, in an attempt to understand a liberal’s approach to life, any opportunity a conservative gets to study how those on the left think is an opportunity to grow in both knowledge and discernment.

One woman who never disappoints when it comes to providing insight into how irrational, disingenuous, and baffling liberal thinking and behavior are is the deliberately ordinary Barack Obama sycophant, Lena Dunham.

Actor/television and film director/ screenwriter/television producer Lena acts up every chance she gets and does it by pretending eccentric behavior is the norm. Lena is so good at acting up, she’s earned $10 million doing it.

In a recent interview, Ms. Dunham told Glamour magazine, “I don’t know if I’m going to want to act anymore. I’m always relieved on the days I don’t have to,” which explains why Lena stars in her own HBO show.

Ms. Dunham, who prides herself on being unglamorous, told Glamour magazine, “I’d rather give parts to other women than be the woman having the parts.”

Based on her “parts” usually being in a brazen state of undress, maybe what Lena really meant to say was that she’d rather be the woman “exposing her girly parts.” Or maybe not, because the title of the article is “Girls‘ Lena Dunham: Why she’s OVER talking about her body.”

To the liberal mindset, Lena saying she’s “OVER talking about her body” doesn’t mean she’s “OVER” exposing her body. Clearly a committed exhibitionist, Lena just doesn’t want anyone noticing she’s naked, and although she plans on continuing to be naked doesn’t want to talk about being naked anymore.

After announcing she was done with acting and talking about being in the buff, Lena hosted SNL, where she starred in an “Adam and Eve” sketch that overlaid a Girls attitude on the Genesis story in which Lena (playing an unclothed Eve, of course), didn’t squander the chance to call attention to, you guessed it – her naked physique, such as it is.

Despite what she says, liberal Lena bares her anatomy with predictable regularity. She maintains that her unembellished butt depicts real life, because as Lena explains, “it’s a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive.”

In Lena’s case, maybe she identifies with nudity so much because her parents are Laurie Simmons, a photographer/artist, and Carroll Dunham, also an artist, both of whose artwork fixates on women, female mannequins, mammary glands, and gargantuan cartoonish genitals.

Artists Carroll and Laurie create art that features explicit renderings of women in provocative poses. Their progeny bypasses all that, strips down herself, strikes awkwardly provocative poses, and calls it art.

Lena’s parents must believe that over-sexualized art exhibits convey the message that nude women, mammary glands, and shockingly gargantuan cartoonish genitals should be seen as unremarkable, which may be why Lena is now trying to convince America that all her gratuitous nudity is really very boring.

As is always the case with liberals, especially Hollywood liberals, things can get confusing.

For instance, Ms. Lena is a woman who has built a career typecasting herself as a girl who refuses to be typecast by daring people not to notice that she’s strutting around in her birthday suit.

Furthermore, because the career of Adam Driver, the male star of Girls, has exploded, Ms. Dunham is upset because she believes the female stars of Girls are being pigeonholed – as girls. If Lena didn’t want to be typecast as a “girl”, maybe she should have called her show something else.

Here’s an idea! Instead of threatening to quit acting, Ms. Dunham should put her funky shrunken girl clothes back on, take those ridiculous plastic baby-girl barrettes out of her hair, and maybe, just maybe, she’ll stop being typecast as a naked girl working hard to typecast herself as a frumpy girl who refuses to be typecast.

So, for today, Lena Dunham is the naked liberal poster child whose muddled view of the world lends valuable insight into how those currently in charge of America really think, or better yet, fail to think.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/zoinks-lena-dunhams-liberal-lunacy/#M0LMEu6qaPB4FhqF.99

people don’t care what Golden-Globe-winning 27-year-old Lena Dunham, the creator of HBO’s hit show Girls, says or does. However, in an attempt to understand a liberal’s approach to life, any opportunity a conservative gets to study how those on the left think is an opportunity to grow in both knowledge and discernment.

One woman who never disappoints when it comes to providing insight into how irrational, disingenuous, and baffling liberal thinking and behavior are is the deliberately ordinary Barack Obama sycophant, Lena Dunham.

Actor/television and film director/ screenwriter/television producer Lena acts up every chance she gets and does it by pretending eccentric behavior is the norm. Lena is so good at acting up, she’s earned $10 million doing it.

In a recent interview, Ms. Dunham told Glamour magazine, “I don’t know if I’m going to want to act anymore. I’m always relieved on the days I don’t have to,” which explains why Lena stars in her own HBO show.

Ms. Dunham, who prides herself on being unglamorous, told Glamour magazine, “I’d rather give parts to other women than be the woman having the parts.”

Based on her “parts” usually being in a brazen state of undress, maybe what Lena really meant to say was that she’d rather be the woman “exposing her girly parts.” Or maybe not, because the title of the article is “Girls‘ Lena Dunham: Why she’s OVER talking about her body.”

To the liberal mindset, Lena saying she’s “OVER talking about her body” doesn’t mean she’s “OVER” exposing her body. Clearly a committed exhibitionist, Lena just doesn’t want anyone noticing she’s naked, and although she plans on continuing to be naked doesn’t want to talk about being naked anymore.

After announcing she was done with acting and talking about being in the buff, Lena hosted SNL, where she starred in an “Adam and Eve” sketch that overlaid a Girls attitude on the Genesis story in which Lena (playing an unclothed Eve, of course), didn’t squander the chance to call attention to, you guessed it – her naked physique, such as it is.

Despite what she says, liberal Lena bares her anatomy with predictable regularity. She maintains that her unembellished butt depicts real life, because as Lena explains, “it’s a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive.”

In Lena’s case, maybe she identifies with nudity so much because her parents are Laurie Simmons, a photographer/artist, and Carroll Dunham, also an artist, both of whose artwork fixates on women, female mannequins, mammary glands, and gargantuan cartoonish genitals.

