Archive / Pop Culture/Politics

RSS feed for this section

BEYONCE’S $345K SHOES: Obama’s BFF Shows Us the Duplicity of the Liberal Elite Read

image1Originally 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.

Voting for Obama is like First-Time Sex in the City

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Cyberspace is all atwitter about a new Obama campaign-paid ad starring HBO series Girls star Lena Dunham entitled “My first time was with Obama.”  The ad uses a sexual double-entendre that equates Dunham voting for the first time with losing her virginity to the very married Barack Obama.

Dunham has been nicknamed the “voice of a generation” for her show’s funny portrayal of life as a middle- to upper-class romantic woman living in New York City.  Therefore, it’s not too far-fetched to call this ad “Voting for Obama is like First Time Sex in the City.”

The twenty-something HBO star says, “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody.  You want to do it with a great guy.”

Lena does not expound upon how she knows that Barack Obama is a “great guy,” or whether her actual “first time” really was with a “great guy.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Nonetheless, Dunham instructs virginal females both in and outside the voting booth by telling them that “your first time” should be with “someone who really cares about and understands women — a guy who cares whether you get health insurance and specifically whether you get birth control.”

It’s true — before losing your virginity to a “great guy,” it’s always good to first find out how he feels about whether or not you have health insurance and whether or not you brought along your free birth control.  In other words, whether it’s losing your virginity or voting, “your lady parts” depend on picking the right guy.

Lena also doesn’t explain how she knows that Barack Obama “really cares about and understands women.”  Is it his smooth line, his engaging smile, his willingness to pay for the campaign ad, or his major line of bull?  Because if those are the criteria the virtuous Ms. Dunham uses to measure whether a potential lover cares about her or not, then she’s the type of easy-sleazy that men joke about when women aren’t around.

However, what Lena does know is that when pulling the lever, “[t]he consequences are huge.”  Huge consequences are certainly applicable, whether choosing a man for sex or voting for the first time.

While the “first time” ad is shocking to some, it’s really quite telling.  Barack Obama was actually willing to pay for an ad that admits what he’s truly good at: majorly screwing America.  Better yet, majorly screwing the American women who think he has their best interests at heart.

Obama’s screwing started four years ago with the help of semi-virginal voters like Lena Dunham, and he is hoping to keep up the screwing for another four years.  Unfortunately, while it might have been good for Obama, Ms. Lena is too inexperienced and naïve to realize that her first time wasn’t as good she thought it was.

And if it’s a happy ending with Barack Obama that Lena Dunham and the twenty-somethings she’s appealing to are looking for, she and the “Girls” are setting themselves up to be very disappointed.

Elizabeth ‘Banks’ on Barack

Originally posted at Renew America

Actress Elizabeth Banks, star of such memorable flicks as Madonna’s Swept Away, box office blockbuster Sexual Life, and instructional films/comedies such as The 40 Year Old Virgin and Zack and Miri Make a Porno, cares so very “deeply” about Planned Parenthood that she’s stepped forward on behalf of Barack Obama to promote the abortion provider in a new campaign ad.

While Elizabeth Banks’ opinion is inconsequential in terms of the big picture, it’s important to expose the ignorance and farcical rationale displayed by an ever-growing roster of Hollywood shills for Obama. These out-of-touch, overpaid show-business types have made it their business to influence the ill-informed so that Obama can continue inflicting his economic and social reign of terror on the nation.

In the promo Elizabeth shares how, after graduating from college, Planned Parenthood was her sole healthcare provider. And yes, Elizabeth says she got birth control from Planned Parenthood, but only for her “massive migraine headaches” and “heavy flow.”

Banks then says, “Yeah, I’m on record saying I have a heavy flow,” which is where the spot segues into absurdity. Banks then says, “And unfortunately these are the type of things I don’t want to discuss with employers.  I don’t want to talk about that with my employer. That’s between me and my doctor and at the time my doctor happened to be at Planned Parenthood.”

Too bad the ad’s not an interview, because it would be interesting to hear Elizabeth explain why she thinks a woman who chooses not to avail herself of Planned Parenthood’s services would have to discuss her menses with her employer.

