Originally posted at American Thinker blog
We’re back to Michelle Obama, and as much as I hate to say it yet again – it’s all about the double standard. Here we have a woman who preaches financial abstinence, but whose personal expenditures are promiscuous beyond belief. Mrs. Obama is a harbinger of ‘safe-spending‘ and then uncontrollably prostitutes herself on the altar of sartorial elegance and sumptuous living.
The latest controversy surrounds a $2,000 designer sundress the first lady wore to church on her $4 million Hawaiian vacation. That’s right – a $2,000 muumuu; the damned thing didn’t even have sleeves. Michelle wore the unassuming frock to church to worship the humble birth of Jesus.
You remember Jesus? He was the one wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed on a bed of hay in a manger as many years ago as dollars made up the cost of that dress.
Besides appointing herself the guru of healthy eating and then dining at high-calorie Shake Shack, the only thing more inappropriate than donning designer duds for Jesus’ birthday was when Michelle wore $575 Lanvin sneakers to ladle out soup to the homeless at a food bank.
The current cause of the ruckus is a flimsy white/striped number from Sophie Theallet’s Resort Collection, which, at the time it was purchased in late 2009, cost between $1000 and $2000. For 2012, similar pieces from the newest Resort collection sell for that and much more.
Therefore, it appears as if “1,960 dollars less than I need toward another Sophie Theallet sundress” might be Michelle Obama’s answer to Barack’s most current question: “What does $40 dollars mean to you?”
Here’s the point: Michelle Obama can wear diamond-encrusted undies if she wants, but not on America’s dime, and not while advocating for personal sacrifice. Some would say she finances her excessiveness with her own money, but this is only partially true. In essence, she is not.
Here’s why: She flew to Hawaii early, at a purported $100K extra in tax monies. Not only that, but lately the first lady is making a habit of premature departures. This is the third time this year she’s ventured forth ahead of her husband, bringing the ‘Michelle leaves early for vacation’ total to over $300,000.
In the interest of those less fortunate, if Mrs. Obama really wants us to give up more of our pie so others can have more, she should lead by example.
In fact, on the day Michelle wore the $2,000 dress, that afternoon she changed into a $950 skirt, which means with two or three outfit changes, not including pajamas, Mrs. Obama could have financed a one-way $100K flight for both herself and the dog.
If one frock cost 2,000 bucks and is only one of 17 outfits worn on a 17-day, $4 million vacation, then at a minimum Michelle, who travels with a military cargo plane full of God knows what, has probably spent almost enough money at $2,000 x 3 outfits a day x 17 days to chip in a large chunk of change toward her exorbitant taxpayer-funded flight expenses.
In ‘piece of the pie’-speak, to set an example for the rest of us Michelle could have skipped the couture and chosen instead to kick in for jet fuel.
Moreover, after the nation found out that the vacation expense was in the millions – millions! – you’d think the first lady would have the common sense to tone down the nouveau-riche exhibitionism for a spell. But no! Instead she showed up in a $2,000 ‘Sunday Go to Meeting’ outfit.
Ah, and who can forget Michelle telling us: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system…someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
I say: “The truth is, in order to save the hard-earned tax money provided by American blood, sweat and tears, Michelle is going to have to start giving up her ‘piece of their pie’ so that the rest of us can have more,” and that may have to start with Mrs. Obama offering to do something other than wearing a $2,000 dress twice.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Despite the state of the American economy and the President telling already cash-strapped Americans they have to “get used” to paying $5 a gallon for gasoline, Michelle showed support for America’s garment industry by frolicking about in a costly The Row collection skirt.
Last week, before the air traffic control/mid-air/runway brouhaha, Michelle Obama emerged on ‘The View’ in a skirt designed by ‘Full House’ stars and twin clothing designers Ashley and Kate Olsen. “Mrs. Obama, who appeared on the show with Jill Biden, teamed the pale grey pleated Evelyn skirt, worth $1,170 with a cream V-neck and kitten-heel shoes.”
Including accessories, the cost of the breezy morning-talk show ensemble was likely a tick above the $2,000 mark. In spite of this, economically taxed Americans should go easy on Michelle, because just like her husband, at the core of all that she does is a desire to help make the American Dream a reality for the little people – like the diminutive Ashley Olsen, who once shared that “She would love to see Michelle wear one of her designs.”
Thanks to the bounteousness of Mrs. Obama, the $100 million sitcom sister team had “a dream come true” when Michelle visited Whoopi, Barb, Joy, Liz, and Sherri bedecked in Olsen designed haute couture.
Michelle and BFF Jill Biden chatted with the ladies of ‘The View’ about “Joining Forces,” the “new initiative to help military families.” Initially one would think that with the rate of pay that military families subsist on, Michelle flitting about in designer duds while speaking on behalf of “helping military families” was almost as insensitive as bagging groceries at a food bank shod in $540 sneakers.
But who knows, maybe MObama’s true motive for wearing Lanvin sneakers while volunteering at a food pantry was simply an attempt to relate to the homeless, hungry, secondhand-wearing soup kitchen patrons and conveying a message, by way of fashion, to the down-and-out that occasionally even a First Lady is forced to humbly wear sneakers.
With each outfit change, it’s becoming increasingly evident that concern for the public may be the driving force behind Mrs. Obama’s reputation as a style icon. More and more Michelle’s chic clothing choices can be traced directly to the theme of a high-profile cause.
Take for example the Tory Burch Connell gardening boots at $500 a pair – those are clearly about healthy eating; a $2,500 secondhand vintage Christmas dress – can anybody say “recycling?” Kitten heels – animal rights. How about the $1,170 Olsen-twin-designed ‘The Row’ skirt – those “pale grey pleats” scream support for the American military and exhibit solidarity with the U.S. garment industry.
“Though expensive, the President’s wife’s choice represents a support of American industry, as all of the Olsen twins’ designs are made in the U.S.”
Silly me – all along I misjudged Michelle. I was under the impression that the First Lady’s high-priced fashion choices were commissioned by her current stylist – whose name and identity no one knows – and based on color, mood, or event. Who would have guessed that Michelle’s affinity for Jason Wu was altruistic in nature?
So as President Obama concentrates on solving the border security problem with Mexican-American immigration expert/Desperate Housewife Eva Longoria, Michelle, on behalf of the American military, healthy eating, recycling and the garment industry, is busy exercising her biceps by snatching up rack-after-rack of hundreds of thousands of dollars in couture garments.
By self-sacrificially donning expensive high-end designer duds, every time she zips up Michelle wants America to rest assured she’s only doing so in support of a righteous cause.
Based on one full year’s worth of observation, it is obvious that Michelle Obama’s pronouncements, advice, injunctions, and edicts include a personal exemption for the occupants of the White House Executive Residence. Michelle’s attempts at verbally imparting wisdom, if matched against the backdrop of action, expose the First Lady’s hypocrisy.
Take for instance Michelle’s disingenuous response to reporters pertaining to the issue of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial comments about “light skin tone” and “Negro dialect.” The First Lady said forgiveness comes easy because, “…she knows Reid so well.”
Such a quick dismissal of Reid’s sentiments is perplexing coming from a woman known to be intensely aware of race. The First lady’s forgiving words put the spotlight on what history reveals abides in her heart. Michelle said, “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before. … Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” Reporters, eager for further insight, learned that Michelle evaluates “people more so on what they do rather than the things they say.” Oh really?
Michelle’s statement about measuring character on what is done, rather than what is said, presents a moral dilemma for the First Lady and President Obama, both of whom never come close to exemplifying the injunctions both freely impose on everyone else.
One such glaring example was at Saddleback Church, when candidate Obama shared that “America’s greatest moral failure” is not abiding by “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Citing America’s wealth and power, Obama shared from his perspective that our nation, “still doesn’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.”
If moral fiber is measured by what is done rather than what is said, then why, as an example to America, hasn’t the First Lady passed on Narcisco Rodriquez and Jimmy Choo and addressed the least of Obama’s half-brothers, George Hussein Onyango, who lives in a shanty on less than a dollar a month? Why hasn’t she welcomed in the sister of Obama’s Kenyan father Aunt Zeituni, living in wretched poverty in a Boston ghetto?