Artists Carroll and Laurie create art that features explicit renderings of women in provocative poses. Their progeny bypasses all that, strips down herself, strikes awkwardly provocative poses, and calls it art.

Lena’s parents must believe that over-sexualized art exhibits convey the message that nude women, mammary glands, and shockingly gargantuan cartoonish genitals should be seen as unremarkable, which may be why Lena is now trying to convince America that all her gratuitous nudity is really very boring.

As is always the case with liberals, especially Hollywood liberals, things can get confusing.

For instance, Ms. Lena is a woman who has built a career typecasting herself as a girl who refuses to be typecast by daring people not to notice that she’s strutting around in her birthday suit.

Furthermore, because the career of Adam Driver, the male star of Girls, has exploded, Ms. Dunham is upset because she believes the female stars of Girls are being pigeonholed – as girls. If Lena didn’t want to be typecast as a “girl”, maybe she should have called her show something else.

Here’s an idea! Instead of threatening to quit acting, Ms. Dunham should put her funky shrunken girl clothes back on, take those ridiculous plastic baby-girl barrettes out of her hair, and maybe, just maybe, she’ll stop being typecast as a naked girl working hard to typecast herself as a frumpy girl who refuses to be typecast.

So, for today, Lena Dunham is the naked liberal poster child whose muddled view of the world lends valuable insight into how those currently in charge of America really think, or better yet, fail to think.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/zoinks-lena-dunhams-liberal-lunacy/#M0LMEu6qaPB4FhqF.99

Share

Michelle’s Hard-Knock Life Story Comes to China

Originally posted at American Thinker

Recycling her tried-and-true American dream story, Michelle Obama gave Chinese schoolchildren the same stump speech she delivers everywhere she goes, from Ireland to Chicago.  The FLOTUS has used her hard-knock life tale to justify more vacations for herself than her husband has golf balls. 

The problem is that the story is exaggerated, and even if it weren’t, to complain about struggling as a child in a free country as opposed to a struggling as a child in a country where the annual average family income is $10,220 today, which is similar to what it was in 1972 in the U.S. when six-year-old Michelle Obama was supposedly struggling, proves the woman is oblivious.

As if being a pop artist or a professional basketball star worth $130 million is something Chinese children could aspire to, Michelle pointed to the difficult upbringings of African-Americans such as LeBron James and singer Janelle Monáe.

Then, it was on to the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, who Mrs. Obama also used as an example. The problem with mentioning Howard is that the Chinese press and maybe even Chinese government has “accused [Starbucks] of overcharging … “outrageous’ prices compared to those paid by consumers in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

From there, Michelle went on to her usual disingenuous “raised by a single mother who sometimes struggled to afford food for their family” story about chubby little Barry, who, quite frankly, looked as if he never missed a meal.

The FLOTUS then insisted on talking up the value of education to Chinese students who rank #1 in the world in math, reading and science. 

Notwithstanding that Obama likely did worse on his SAT exams than alleged dolt G.W. Bush, and not mentioning the fact that no one has ever seen any of Obama’s college records, Michelle continued on with “But like me, this guy got scholarships and loans to attend universities.”  

Unlike the U.S. where household debt is 136% of earnings, in China that debt hovers around 17%.  If federal borrowing is factored into that equation, the “United States number increases an additional $109,792 per household, to $224,303 per household or 266% of average household income.” 

As Shelley prattled on, Chinese high school students had to be wondering why the tall lady from America, the country that owes China $1.3 trillion, is encouraging them to borrow money for student loans.

Leaving out community organizing, Michelle then told of her husband’s personal struggle to become a lawyer – though currently without a law license – and a “professor” who was more accurately referred to by the University of Chicago as a part-time, non-tenured senior lecturer. 

From the tale of professor Barack, Michelle went straight to a spiel on Barack’s (brief) time as state senator, where he often voted “present” – a sign of things to come.  Then Barack became a U.S. senator, where his über-liberal voting record belied the fake moderate persona he successfully passed off in 2008.  And finally, Michelle finished up with president, where Mr. Obama has done a bang-up job indebting America to the very children Mrs. Obama was lecturing.

Michelle went on to say that LeBron, Janelle, Howard, and Barry’s stellar accomplishments “are the stories of so many Americans, and of America itself.”

Omitting the recent-added “who you love” part, Michelle said, “because in America, we believe that no matter where you live or how much money your parents have, or what race or religion or ethnicity you are, if you work hard and believe in yourself, then you should have a chance to succeed.” 

For college grads in China jobs are scarce, but if Michelle was referring to the U.S., where jobs are nonexistent, those words may have been true prior to 2008, but since then, “if you work hard and believe in yourself,” you still probably won’t succeed.  And if you happen to beat insurmountable odds, and build something on your own, you’ll be demonized and robbed blind by the Extortionist and his sidekick government.

Then the FLOTUS told children trapped in the tentacles of communism that “We also believe that everyone is equal, and that we all have the right to say what we think and worship as we choose, even when others don’t like what we say or don’t always agree with what we believe.”

Has Mrs. Obama ever heard about the Tiananmen Square massacre or thought about all the political and religious prisoners held captive in China?  As for back home, those lofty sentiments wouldn’t fly with the unborn, the Catholic Church, the Tea Party, or anyone who dares call an assertive female “bossy.”

Clearly, Michelle was also unaware that in 1988, three years after she handed in her racist diatribe/Princeton senior thesis, “a violent, 300-strong mob broke into an African students’ dormitory at Nanjing University …while chanting ‘down with the black devils.’”

In an Asian Scientist article entitled “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” David Tan (no, really) pointed out that “All across Asia fair skin is highly prized… a fair complexion is considered the epitome of beauty.” With cultural sensitivities in mind, maybe Mrs. Obama should have steered clear of race, and just concentrated on the nutritional deficit associated with having white rice as a staple. 

Instead, Michelle chose to bring up America’s racist past, saying, “Many decades ago, there were actually laws in America that allowed discrimination against black people like me, who are a minority in the United States.” 