Nevertheless, an even more striking thing about the ad: Since when did Elizabeth Banks become so reserved about her sexuality?  Maybe she doesn’t realize it, but thanks to her appearance in an Obama/Biden 2012 ad, the whole country now knows about her menstrual flow.  Moreover, isn’t this the same woman whose career was built on sex scenes, the most famous of which is in The 40 Year Old Virgin, where Banks’ bookstore clerk character “masturbates with a shower nozzle?”

In the Obama/Biden/Planned Parenthood ad, Banks continues by saying that because she doesn’t want to talk to her boss about female-related issues, she’s “really happy” Planned Parenthood exists to “provide essential services all over this country.”

Looking and sounding a bit uncomfortable, Banks then shares statistical information with the audience, claiming that “the services that they provide, ahhhh, what is it, 95% of them don’t involve anything controversial.”

Elizabeth’s Judeo-Christian/Irish Catholic/Protestant/conversion-to-Judaism roots could be the reason the actress chose not to utter the word “abortion,” and instead inserted the word “controversial.”

That 5% figure, although 3% is the number Planned Parenthood uses, has to be wrong, and a little basic math would prove it.

There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, is synonymous with the procedure. In clinics across America, 3,500 abortions are performed per day, totaling about 1.2 million babies per year.  University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude graduate Elizabeth Banks should have done some simple math before saying “ahhhh, what is it 95%” of Planned Parenthood services are not controversial.

Planned Parenthood confesses to approximately 300,000+ abortions per year, give or take a child’s life here and there.  In 2010 the organization admitted to dispensing about 1.4 million morning-after pills, which makes it 1.7 million ‘abortion related’ services in 2010.  And Planned Parenthood expects America to believe that 1.2 million minus 300,000 means that 900,000 additional abortions are being performed elsewhere in some little corner butcher shop somewhere?

Banks blithely declares: “So for that little 5% that Mitt Romney decides he doesn’t agree with he’s going to take away cancer screening?”  Apparently, for Elizabeth Banks “that little 5%,” which amounts to innocent human beings lives’ being destroyed at a so-called ‘healthcare facility,’ is a small price to pay for women to be able to get cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. Is Ms. Banks suggesting cancer screenings are unavailable anywhere besides Planned Parenthood?

Moreover, shame on Ms. Banks, who has herself admitted to struggling with infertility, for nonchalantly dismissing the lives of innocent children destroyed largely for the sake of convenience.

Referring to Mitt Romney, the actress asks the question: “What is he doing? He’s going to take away people’s access to healthcare close by?”  Sure, in the overall scheme of things, proximity does take precedence over the slaughter of 300,000 defenseless babies, which amounts to 19 coliseums each filled with 16,000 spectators being destroyed per year.

In defense of “working class ladies,” many of whom probably have both employer-provided health care and “a heavy flow,” Banks then points out that “We’re talking about working class ladies who need health care,” and “that’s Planned Parenthood and I don’t know how a lot of communities can get by without them.”

Come on Elizabeth, even the most ardent Planned Parenthood advocate knows that healthcare is not the first thing that comes to mind when the name Planned Parenthood is mentioned.  As for the communities that can’t get by without a clinic on the corner, the late eugenicist Margaret Sanger would likely concur that this is especially true for lower income neighborhoods, where Planned Parenthood clinics are located to assist minority women in relieving themselves and society of the burden of unwanted children.

According to Ms. Banks, the reason President Obama – a man who has destroyed the economy, trampled our Constitution, and continues to infringe on the rights of American taxpayers opposed to abortion – deserves to stay in office is because he “has not compromised” on the rights of women who’d rather abort their children and avoid discussing their “heavy flow” with an employer.

 

Hollywood Hoping for Obama, The Sequel

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

Barack Obama’s approval rating is presently a rousing 42%. That means the largest portion of the sane American public would love to see the first family pack up the Samsonite® and head back to the Winfrey City, famous for deep-dish pizza, Mayor Rahm, and the type of thuggish politics the head of the house is obviously comfortable with.

However, President Barack Obama’s latest fundraising report cites an “A-list of Hollywood stars, with donations from some of the top celebrities in the entertainment industry.” Apparently, left-coast liberals want to see to it that the best script reader since Martin Sheen has another shot at practicing lines on set while acting the part of President.

It’s not surprising that Hollywood is smitten with the “Yes We Can” man’s refusal to admit he can’t.  Those in the acting profession are impressed by amateurs like Barry Soetoro (stage name Barack Obama), who has proven to have a professional-level ability to make believe he’s something he is not. Heck, for a season, even Paul Giamatti was convinced he was John Adams.

What could be better for Hollywood than a President who swims around in a policy cesspool similar to the one they refuse to empty in Tinsel Town, overflowing with the squalid water of loose morals, abortion rights, angry feminists, racial indignation, class warfare and overall elitist hypocrisy?

By and large, actors, comedians and entertainers pride themselves on being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-free Mumbia, pro-promiscuity and pro-anything non-traditional. Hollywood is full of left-wingers whose “Hope [is to] Change” America into a nation where the likes of Bill Maher and Jane Fonda are symbols of empathy and truth.

The fact that big name stars contribute to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection bid proves once again that ideological liberals lack intelligence and common sense.  Little do they know that if Obama gets another four years, it’s certain he’ll drive a stake through the heart of the nation that has bestowed fame and fortune on ignorant people who like to play pretend. It doesn’t take Will Hunting to figure out that people who can’t afford gas and groceries aren’t likely to drop $10 on a movie ticket to watch Julia Roberts fake-giggling while riding on the back of a moped driven by a middle-aged Tom Hanks in a leather jacket.

Yet, despite the inevitable looming catastrophe if Obama is reelected, according to the latest Federal Election Commission report the list of Who’s Who of Obama aficionados includes usual suspects such as Darfur defender George Clooney, Mr. and Mrs. Forrest Gump, and cancer survivor Michael Douglas – a man who would have already succumbed to throat cancer had Obamacare already kicked in.

Campaign contributors also include Schindler’s List director Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw. The Spielbergs, despite their supposed brilliance,  fail to realize they’re supporting a president whose feelings for Israel are at best questionable and whose lack of action could result in the need for another list if an unrestrained Iran eventually has its way.

Another contradictory campaign contributor is newly discovered country singer and proud part-time Londoner, the multifaceted Mrs. Chris ‘Coldplay’ Martin, Gwyneth Paltrow.  Gwyneth likes living in England better than the US, which may be why she decided to punish the colonies by contributing to Obama’s “We Bent the Air Hose in 2008 – Let’s Pull the Plug in 2012” campaign.

Also in the mix is political scene newcomer Jennifer Garner, wife to one of JLo’s many former fiancés, Ben Affleck. When not speaking before Congress on behalf of Save the Children, Garner supports the reelection of a radically pro-choice threat to the lives of millions of unborn children who, thanks to Barack Obama, truly need saving.

Other Obama star contributors include: Monk star Tony Shalhoub, the man who made OCD a respectable disorder; Glee’s glib lesbian gym teacher Jane Lynch; 24’s president Dennis Haysbert, a man who knows firsthand how to pretend to be a president; and sci-fi star (which explains a lot) Scott Bakula.  The eclectic group joins cantankerous political wannabe (who should also be in the sci-fi category), 30 Rock actor/über-liberal aspiring NYC mayor Alec Baldwin, who prides himself on being diversified in every area except liberalism.

The July quarterly report for the President’s reelection campaign touts $47 million in donations, while the Democratic National Committee raised $38 million through Obama’s joint committee. According to Barack Obama’s campaign, about 40% of the President’s record-breaking take came from “big-money bundlers” and top Hollywood heavy hitters like Rahm’s sibling Ari Emanuel and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Obama continues to practice governing the nation with the finesse of a jackhammer operator doing a kidney transplant. Yet, never once have Fruit of the Loom grape man Wayne Wilderson or Brenda Strong of “Desperate Housewives,” colleague of esteemed “brainstorming” border security advisor Eva Longoria, questioned the craven cynicism of demonizing the rich while stuffing Hollywood capital into his campaign coffers.

Seems that even after chastising Americans for failing to “share the wealth,” a selectively philanthropic Barack Obama is more than willing to accept the “additional income” of well-to-do Hollywood supporters, if doing so finances his glitzy billion-dollar bid for reelection that should be coined: Take two.

So once again, America is witnessing the unbridled ignorance of affluent individuals who choose to support a President who decries prosperity but has little trouble siphoning off the wealth of a community too clueless to understand who they’re really supporting and too committed to liberal ideology to really care.

%d bloggers like this: