Originally posted at CLASH Daily
For almost seven years now, those who are either unemployed or struggling to make ends meet have endured listening to Barack Obama imply that, as a group, Americans need to share more. As for the rich, or “life’s lottery winners,” as the president likes to call them, those people – while not “evil” per se – “pretty much have more than [they’ll] ever use and [their] family will ever use.”
So, based on what he says concerning everyone other than himself, the president is clearly of the belief that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” and apparently feels qualified to be the one who decides how much money is too much money.
That type of thinking is indicative of totalitarian regimes where the useful eaters, otherwise known as those who contribute, are transformed into robotic drones who live only to work and supply an elite, handpicked upper class with the funds they need to live like kings and queens. Meanwhile, the “state holds total control over the society and… wherever possible… seeks to control all aspects of public and private life.”
For example, although he doesn’t want anyone else doing it, Obama has no problem living like a king off the sweat of the proletariat.
The president’s wife Michelle wears mind-blowingly expensive haute couture, and the family has spent approximately $50 million jet-setting all over the world on the taxpayers’ dime. Although he plans to desegregate America’s neighborhoods, the president vacations in the tony white enclave of Martha’s Vineyard, golfs in mostly-white Palm Springs, and when kicking back at home, has his personal chef grill up some Wagyu beef at $100 per pound.
So, the guy who thinks some of us have “made enough money” pretty much exempts himself from the “made enough money” category and lives a more opulent lifestyle than the hedge-fund managers he publicly criticizes.
Moreover, what is also clear is that Barack Obama also makes those sorts of exceptions for his small circle of exceedingly wealthy friends, one of whom is pop star/diva Beyoncé Knowles-Carter.
While Obama lectures everyday Americans that “spreading the wealth around” is better for everyone, Beyoncé, his good friend and supporter of policies that demonize the rich, shamelessly exhibits a life of gaudy self-indulgence.
Recently, Queen Bey purchased for herself a $345,000 pair of gold-encrusted shoes to wear in an upcoming music video that is due out in the fall.
If my math is correct, the pop star paid about $173,000 per shoe.
Amazingly, there hasn’t been one peep from Barack Obama about how Queen B’s half-million-dollar decadence would be better applied to things like caring for sick veterans on waiting lists at VA hospitals, feeding starving children, or “keeping some of the brothers” in Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative.
Double standards aside, Beyoncé, who believes “poverty is sexist”, hopes to inspire music video fantasies by employing a pair of sexy shoes that the House of Borgezie owner Chris Shellis calls “the crown jewels of stilettos.” The Borgezie website also describes the sky-high heels as “Possibly the eighth wonder of the world”:
The Princess Constellation is a fully diamond set version of the Contessa Stiletto considered one ofH’s finest creations. The Princess Constellation is incrusted (sic) with 1,310 diamonds resulting in a massive diamond weight 65.50 carrats (sic), all set in to (sic) a choice of platinum or 18ct gold.
Barack Obama continually laments that the bottom segment of society receives a smaller percentage of wealth and blames capitalism for more of the nation’s wealth settling at the top. Yet, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t free-market capitalism the vehicle that made Beyoncé Giselle a multimillionaire?
Maybe Obama, who criticizes Republicans for being the “party of billionaires”, is setting Beyoncé up and will solidify his commitment to “sharing the wealth” by suggesting that instead of indulging her size 8.5 hoofs, Bey sell her $345,000 shoes and contribute the profits to the bottom segment of a society that he claims receives a smaller percentage of the nation’s wealth.
Meanwhile, as the president wags his finger at rich people for doing things like “ignoring poverty by sending their children to private schools” (the kind his daughters attend), Beyoncé, who also purchased an $85,000 gold belt from Britain’s House of Borgezie to match her shoes, gets a big fat liberal-elite pass.
Nonetheless, Shellis crows, “If you want someone to model your creations, you can’t get any better than Beyoncé.” After all, who other than “life’s lottery winner” Beyoncé could get away with announcing she’ll be headlining a global anti-poverty concert, and then spend almost a half-million dollars on a belt and shoes?
But why stop at Beyoncé? When it comes to modeling the double standard of the liberal elite, “you can’t get any better” than Barack Obama, who scorns the wealthy and then overlooks a good friend strutting around in a music video wearing $345,000 diamond-encrusted shoes.