Did the woman who arrived on Air Force One wearing a $3,000 dress and is staying in an $8,400 per night hotel suite, really feel it was necessary to allege that she was discriminated against?

In fairness, Mrs. Obama did attempt to convey that, “slowly but surely,” America has changed. But not before she told truly downtrodden people who dream of freedoms Michelle has taken for granted her whole ‘oppressed’ life, children whose families barely subsist on $10,000 per year, that in America “living up to these ideals isn’t always easy.”

All in all, a petulant Michelle Obama complaining about anything to utterly subjugated, poverty-stricken children in communist China can be likened to crying over a hangnail in a cancer ward.

Share

Michelle Obama: China’s First Amendment Rights Advocate

Originally posted at American Thinker

Michelle Obama’s reporter-free excursion to the Far East is turning out to be quite revealing!  First of all, for the $8,400 per night being spent in the Beijing Westin presidential suite, Mrs. Obama could have bunked in less expensive digs and chosen to make a charitable contribution to a few of the victims of her husband’s ObamaCare fiasco who are no longer receiving cancer treatment as a result of having their health insurance cancelled. 

But she didn’t.

As for kindly old Grandma Marian, from the second the ‘Bossy Girl’ (don’t tell Beyoncé) stepped off the plane she started bossing around Chinese hotel staff as if they were her personal servants.  One would think that while sightseeing in China FGOTUS would be on her best behavior.  The White House staff will have quite a story to tell when Granny, who moved to the White House on a “trial basis,” but has lived there for free while banking six years’ worth of Social Security checks, returns to Chicago.

Meanwhile Michelle, who hasn’t said one word in condemnation of women living in Muslim countries being disfigured with acid, stoned, hung, and genitally mutilated, decided to pull a stunt similar to her husband when he promoted gay rights in Senegal, where homosexuality is against the law.

Taking a break from holidaymaking, Michelle, the woman married to a man who wouldn’t recognize a First Amendment right if it slapped him upside the head, rubbed salt into a Chinese wound by telling students trapped in an oppressive communist regime that freedom of information, expression, and belief are “universal rights.”

On the second day of a seven-day, multi-million dollar “people-to-people exchange,” while giving a speech at Peking University, Mrs. Obama stirred the rice pot by reminding Chinese students about deeply desired freedoms they’re universally denied.

 YouTube Preview Image

Disregarding the fact that, if the 200 students in attendance rose up and demanded what Michelle said was rightfully theirs, it could potentially cost them their lives, the first lady told them: “When it comes to expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information — we believe those are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet.”

Did Michelle forget for a second that she’s vacationing in communist China? Or is provoking discontent just standard Obama protocol?  Because while preaching the exact opposite of what they practice themselves, the meddlesome Obamas travel the world poking their fingers into places they don’t belong.

Michelle Obama promotes healthy eating, yet chows down on high-calorie delicacies with predictable regularity.  The FLOTUS all but sports blueberry pie stains on her front teeth while badgering Americans to share more of their minuscule tartlets. Then, between three or four quarterly multimillion-dollar vacations spends the rest of her time leveling the playing field. 

That’s why Mrs. Obama advocating for “expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information” while her husband is home figuring out how to deny Americans all three is typical two-faced Obama.

Not only that, but should Michelle — the woman who polices school cafeterias, restaurants, and food-packaging plants to make sure freedom of choice conforms to her diktats — really be talking about China restricting freedom?

And as far as “universal rights” are concerned, isn’t it the Obamas’ belief that universal healthcare is a “human right?” Wasn’t the supposed “human right” to universal healthcare the premise that justified all the freedom associated with access to and affordability of healthcare being taken away from the American people?

As for the First Amendment, has Mrs. Obama taken the time to notice that her husband borders on dictatorial when it comes to limiting free speech, especially when that speech comes from the mouths of those who dare to challenge his progressive madness? 

Where was Shelley when Barack was disrespecting the religious rights of the Catholic Church, whose tenets disagree with his policy initiatives on birth control and abortion?  Was she at Georgetown University when he asked Jesuit priests to cover up the crucifixes, or listening in when he called Christians Bible-thumping, bitter clingers?

And what about the president’s support of the universal monitoring of “open access to information,” his proposal that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) be changed to allow federal agencies to lie about the very existence of information being sought, and the unleashing of the IRS on his political critics?

Then again, it’s different in Obama’s America, because access to social media isn’t outright denied; instead the NSA spies on Internet users for dissent and then reports back to the government.

After talking up rights that Constitutional critic Barack Obama would love to banish in America, Michelle shifted to sharing the trials and tribulations associated with enjoying the freedoms Xi Jinping denies in order to suppress criticism.

Michelle lamented that “My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens, and it’s not always easy.” 

The FLOTUS shared how free speech has plagued her and the president, both of whom take personal aim at anyone who dares to diverge in opinion from their liberal agenda; points out the couple’s glaring hypocrisies; or speaks truth to power. Happily, even the always-respectful Republican-run House of Representatives shields the Obamas from any well-deserved “questioning and criticism.”

Then Michelle declared, “But I wouldn’t trade [questioning and criticism] for anything in the world.” After all, public disapproval is a small price to pay for the benefit of a taxpayer-funded, in-your-face lifestyle rivaled only by the Sultan of Brunei.

Whether at home or abroad, First Lady Michelle Obama boasting about the merits of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, is like the wife of a shoe thief impressing upon the shoeless victims of a thieving rival that having lots of quality footwear is a “universal right.”

Share

‘People-to-People’ Berating of Beijing Hotel Staff

article-2588860-1C8D60EA00000578-279_634x508Originally posted at American Thinker

Forlorn without the group of women he leaves whenever he gets a chance to go golfing, Barack Obama is so distraught the womenfolk are in China he immediately soothed himself by hosting a screening of Cesar Chavez: An American Hero.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Obama, her mama, daughters, an entourage of 70 people, and an army of Asian-American Secret Service men are on a Far East journey that the White House says “will be light on politics and heavy on personal diplomacy.”

However, based on the hefty cost of the first lady’s presidential hotel suite and the concierge’s complaints that, despite having a 24-hour butler, Grandma Marian is “barking orders” at the staff, the trip might better be described as ‘light on diplomacy and heavy on arrogance and discourtesy.’

Remember last year when Michelle couldn’t find the time to fly from Washington DC to California to meet China’s first lady? Well this year, Shelley chose to fly 15 hours one way to China where Peng Liyuan cordially welcomed the woman who had shown her blatant disrespect. At any rate, Mrs. Obama did tell Peng that it was “truly an honor and a privilege” to visit China with the clan in tow.

Then, the woman who in the last six years, usually accompanied by Mom and one or both of the kids, has been to Africa three times, Norway, Great Britain, Ireland a few times, Paris for a shopping spree, Spain, Mumbai, Jakarta, and Rio de Janeiro, actually said:

“It’s very rare that I have the opportunity to travel outside of the United States, and it’s even more rare to have the opportunity to travel with three generations — with my daughters, and with my mother.”

Playing the part of gracious hostess, Peng escorted the three generations on a guided tour of the Forbidden City, including the Hall of Supreme Harmony pavilion, which would be a great name for the Capitol Building in the ‘Forbidden City’ of Washington DC.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose government, not counting the cost of Michelle’s ‘Excellent Chinese Adventure,’ is owed $1.3 trillion by the United States and who sided with Vladimir Putin on the Crimea invasion one week prior to his scheduled meeting with Mr. Obama at the nuclear security summit in the Netherlands, greeted Michelle at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse.

While amassing a huge military force, Xi told Michelle, “I cherish my sound working relationship and personal friendship I have already established with your husband, and we stay in close touch through meetings, phone conversations and correspondence.”

Then, in all seriousness, Xi actually remarked, “I wish to thank the U.S. side for sending such a heavyweight ambassador to China.”  What?  A “heavyweight ambassador?”  Sounds as if Putin was coaching Xi on how to insult their nemesis’s wife.

Following the ‘heavyweight’ cultural commendations, Mrs. Obama reiterated that the goal of her trip was to focus on education, which she said “is an important issue to both of our countries.”

Education is clearly important in China, where students perform magnificently in math, science and writing.  On the other hand, America is a country where a ridiculously large number of students require college remediation because after 12 years of Obama-supported public school indoctrination, making change from a $5 bill and cobbling together a coherent sentence are beyond their grasp.

As part of her “people-to-people exchange,” while Grandma Marian was busy being rude to the hotel staff, Mrs. Obama attempted to minimize the damage by whacking around a tennis ball with Chinese schoolchildren.  Michelle did admit she’s a rookie at the sport but added, “My husband plays. He thinks he’s better than he really is,” a declaration that describes a tendency that goes far beyond tennis.

There was also a calligraphy demonstration where Mrs. Obama was taught how to ink the Chinese character for a word that perfectly captures what the last six years in America have felt like: “eternity.”

Following suit, Peng wrote out a four-character adage that translates to “Great virtue promotes growth,” then signed it and gave it to Michelle as a souvenir. Other than ignoring coded calligraphy messages, in order to keep things light and upbeat Michelle has vowed to avoid the topic of Chinese victims of human rights violations.

Lest we forget, Mrs. Obama’s husband does approve of allowing babies to die without medical care after botched abortions, so it’s no big deal if in China, according to Amnesty International, “500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial.”  In addition, “harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise” — as is censorship of the Internet and other media, repression of minority groups including Christians, forced abortions, thousands of executions, and harvesting organs from living prisoners.

Not to worry: unsavory practices like selling prisoners’ livers on the black market will not dampen the good time Michelle has planned.  Unlike the political prisoners rotting in Qincheng prison, our first lady will be dining at a Tibetan restaurant in Chengdu and then, after unwinding in her personal steam room after a grueling day of Ping-Pong diplomacy, will relax on silk pillows in her 3,400 square-foot presidential suite “masterpiece.”

According to the Xinhau news agency, Michelle’s choice to remain non-political is a good one because political issues are “better handled via official diplomacy.”  Xinhau stressed, “The uniqueness of the role of first ladies is its soft touch and freedom from the knottiness and even ugliness of hard politics.”

Being unencumbered by the “knottiness and …ugliness of hard politics” releases Michelle Obama to do “soft touch” first lady things such as spend lots of money on unofficial trips, enjoy international sightseeing, dress in silky red dresses in her unspoken fashion competition with China’s first lady, and burn up millions of dollars in jet fuel.

And oh yes, it also provides her the freedom to lodge in a 52,000 Yuan ($8,400) per-night hotel suite complete with a bar, a Jacuzzi, dining for six, and a treadmill to work off what she eats in swanky restaurants.

Share

Michelle Obama to China for a Boondoggle

michelle-obama-china-tripOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Itinerant world traveler Michelle Obama is in China for another one of her very private mother/daughter trips.

This time the jaunt includes her mother Marion and her two daughters, Sasha and Malia, who may one day be mothers themselves. Excluded from the trip are reporters who may or may not be mothers.

Mrs. Obama’s chief of staff, first-generation Chinese-American Tina Tchen, justified the female Obama entourage descending on Beijing this way: “a multigenerational visit would be appreciated by the Chinese, who value tradition.”

Come on Tina, a traditional “multigenerational visit?”

You can do better than that.

If not Tina, isn’t there at least one person in the White House who’ll ’fess up that this is just another Costa del Sol-style “private mother and daughter” excuse to indulge in a lavish spring vacation? Of course not. That’s why the White House claims the reason for this multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded excursion is for world ambassador Michelle Obama  to initiate a nonpolitical “people-to-people exchange.”

BTW, in the spirit of openness in this particular “people-to-people exchange,” if the people wanting to do the exchanging are the American press, that exchange is officially cancelled.

Spokespersons for the first lady maintain that the context of Mrs. Obama’s nonpolitical visit is quite different this time, because – are you ready?

“Throughout her time in the White House, she has been decidedly nonpolitical.”

Nonpolitical!?  This woman’s politics have touched upon everything from breastfeeding to pie-sharing, and  don’t try to find a Tater Tots in a school cafeteria.

Moreover, is the first lady aware that the United States is currently wrangling with China over trade, cyber weapons and, as always, human rights? U158P5029T2D595593F24DT20130602101251

In keeping things light, perhaps Michelle Obama can exchange high-end fashion tips and Michelle can get Peng Liyuan, China’s first lady to allow Michelle a workout of her famous biceps on the steel drums.

Next, America’s first lady can dine in the Forbidden City, visit the Great Wall, view the terracotta warriors, and take in the Walled City in Xi’an all in an effort to update the White House blog.

There. That should prevent an audit of this “official state visit.”

Because reporters are banned from relaying the real details of the China expedition, Mrs. Obama can do what she wants, promote the trip as something it is not, treat the American press the same way the press is treated in communist China, and be protected by publicly-funded government educational programs who’ll cooperate with her ruse that this is all about cultural exchange and virtual discussions.

Even though China is number one in academic achievement and America currently ranks #36 in reading, science, and math, Michelle’s hocus-focus will supposedly underscore the value of education to Chinese schoolchildren who, quite frankly, have done just fine without her advice.

FLOTUS will also be shilling for youth empowerment in communist China – a country whose apartheid-style household registration system classifies citizens according to place of residence and socioeconomic status, censors the Internet, officiates over forced abortions, seizes private property, suppresses religion, and sells prisoners’ organs.

Memo to Barack: Investigate selling prisoners organs, so we can plan that trip to New Zealand!

Are Americans really supposed to believe that Michelle Obama flew nearly 7,000 miles and will probably spend $7 million to spend seven days in China initiating ‘people-to-people exchanges?’  What does that even mean?  Or is Mrs. Obama, shameless elitist that she is, again exchanging the American people’s hard-earned money for her own extravagant amusement?

There is no need for the press to inform the public of what is so blatantly obvious:  Despite an extended 27 day-vacation in Hawaii in January, a ski trip to Aspen in February, and recent family-time weekend in Key Largo, Michelle Obama is now under the impression that she is entitled to an exotic trip to China at taxpayer expense.

Meanwhile, as the FLOTUS is on a “people-to-people exchange” in China, the money she continues to fritter away would be better spent by Americans struggling to survive and trying to figure out how to pay for the healthcare burden her husband has placed upon our shoulders.

 

Share

Eye-Crossing: Liberal Logic and Helping the Oppressed via Abortion

abortionOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

At a militant Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) demonstration held in New York City recently, scowling women in combat boots who believe in armed conflict stood on soapboxes rallying against patriarchy. Their battle cry: “Abortion on Demand without Apology.” The twisted premise of the rally was that women should be vindicated if they kill unborn babies (without apology), including female babies, which, in turn, would somehow liberate the gentle sex from oppressive males.

Similarly, when it comes to health care, liberals applaud beneficence, unless it’s bestowed by way of evil conservatives with lots of money, like the Koch brothers.

That’s why on one street corner in New York you might find liberals staging a perfectly illogical “Quality Care, not Koch Care” protest, and on another, an equally illogical “Stop the War on Women…Stop Patriarchy…Abortion on Demand without Apology” convention.

Recently it was reported that Americans for Prosperity humanitarian David Koch contributed mega-millions to a new ambulatory care center due to be built at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The left’s reaction to David Koch’s philanthropic gift is similar to the reasoning that killing female babies is key to liberating women who care about people.

Brothers Charles and David Koch rank #59 behind other political contributors, including the liberal billionaire Steyer brothers, who called David Koch “famously evil” for doing malevolent things like contributing enormous sums of money to charitable causes.  Koch’s latest contribution is “the largest philanthropic donation” in the history of New York-Presbyterian Hospital and will help provide “patients with the best personalized and integrated outpatient care, from diagnosis to treatment to aftercare, in a single, patient-friendly and technologically sophisticated environment.”

“Patient-friendly” environments aside, liberals apparently believe they can further healthcare for the poor by protesting huge donations by rich conservatives, even if those donations lead to job creation and improved healthcare facilities for the poor.

For greater understanding, here’s how it works: the left defines David Koch funding of an outpatient ambulatory care center as “defeating and repealing healthcare to all Americans,” and his oil tycoon money helping create new jobs as “attacking workers.”

That’s why, “Quality… not Koch” militants recently marched in front of the “soon-to-be-built” David H. Koch Center location. The complainers included such notables as the New York State Nurses’ Association (NYSNA), who apparently are angered because, by 2018, Koch’s donation will help create new nursing jobs. Also in attendance were the NAACP New York State Conference and SEIU Local 1199, as well as guitar-playing people in red jackets who’ll march for anything if it gets them a free pancake breakfast.

In 2012, in the midst of layoffs at non-profit Washington Hospital Center, ardent abortion supporter/former President Bill Clinton received a $225,000 speaking fee. Remarkably, Bill Clinton’s insensitivity toward laid-off hospital workers failed to rouse even one concerned lesbian to host a “Speak out for Quality Care, Not Clinton Care” street march. But let a conservative donate $100 million to a hospital, and rampant ire is the response from the “Abortion on Demand without Apology” crowd.

On International Women’s Day protesters were annoyed because the “oil tycoon” contributing the money has an anti-abortion conviction – without apology – that is contrary to liberal ideology, which includes the unfettered right to abortion without apology!

So, evidently a huge donation to supplement jobs and provide a spanking-new health pavilion that is poised to enhance healthcare in New York City is unwelcome if the philanthropist doing the donating does not support the Revolutionary Communist Party’s stance that abortion should be available to anyone, anytime.

Adding to that irritation, the “soon-to-be-built” New York-Presbyterian Hospital pavilion will be located on the wealthy Upper East Side, where Mayor Bill ‘Tale of Two Cities’ de Blasio would likely agree that, as punishment for success, residents should be left to die in snowdrifts.

So there you have it – liberal logic in action:  protest for a cause and feign concern for the oppressed, then turn around and oppress the ones for whom you were feigning concern.

According to the Revolutionary Communist Party, the way to address male oppression of women is to kill unborn women. For the “Quality Care, not Koch Care” activists, it means biting the hand that provides healthcare and jobs just because on Election Day that hand pulls the Republican lever.

At a militant Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) demonstration held in New York City recently, scowling women in combat boots who believe in armed conflict stood on soapboxes rallying against patriarchy. Their battle cry: “Abortion on Demand without Apology.” The twisted premise of the rally was that women should be vindicated if they kill unborn babies (without apology), including female babies, which, in turn, would somehow liberate the gentle sex from oppressive males.

Similarly, when it comes to health care, liberals applaud beneficence, unless it’s bestowed by way of evil conservatives with lots of money, like the Koch brothers.

That’s why on one street corner in New York you might find liberals staging a perfectly illogical “Quality Care, not Koch Care” protest, and on another, an equally illogical “Stop the War on Women…Stop Patriarchy…Abortion on Demand without Apology” convention.

Recently it was reported that Americans for Prosperity humanitarian David Koch contributed mega-millions to a new ambulatory care center due to be built at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The left’s reaction to David Koch’s philanthropic gift is similar to the reasoning that killing female babies is key to liberating women who care about people.

Brothers Charles and David Koch rank #59 behind other political contributors, including the liberal billionaire Steyer brothers, who called David Koch “famously evil” for doing malevolent things like contributing enormous sums of money to charitable causes.  Koch’s latest contribution is “the largest philanthropic donation” in the history of New York-Presbyterian Hospital and will help provide “patients with the best personalized and integrated outpatient care, from diagnosis to treatment to aftercare, in a single, patient-friendly and technologically sophisticated environment.”

“Patient-friendly” environments aside, liberals apparently believe they can further healthcare for the poor by protesting huge donations by rich conservatives, even if those donations lead to job creation and improved healthcare facilities for the poor.

For greater understanding, here’s how it works: the left defines David Koch funding of an outpatient ambulatory care center as “defeating and repealing healthcare to all Americans,” and his oil tycoon money helping create new jobs as “attacking workers.”

That’s why, “Quality… not Koch” militants recently marched in front of the “soon-to-be-built” David H. Koch Center location. The complainers included such notables as the New York State Nurses’ Association (NYSNA), who apparently are angered because, by 2018, Koch’s donation will help create new nursing jobs. Also in attendance were the NAACP New York State Conference and SEIU Local 1199, as well as guitar-playing people in red jackets who’ll march for anything if it gets them a free pancake breakfast.

In 2012, in the midst of layoffs at non-profit Washington Hospital Center, ardent abortion supporter/former President Bill Clinton received a $225,000 speaking fee. Remarkably, Bill Clinton’s insensitivity toward laid-off hospital workers failed to rouse even one concerned lesbian to host a “Speak out for Quality Care, Not Clinton Care” street march. But let a conservative donate $100 million to a hospital, and rampant ire is the response from the “Abortion on Demand without Apology” crowd.

On International Women’s Day protesters were annoyed because the “oil tycoon” contributing the money has an anti-abortion conviction – without apology – that is contrary to liberal ideology, which includes the unfettered right to abortion without apology!

So, evidently a huge donation to supplement jobs and provide a spanking-new health pavilion that is poised to enhance healthcare in New York City is unwelcome if the philanthropist doing the donating does not support the Revolutionary Communist Party’s stance that abortion should be available to anyone, anytime.

Adding to that irritation, the “soon-to-be-built” New York-Presbyterian Hospital pavilion will be located on the wealthy Upper East Side, where Mayor Bill ‘Tale of Two Cities’ de Blasio would likely agree that, as punishment for success, residents should be left to die in snowdrifts.

So there you have it – liberal logic in action:  protest for a cause and feign concern for the oppressed, then turn around and oppress the ones for whom you were feigning concern.

According to the Revolutionary Communist Party, the way to address male oppression of women is to kill unborn women. For the “Quality Care, not Koch Care” activists, it means biting the hand that provides healthcare and jobs just because on Election Day that hand pulls the Republican lever.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/eye-crossing-liberal-logic-helping-oppressed/#i7WJxMyefY4cztTM.99

Share

Obama the Gap-Maker Visits the Gap

Obama At The Gap

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It’s great to have a president who has his priorities in order.

Supposedly in a poorly-planned effort to embarrass Congress into raising the minimum wage, Barack Obama prevented minimum wage workers from getting to work with a surprise visit that shut down an already jam-packed Times Square.

Barack Obama went photo-op-sweater-shopping in Manhattan all because (with his prodding) Gap Inc. already took it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.

While in the Gap, and supposedly for the women in his life, the fashion savvy Barack contemplated pink sweaters and 1969 sweatshirts. The president told the ladies that he was searching for a gift for his wife and daughters.

Um Barack…Michelle ‘$12K Carolina Herrera’ Obama in a Gap sweater? Ahhhh no.

indexThe store clerk that waited on the president looked almost as smitten as Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish Prime Minister who took a selfie with the president at Nelson Mandela’s solemn funeral service.

One other besotted cashier named, Sonia Del Gatto mentioned that “He’s better looking in person.”

In another awkward moment, the Gap worker (who probably heard Obama say that he could have spawned the hoodie-wearing Trayvon Martin) suggested a hoodie might be perfect for the president. Quickly nixing the suggestion, Obama told the helpful Gap girl that the first lady wasn’t into hoodies.

From  hoodie wear the duo sauntered over to the V-neck sweater table where the president mentioned:

“I’m worried the V-neck is going to slip.”

Ahem, while slipping V-necks and appearing on Between Two Ferns to push Obamacare with actor Zach Galifianakis are important concerns, is Obama equally as concerned about that missing Malaysian airline with three American passport owners on board?

How about Putin reasserting his machismo in Crimea, or the IRS scandal, or the truth behind Benghazi? How about Iran with a nuke?

Guess not, because after much measured deliberation, the president did choose a politically-correct black and white stripped sweater, for his wife, as well as a stereotypical pink-for-girls cardigans for his daughters.

Obama who’s been doing an awful lot of golfing, said he wasn’t accustomed to shopping much these days. Not for nothing, as they say in New York, he hasn’t been doing much of anything else for that matter.

The increasingly unimpressive Barack Obama, apparently perceives himself to be someone who still impresses everyone. Obama told the dumb, er, I mean dumbstruck staff that based on the sweaters he chose, which Michelle and the girls will likely never wear, “the ladies [would] be impressed by [his] style sense.”

Approaching the register, the man Hillary warned America (and she was right) shouldn’t be answering the White House phone at 3:00 am asked the hovering horde, “Who’s going to ring me up?”

Once at the register, Obama was not exempt from perfunctory question as to whether he was interested in signing up for a Gap store card. The president declined. Ostensibly, if given the choice, the Charger-in-Chief prefers running up bills and accruing expenses – with interest – on account the American people’s account.

Obama, who is currently overseeing the American economy, did admit that normally he doesn’t carry a wallet. Hopefully, the Chinese weren’t listening when he told the group that he wasn’t sure how to pay.

Then, after swiping his own credit card, and making a couple of truly bad jokes that everyone laughed at out of a perverted sense of respect, the president talked about getting Congress to raise the federal minimum wage.

With navy blue bag in hand, the president said that the Gap raising the minimum wage is not only good for the store’s workers and their families, “it’s also good for the entire economy.” Could he possibly mean the US economy that he managed to really screw up?

Prior to leaving, and sounding a lot like Gap poster boy Spike Lee, Obama congratulated the Gap for “doing the right thing!”

An old Gap slogan said that “For every generation, there’s a gap” and more than ever that slogan applies today.

It’s going to take much more than a hike in the minimum wage to fix America’s huge ‘gap’ in leadership.

Sadly, a pink sweater, a hoodie, or a midday presidential photo op in Times Square, will not cure the national, economic, social, moral, and spiritual fissure left to the current ‘gap generation’ compliments of a cool, style-savvy Gap shopper named Barack Obama.

Share

Share Your Burrito ‘So Someone Else Can Have More’

Spread the wealth

Originally posted at American Thinker

Remember when candidate Barack Obama told Joe ‘the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher that “my attitude is … when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Mrs. Obama backed up the “spread the wealth around” message, but Michelle’s example involved food. 

FLOTUS maintained that in order for equity to abound in America, “someone [would have to] give up a piece of their pie so that someone else [could] have more.”

It was only a matter of time before Americans would feel emboldened enough to take the president and first lady’s redistribution comments literally and demand half of someone’s ‘pie,’ a couple of glugs of a Starbuck’s latte or, as in a recent case, half a burrito on a park bench outside a Mexican grill.

Here’s how it happened:  Concerned only with his own selfish needs, some hungry person decided to indulge in a burrito for lunch.  Based on the police report, it’s safe to assume that the burrito was purchased at “hole in the wallTacos Chukis, a Mexican restaurant in an upstairs mall on East Broadway in Seattle, Washington. Clearly unaware that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” a whole $3.25 burrito was purchased for just one person.    

If the burrito buyer was a more thoughtful human being, he would have promoted Mexican food equity and chosen a taco for $1.60 and given the other $1.60 to someone less fortunate.  And if he had done that, there would have been five cents’ change left over to redistribute to someone else, too. But that’s not what happened. Instead, after buying food at the Mexican eatery, the customer chose to tuck into a big fat burrito in plain sight right outside the restaurant. That’s when he was approached by Mahamed M. Abdi, a 24-year-old African-American fellow dressed in a “gray cloth cap and a white fur coat.”

Seems Mr. Abdi took Michelle and Barry at their word and must have felt justified in demanding a piece of someone else’s pie.  In keeping with the president’s ‘share the wealth’ motto, Abdi demanded: “Give me a bite of your burrito.”   After all, didn’t Michelle Obama say something like, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their [burrito] so that someone else can have more”?

The offended diner refused, and pointed out to Abdi that asking for a bite of a stranger’s “little donkey” is “rude!” 

Because the restaurant wasn’t giving out free burritos, and in keeping with fair-share principles, those able to throw around the big bucks for selections off the expensive side of the chalkboard menu should always be prepared to offer a couple of bites to those President Obama calls the “less fortunate among us.”

After all, at the end of the day, didn’t buying the burrito support a successful small business (built by somebody other than the owners)? That’s why, to prove his commitment to Mexican food redistribution, Abdi pushed the greedy burrito eater and again demanded a bite. 

The bite was not forthcoming.  Instead, after Mahamed “asked” a second time, with burrito in hand the insensitive diner rose from his seat outside the restaurant and attempted to vacate the vicinity.  That’s when, according to the Seattle Police Department report, Abdi punched the man in the head and ran away. 

On behalf of socialist presidents, walloping people who refuse to ‘share the wealth’ ought to be a government-approved tactic.  In America we have the Lois Lerner types who, unlike Mahamed Abdi, do the head-punching in a very dignified manner.

Meanwhile, back in Seattle, as a result of being beaten, thankfully, the burrito owner only had “very slight redness [on his] forehead.” The injured party did not request or require treatment at the non-Obamacare approved Seattle Children’s Hospital.  The assault victim also did not cite post-traumatic burrito heist disorder, nor was he so devastated that he needed Washington State-approved physician suicide assistance.

The police eventually caught up with and arrested the famished Mr. Abdi, who, in a desperate cry for help, yelled obscenities and spit on the Plexiglass divider from the back seat of the police car.  

Based on his rap sheet, Mr. Abdi is a man who, after being arrested more than a dozen times, clearly believes that wealth-sharing is a concept more people need to cheerfully embrace.  If the general public would just comply and share half of whatever they have whenever Mahamed wants it, it would do away with the need for him to assault Mexican restaurant customers.

What’s sad about the whole incident is that, based on policies that Michelle and Barack Obama promote, Abdi isn’t really a criminal.  He’s just ahead of his time in understanding what it means for others to willingly share their ‘piece of the pie’ with him and others like him.

Share

Michelle Obama’s Plans to Reorient the Orient

Michelle Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker

After being holed up for at least two weeks in the White House, Michelle Obama must be itching for another exotic getaway.  With superpower tensions at an all-time high, now is as good a time as any to take a multi-generational mother-daughter vacation to China.  Never mind that Michelle’s vacation destination is busy amassing the fiercest military force on the planet and partnering with Vladimir Putin, who just tested an ICBM.

Rising above silly little squabbles, Michelle is packing up mom Marion and daughters Malia and Sasha.  The traveling quartet and a huge entourage will board Air Force Two in mid-March at God knows what flight cost per hour – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer – and wing westward for 13 hours toward China, which, quite frankly, is quite a ways to travel for authentic Kung Pao chicken.

Upon arrival, Michelle plans to visit with China’s foxy steel drum-playing first lady Peng Liyuan.  But before she does, the FLOTUS has “some ‘splainin’ to do! 

Last year, when Chinese president Xi Jinping and his wife were in California for a “trust-binding” summit with Barack the Golfer at Rancho Mirage, Michelle chose to forego the formalities and instead sent a note inviting herself to China. 

And although diplomacy is paramount, the real reason Mrs. Obama is venturing forth is to try to credibly represent a country that continues to lag in educational achievement.  Apparently, the first lady feels that in addition to minimum daily requirements and human hydration needs, she is also qualified to educate Chinese students.

Whoever agreed to allow Michelle to come to China and talk about education has to know that she is the wife of an allegedly learned man who never read the health care bill, relentlessly pushes junk science, and, considering the sad state of the U.S. economy, clearly lacks basic math skills.

What is it exactly that Mrs. Obama will be sharing?  According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey, Shanghai, China tops the world in math, reading, and science.

The US is ranked 36th

That’s why Meddling Michelle talking education to children who run rings academically around most Americans, including her, is not very different from her brilliant suggestion that U.S. housewives need government help deciphering product labels. 

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s deputy director of education, Andreas Schleicher, claims that part of the reason Shanghai pupils do so well is determination and the self-confidence to fulfill their potential.

Jiang Xueqin, deputy principal at the Tsinghua University High School in Beijing, stressed that “Shanghai’s success is a product of a culture that prioritizes academic achievements over other pursuits.”

Does Jiang mean “other pursuits” such as foam-finger twerking, doing the Dougie, and memorizing lyrics to songs by Sasha and Malia’s role model, Beyoncé?

Shanghai students’ self-motivation and desire to succeed won’t stop “Race to 36th Place” Michelle from imposing her expertise.  After all, their top ranking in academic superiority shouldn’t derail FLOTUS’s plans to lecture the academically diligent and determined about the importance of diligence and determination.
The first lady will most assuredly expound on how, despite seemingly insurmountable odds, a lanky black girl managed to attend an Ivy League college, graduate Harvard Law School, marry a community organizer/future president, acquire a closet full of $12K party dresses, and vacation at Oprah’s place.

In a White House blog post, Michelle pointed out that she’s going to China because “countries today are no longer isolated and face many of the same challenges, whether it is to provide students with a good education, combat hunger, poverty and disease or address threats like climate change.” 

What Mrs. Obama didn’t mention to her low-information blog followers is that while America is being sucked down a rabbit hole of debt, danger, and despair, the fact that she even mentions “climate change” sheds light on why the USA is in 36th place.

In her pre-trip post, Mrs. Obama also wrote: “I’ll be focusing on the power and importance of education, both in my own life and in the lives of young people in both of our countries.”

FLOTUS insists that the “China visit is important because it is the most populous country in the world, with more than 1.3 billion people, and is an important world actor.”  Wait – more important than Congo expert Ben Affleck?

While reorienting the Orient, maybe Michelle can help level the educational playing field by suggesting that the Chinese, whose mathematical proficiency results from old-school rote memorization, adopt Common Core math.

But if Common Core subtraction is too confusing for the children, Mrs. Obama can always switch over to basic addition. 

For fun, she can calculate the cost of a few of her recent taxpayer-funded excursions: $11 million for a 13-hour trip to and from Nelson Mandela’s funeral + $5 million to fly to Ireland + almost $8 million in family vacation flight expenses + $2 million flying alone from parts unknown + approximately $100 grand flying back and forth to Aspen. 

Then Michelle can explain to the youngsters why it is humanly impossible to pay back the $1.2 trillion America owes China.

Meanwhile, in addition to learning to handle chopsticks, picking up pointers on how to institute an American version of China’s one-child policy, and trying to cajole her hosts into tacking the cost of her luxury hotel accommodations onto America’s running tab, Michelle the raconteur can share with the Chinese pupils inspirational tales of how to “fundamentally transform” oneself from a low-level social climber into a high-level government parasite.

No doubt Chinese youngsters living in a country where the average salary is $656 per month in U.S. dollars will be riveted to Mrs. Obama’s triumphant hard-luck “working-class kid from the South Side of Chicago” story. 

After inspiring Chinese schoolchildren to new educational heights, the FLOTUS can then remind them that if she could do it, so can they!  Because even in communist China Michelle Obama’s mantra is: “My story can be your story!”

Share

© 2009-2014 jeannie-ology All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline