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.
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.”