In an article following Obama’s soaring inaugural address, David Broder alluded to the rhetoric-versus-deeds quandary, saying, “What speeches can accomplish, they have delivered handsomely for Barack Obama. Now, it will depend on his deeds.”
The First Lady is well aware that the President stresses that Americans should surrender personal aspirations for the sake of the collective. “All Americans will have to sacrifice to put the economy back on track,” Obama said. “Everybody’s going to have to give…Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.” To date, Michelle’s contribution to “skin in the game” is the acquisition of an off-the-shelf, $1,900.00 snakeskin clutch.
Excusing herself, Michelle is of the opinion that “in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system … someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
Yet while stressing doing over saying, the First Lady seems averse to relinquish haute couture, and she freely participates in $56,000 worth of accommodations for a two-week Hawaiian vacation. Michelle lives a Robin Leach lifestyle while Americans financially struggle. Michelle boutique shops in Paris for the weekend, enjoys 250,000-dollar date nights and frivolously flies aboard Air Force One at the cost of forty to fifty thousand tax dollars per hour. If the First Lady is correct, and personal principle is exposed by deeds and not words, then she fails her own standard for the Harry Reid “skin tone” and “Negro dialect” test.
Can America ever forget newly-elected Barack Obama swearing that the “election is not about me” and then contradicting those words with actions that disregard the wishes of the majority whom the election supposedly was all about? Moreover, if humility means having a modest opinion of one’s own importance, and deeds speak louder than verbal expressions of reticence, then maybe on an upcoming speaking junket, Michelle could explain to America what accepting an undeserved honor reveals about an individual?
Nevertheless, Michelle can’t very well censure Barack for what she is also guilty of doing. Prior to Obama being elected, Michelle militantly spoke the words, “Barack will require [emphasis mine] his flock to work.” Once in the White House, the First Lady, having no official duties per se, hired a staff of 22 assistants with combined salaries totaling $1.5 million per year to assist her every whim. Michelle’s words portended imposed toil on the “flock” while harboring full intent to partake of a sumptuous, power-pampered lifestyle — regardless of whether the rest of the nation wallowed endlessly in the throes of a Great Recession.
Michelle also said, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] that America sheds its cynicism.” Then, while volunteering at a Washington, D.C. food bank, the First Lady fed the impoverished while shod in $540 Lanvin sneakers. Over the past year, through repeated thoughtless actions, Michelle Obama has contributed greatly to Americans’ pervasive distrust of each others’ professed integrity and motives.
The First Lady also forewarned, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] … that America move out of its comfort zone.” Yet if Mrs. Obama expresses a hankering for organic kale, then Washington, D.C. promptly shuts down. Three dozen vehicles set to work, police and Secret Service sweep the area, dogs sniff for bombs, barricades are erected, and fruit stands are staked out with magnetometers and rooftop binoculars. Only then, in an armored limo, can Michelle be ferried to the organic food stand to be welcomed with flower leis and cowbells by extremely uncomfortable people cordoned safely off to the side — far from their comfort zone.
In the UCLA speech, Michelle uttered rousing words of freedom from oppression and overbearing control, claiming firsthand knowledge of the fact that Americans “are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be.” In spite of that, the First Lady heartily approves of dictatorial, liberty-curtailing decrees, enforced governmental management, and a presidential agenda poised to significantly impact everybody’s life but her own.
The most poignant Michelle Obama declaration was this: “Barack will never allow [emphasis mine] you to go back to your lives as usual.” One year later, after thousands of hours of empty, hypocritical rhetoric, Barack’s “requiring,” “demanding,” and “never allowing” actually appear to be words he plans to back up with action. To do so, he needs Harry Reid, which is probably why the First Lady held her nose and said she absolved the contrite senator.
However, if the past is any indication of the future, then Michelle, like Barack, is first and foremost concerned with personal political expediency, power, and prestige. With that in mind, although the First Lady graciously extended public exoneration toward Harry Reid, in reality, it’s highly unlikely that she ever really intended to do what was said.
The First Lady is continually issuing shrill compliance edicts based on her ideological view of a King Obama ruled America. Every time she steps out in a pair of metallic ballet flats she reveals herself more-and-more to be a priggish elitist with insensitive aristocratic tendencies. While supporting stringent decrees for the have not’s, deep within the palace walls the Royal Lady avails herself to five-star treatment and licks the fat from pheasant on the glass with full abandon. Though very popular, many astute Americans are not fooled by the First Lady’s behavior. “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.”
It is on the record that Michelle Obama did make a “Let them eat cake statement, matter-of-factly blurting out to the Corporate Voices for Working Families that, “Everyone should have a chief of staff and a set of personal assistants.” She could have at least included a personal chef, butler and handmaiden to the list of national needs. And who better than Barack to make it happen? Just think about how that sort of entitlement would sure up his voting bloc. In the 2009 fiscal year budget a $3.4 trillion dollar spending plan could certainly support a domestic service initiative and it would generate the jobs the $800 billion stimulus package guaranteed but has yet to produce.
Recently, on a Queen of Sensitivity tour, Michelle Obama, reached out to the underclass by volunteering precious photo shoot time to bag food for hungry children. Appropriately accessing her audience Michelle arrived casually shod in $540.00 dollar, suede and metallic pink Lanvin sneakers. The same pair sells for $565.00 at Barney’s. Through savvy shopping economy conscious, thrifty Michelle Obama saved $15.00, which she most certainly contributed to the Kraft macaroni and cheese donation cup at the pantry.
Environmentalists and PETA might have been offended by Michelle’s soup kitchen outreach. PETA by the suede on the sneakers and the Sierra Club over those plastic bags she enthusiastically overloaded with Hamburger Helper. Doesn’t she know Nordstrom’s carries the Envirosax? Not to worry, the Sierra Club disregarded Obama burning 9,000 gallons of fuel on Earth Day, so environmentally acute Michelle planting trees at the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, in a navy and emerald green ruche, $1000.00 Lanvin tank top, should quell the plastic and suede faux pas.
Since the campaign Michelle has been also working the fire and brimstone circuit evangelizing American’s to live up to the stringent statutes of the Gospel according to Barack
In an over- the-top piercing harangue Michelle alerted Barack cohorts that, “Barack will require his flock to work!” Michelle could not foresee that their hero would force the unemployment rate to its highest in 25 years. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that even with spending reductions Barry’s throw money from the balcony policy proposals, would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years. Michelle is correct, we will be required to strive like slaves day and night, because the deficit will quadruple to $1.75 trillion. Obama devotees and unbelievers alike are consigned, for generationsto come, to hard time in collective diligence.
Another one of our esteemed first lady’s piercing public proclamations informed the “Land of the free” of “demands” to “shed their cynicism.” Michelle couldn’t mean the type of cynicism fostered by authoritarian politicians who establish one set of rules for the haves and another for the have not’s? As a first step toward eradicating public cynicism, the monarchy flew a pizza chef 860 miles from St. Louis, Missouri to Washington D.C. to make their favorite thin-crust pizza. The pizza extravaganza was an excellent opportunity to recap Michelle’s diktat that Americans are going to have to learn to “…give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more,” starting with the customers at πwho were forced to go without pizza while Chris Sommers was rolling in dough over at the palace.
Michelle pressures Americans to, “Put out our division.” Aptly taking her own advise the Queen of Racial Healing did not fail to point out our nation’s blemishes at the Sojourner Truth statue unveiling at Emancipation Hall in the Capitol. She redirected the hot light toward similarities in much the same way Pastor Reverend Wright did during her twenty years in his church. Michelle shared her relief that, “Now many young boys and girls, like my own daughters, will come to Emancipation Hall and see the face of a woman who looks like them.”
Michelle and Sojourner are two of a kind. Michelle spoke of her own wrenching slave ancestry honoring Sojourner Truth as one who endured being “whipped with “a bundle of rods, prepared in the ember.“ Since breaking ground on the Victory Garden the new save money on groceriesgardener, Michelle Obama, could closely identify with the ex-slave who, “ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns…worked as much and ate as much as a man – when I could get it … borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery.” To honor Sojourner’s fashion statement white bonnet Michelle dressed in a $2,000.00 Sophie Theallet frock from the French designers black models only spring 2009 collection.
Michelle Obama’s clarion call also includes Americans “come out of isolation.” The globally minded citizen of the world, reminded attendees at the Time 100 gala that, “America’s future is intricately linked to the rest of the world, that the threats facing the global community know no borders.” At that same event , the always welcoming First Lady enforced patrician partition immediately following her beckoning America out of “isolation” speech, “The six scribes invited to sit for dinner were all told beforehand, “Do not speak to [Obama], she’s just here to relax.” Michelle exclusively huddled with good friend and billionaire Oprah.
Mrs. Obama never hesitates to point a long crooked finger at America suggesting that we need to refuse segregation. Since landing in the middle of an all-welcoming White House, Michelle Obama has yet to lead the way in tearing down barriers by admitting that her racial diatribe, Princeton thesis was far from accurate when it said, “…integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure” would force her to, “remain on the periphery of society.”
Michelle views herself as on the “periphery of society” because of her race? Yet, she hobnobs regularly with socialites, rubs elbows with celebrities and has a personal chef scramble her egg whites. As a minority First Lady of the “United” States of America, whose husband was elected to represent all citizens, does Michelle still feel that this nation views her as, “Black first and first lady second?” Because if she doesn’t, she has yet to express that sentiment.
Michelle has been strident when it comes to addressing “comfort zones,” zeroing in on unacceptable vestiges of ease.Yet, Michelle employs a full-time makeup artist to pluck her exceedingly overarched eyebrows and give her a “signature” look.Michelle is cover girl perfect whenever she crosses the moat on their crusade to ram home the need for Americans to “Move out of their comfort zones.”Next Wednesday evening, while a perfectly coifed Lady O, revs up the conga line, adorned in a Peter Soronen’s “twilight gown,” 90% of America will be getting comfy by safety pinning stretched out waistbands on ripped sweat pants.
In the come out of your comfort zone Obama White House, luxury is not a commodity to be skimped on. Mrs. O beckons a spoiled America to divest themselves of comfort on behalf of much needed “hard change” while preparing to decorate with, “…antiques, gilded screens, white sofas, oriental rugs, four-poster beds, hand-blocked fabrics, chinoserie wallpapersa and a dark Japanese-inspired kitchen.”
When Michelle, gets done wiggling her toes in the Sultanabad carpet will she then decide what “comfort zone” loving, less than perfect Americans should do to “Push to be better?” After drafting our marching orders is she expecting exhausted Americans, drooling on their couches from pure exhaustion, to rise in submission and “engage” in a manner worthy of Michelle’s collective vision?
Mrs. Obama demands we work, while she gardens in Jimmy Choo’s. Michelle will make us put out our divisions, while she points out the color of children’s faces. Under duress, we’ll be forced out ofisolation, while Michelle forbids to be addressed over dinner. Lady O is on a mission is to nudge us out of the tiny comfort zone we have in our weary lives, while she peruses silk swatches transforming the White House living quarters into a cozy English country cottage-like house.
“Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual,” says a strident Michelle, which sounds a tad dictatorial. Someone needs to tell the First Lady that Americans resent being pushed around, especially by hypocritical, disingenuous, spoiled-brat, self-righteous, racially divisive radicals who exercise their authority by inflicting guilt trips on hard-working, well-meaning, country and freedom loving Americans.
High approval ratings Michelle isn’t fooling all of us. Her imperious, overbearing manner coupled together with a matter-of-fact dismissal of lavish trappings, while demanding austere denial and sacrifice from everyone else is hypocritical and being exposed at every charity event she shows up at donned in brazen haute couture. Lest Michelle forget, “Hypocrisy … may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.”