Tag Archives: Sasha and Malia

Michelle Obama Nourishes Hillary’s ‘Village’ – American Thinker Blog – February 11, 2010



Originally posted on American Thinker Blog

Two years after appearing on Larry King Live Michelle Obama returned as First Lady to discuss inspiring FLOTUS initiatives.  Other than Larry’s strange hair color overall the interview seemed uneventful.  However, “for those who have ears to hear” a disingenuous Michelle delivered more then just a dietary diatribe. Listening closely to the King interview Michelle had some very peculiar things to say.

Unbeknownst to sycophantic Larry King, Shelley’s anti-obesity campaign stands poised to marshal herds of children into Hillary’s still sparsely settled “village.” The First Lady knows that for the national service corps to become reality healthy children, not corpulent corpses, ensure contenders to the ranks. The utopian community Michelle imagines teams with slender children;  “raised not just by their parents, but also by society… schools and the government.”

Exhibiting uncharacteristic candidness during the interview the First Lady invited America into the vacated kitchen at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, sharing with Larry Chicago-living consumption challenges. As two hard working parents Michelle claimed for years both she and Barry failed to provide the family with healthy food choices.

Michelle’s assertion was curious based on the fact that Windy City living for the Obama’s included personal chef, Sam Kass who supposedly has a “particular interest in healthy…local food.” Kass was featured on the Biggest Loser, yet Michelle told the captivated Larry King the “uptick” in her daughter’s BMI, alarming a Chicago pediatrician, occurred while consuming Sam-food.

Then, failing to mention Kass’s involvement, the First Lady contended the girls slimmed down after, weekday desserts were eliminated; the harried couple providing “fresh squeezed juices” and family night conversations revolving around the evils of “processed foods.”

Michelle agreed with Larry that childhood weight issues are a “delicate subject.” To spare embarrassment, the First Lady never broached the girl’s weight directly suggesting only, “We have to change how we eat.”  However, now as representative of an anti-podgy kiddy campaign, in conjunction with a national taskforce, Michelle feels it necessary to “personalize” the message by sharing Sasha and Malia’s prepubescent weight struggles with the whole country.

Michelle said small dietary changes worked because both daughters “Wouldn’t go for absolutes [emphasis mine].” Then when Larry asked about the possibility of health care not being accomplished Michelle replied, “Doing nothing is absolutely [emphasis mine] not an option.”

Healthy eating maven Michelle continued to exhibit delusional opinions throughout the interview, starting with the assertion that Barack “stays humble.” Mrs. Obama also claimed to know little about the Tea Party movementmade up of people from all political parties, claiming to stay focused only on “issues that have no political party.”  The First Lady also applauded Barack’s “important steps and quick smart strategic thinking,” for saving America from the “brink of an inevitable depression.”

Relishing private time behind closed doors in the White House family residence, a First Lady who avoids maternal absolutes provided Larry a litany of absolutes to address chunky-child issues for Americans to follow in the privacy of their homes. “Turn off the TV, eat dinner together, provide structured bed time, cut down portion sizes, turn on the radio and dance ‘til you sweat, walk to school and run up and down the stairs.”

Michelle’s King interview, lacked consistent sincerity, but had one ray of candor amidst prevarications and partial truths. The First Lady readily agreed with Larry King’s evaluation of her superior intelligence perking up saying, “I’m very smart but I like to limit my intake to things I can control.”  How true Michelle, how very, very true.

Nanny State digging into kid’s lunch boxes – American Thinker Blog – February 9, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

One highlight for this first grade St. Robert Bellarmine Elementary School student was the Wednesday afternoon candy-drive.  Once a week, Sister Marie Rose Christianson allowed disheveled kids in brown uniforms and crooked clip-on ties entry into our classroom to sell penny candy.

On the sly my grandmother would pass me a few cents from the linty pocket of her apron giving me access to a little bit of Catholic School candy heaven.

In fact, 40+ years later I can still remember the aroma of the thick strings of warm red licorice.  Believe me, it smelled nothing like the institutional cafeteria wafting with the fetid odors of sweaty kids, bologna sandwiches, rotten fruit and warm milk.

Thinking back I’m convinced hot cocoa and bagels ferried me through high school.  Academically, I was less than mediocre.  In fact I still wonder how I managed to graduate.   The whole event is a blur save olfactory memories of warm peanut butter cookies and cheap pizza.  Unhealthy school lunch choices and truant officers kept me coming back for more.

Being a kid in the 60’s and 70’s offered benefits students in 2010 lack.  How depressing to learn, “the Obama administration is expected to unveil a plan this week to bring healthier school lunches to children across the U.S.”

If the government has its way, Sister Mary Rose Christianson might as well resign herself to cursive writing knuckle smacking because the only “candy-drive” schools will be able to sponsor are “drives that ban candy and junk food from schools.”

Representing the feds Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack plans to exorcise OreosÒ from vending machines and stock them with (gag) nutritious offerings like hermetically sealed organic carrots.

The First Lady is “expected to be in the forefront of the program, having called for an end to child obesity.”  At a “healthy eating event” in Virginia Mrs. Obama, referred to Sasha and Malia’s questionable BMI.  A sensitive Michelle related to the audience admitting even the Obama’s, “Often simply don’t realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else’s kid — and I was in that position.”

Hey Michelle, could it have been the “Maxed Out Pepperoni, the packets of powdered Kool-Aid, the Ham & American Stackers, or the bite-size Snickers bars” fellow students spotted in Sasha’s lunch box? But I digress.

According to Michelle’s new [ain’t it great to be a kid] policy all of America’s children, including Sasha and Malia, will be treated to quite a different fare in their Jonas Brother lunch boxes. “The girls had to adhere to new ground rules – less burgers, low-fat milk, fruits and water instead of sugary drinks; the change was significant.”

How will Big Brother accomplish the goal? “The administration reportedly asked for another $1 billion in addition to the $18 billion already set aside for the federal meals program in order to fund the initiative.” The U.S. is not the first to nudge junk food-lovers toward better choices. In 2004, socialized medicine blessed Britain received help from Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and $436 million dollars in healthy school lunch monies to launch a similar initiative.

In the near future, memories of cubed red dye #40 Jell-O, little brown bags of M&M’s, French fries and Corn Dog Mondays are slated to fade into the past. Michelle Obama, Tom Vilsack and the federal government plan to woo red licorice eaters to class with pumpkin rice laksa soup, government provided Vitaminwater and a side of delicious soy chips.  Yummy!

Harry, Barry and the Girls

In 1950 Washington Post music critic Paul Hume criticized Margaret Truman’s fledgling singing career by opining that although she was, “extremely attractive on stage…[Margaret couldn’t] sing very well.”  Hume felt the President’s daughter was, “flat a good deal of the time.”

In response, a defensive Truman rebuked Hume’s “lousy review” saying, “I have never met you, but if I do you’ll need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak and perhaps a supporter below.” Harry Truman didn’t hesitate to shield his daughter Margaret. The President‘s retort to Hume’s criticism lacked pretension and exhibited guts in much the same way Truman’s temerity was evidenced in the difficult decision to end World War II.

Fifty-seven years later Barack Obama’s daughters receive dissimilar treatment from both Michelle and Barry. Obama’s public statements about the first daughters coincide with judgmental opinions the President oftentimes articulates about America. Obama focuses foremost on personal perceptions of imperfection, shortcomings and national weakness and does so when speaking about the nation as well as referring to his young girls.

Never once did Truman call attention to Margaret’s flaws, shortcomings or inability.  Yet both Barry and Michelle promote initiatives by singling out Sasha and Malia as negative examples to bolster political agendas.

Take for example, Obama calling on states to toughen educational standards.  The President exercised zero compunction when portraying Malia as an academic “slacker.” Obama publicly confessed his daughter “…got a 73 on her science test.”  The President said, “…even in our own household…there are times when kids slack off.”

Harry Truman made sure Margaret was portrayed as, “a serious-minded honor student with a strong predilection for self-improvement.” In fairness, Obama eventually clarified Malia improved her grade, but not before broadcasting Malia’s inclination to avoid “hitting the books.” Shocking? No, because President Obama apologizes as if America has spent the last two centuries on a Malia-style video game binge.

The President’s critical comments denote a belief that by failing to meet Obama’s standards both Malia and America deserve mediocre grades.  Truman, on the other hand, believed both Margaret and America deserved a standing ovation.  Truman contended, “America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.

Harry Truman would surely be appalled by Barack’s comment in Parents magazine criticizing 10-year old Malia for, “getting a little chubby.” Defending the daughter the President called “chubby” one year earlier and in response to a non-profit groups healthy eating ad, Obama, issued an edict to the media that Sasha and Malia were “off limits.” Michelle and Barry must have realized, “Children in the spotlight over time potentially feel fear of failure, anxiety, and are often the object of jealousy by peers… impair[ing] important social development?”

The Obama’s feign concern for privacy and then exempt themselves from self-imposed rules. At a media event kicking off a childhood anti-obesity campaign First Lady Michelle, without correction from Barack, relegated Malia and Sasha to the ranks of overweight poster children. Unlike the Truman’s, who never noticed Margaret singing “off key,” Michelle publicly expressed concern over Sasha and Malia’s weight being, “off balance.”

Michelle and Barry should take advice from Bess Truman who “…did her best to pull the White House blinds down.” Unlike the First Couple, Harry and Bess never placed Margaret on the Truman Balcony to point out to the media their daughter’s academic or physical flaws.

A word to the wise, before Shelley promotes herself as a childhood obesity authority, maybe the FLOTUS should brush up on bodily changes females go through when approaching teen years.   The First Lady should take a White House Victory garden rake break and spend a weekend reading, What’s Happening to My Body? A Book for Girls A Growing-Up Guide for Parents and Daughters.

Could Michelle be so bent on spearheading a government initiative she failed to notice normal physical processes taking place in Sasha and Malia’s physiques? Doesn’t Princeton grad Michelle know all girls “gain weight in puberty?”  If the First Lady doesn’t exercise caution when issuing crushing degradation of her girls on the national stage the former employee of the University of Chicago Medical Center, puts both Sasha and Malia in danger of becoming public victims of a pre-pubescent induced eating disorder.

Yet then again Michelle Obama does view America as Barack’s imperfect offspring.  If the past is any indication of the future, after losing teenage poundage Sasha and Malia can look forward, together with the rest of the country, to Mom vocalizing, “for the first time in her adult life” maternal pride in optimal BMI.

Fifty plus years ago an ebullient Margaret Truman ate “Breakfast with her father…lunched with her mother …and [ate] her favorite chocolate cake with her old school chums.”  When Margaret sang off key, Truman applauded both Margaret and America.  Then, when a terrible world war threatened to take more lives, Give ‘em Hell Harry safeguarded the nation like he did Margaret, imposing on America’s enemies the need for a “new nose and …a supporter below.”

Though conjecture, it appears as though Harry’s inclination toward protecting his offspring correlated with Truman’s willingness to defend the nation entrusted to his care.  With Truman as an example, the nation can use as a gauge President Obama’s protective attitude toward his daughters, and do so to measure the  length Barry may be willing to go to defend and insure the safety and security of America.

Precluding the Right to Paternal Protection

obama_hawaiiSigmund Freud said, “I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.”

Fatherly dedication to the safety and well being of children is a need that offspring have and a duty that all fathers possess regardless of rank or station.   In an interview in the June 21, 2009 edition of Parade Magazine the President shared insights on his relationship with his daughters in an article entitled, Obama: I have been an imperfect father’ the commander in chief reflects on what good parenting means to him.

In the commentary, the President expressed gratitude for the opportunity to be a protective presence in the lives of his girls.  He articulated that, “As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well – but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling.  That is when they need us most.”

Obama exposed his own childhood pain by saying, “In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence – both in my life and in the lives of others.” He went onto share his gratefulness for the unhindered opportunity to pursue a level of paternity he lacked in his own life. Aware of the negative influence an absentee father has on a child’s development, one wonders why Obama cultivates paternal absence by supporting extreme anti-parental notification laws that affect parent-child relationships?

Obama fluently stated what he believed to be essential in successful parenting. Then contradicting his own decree he raises bureaucratic obstacles restricting fatherly rights to the protective standards he sets forth. On the surface the President convincingly articulates the need for men to be responsible for their children’s security.  Yet, beneath the poignancy of his words lies the inescapable paradox of Obama granting personal father-child bonding privileges to himself, while precluding other fathers that same right.

Liberalism advances a conflicted caste system; one set of standards is applicable to the political elite and another in the lives of those they govern. Obama expresses that it is incumbent upon fathers to “…set limits and expectations” for children. Then, he allocates government as a surrogate parent, which undercuts what ought to exist exclusively between father and child.

In his brief stint in the United States Senate, Obama voted against a law that would stop the underhanded practice of taking a minor girl from a state with a parental notification law to one that doesn’t to obtain a secret abortion.

The President expressed in the Parade interview that he “…came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.” Yet, Obama’s support of excessively liberal abortion policy fosters unintentional desertion by disallowing inherent parental rights to notification. Denying both fathers and mothers the right to support and protect their children, “…when they [are] needed the most,” bestows on government the authorization to fill a “hole” by proxy, which even Obama admits bureaucrats are incapable of satisfying.

Lamenting lost opportunities, the President plaintively shared with readers, “I was missing moments of my daughters’ lives that I’d never get back.  It is a loss I will never fully accept.” This is a stunning statement from someone who enthusiastically separates parents from children through legislation that willingly promotes devastating loss to and in innocent lives.

Obama gasses up the bus that shuttles minors across state lines to abortion mills, while his daughters remain safely sheltered in the shadow of his protective wings. Recently, Obama requested his children be granted time alone during a family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.  Agreed, his little girls shouldn’t be dragged into the political arena and must be provided the normalcy every child deserves. In an effort to safeguard them, Obama, “…asked for privacy for… 8-year-old Sasha and 11-year-old Malia.

As a nurturing dad, Obama stood between his girls and the world, protecting them as well he should.  This is both his obligation and their birthright. Yet, while protecting his own daughters from being photographed while eating ice cream, Obama touts an abortion voting record imperiling minors and depriving parents the power to shield their children from things more detrimental than having a photograph taken at Dairy Queen.

Barack Obama’s exhortation that, “…we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one,” is at best, both duplicitous and disingenuous.  He encourages fathers to exhibit valor in shielding their children from harm.  Then, by voting “No, on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions,” proceeds to legislatively undermine the ability to follow the protective suggestions he proposes.

If Obama wants to further the cause of fatherhood, rather than advocating for extreme pro-choice policies, he should support men having the right to protect their own daughters in a time of crisis. Moreover, from a paternal perspective, he might consider rethinking his support of legislation, which has neither the safety of children, nor their well-being in mind.

Barack Obama should restrain from pontificating on the obligations of fathers and instead, as a concerned parent himself, consider disassociating from the liberal agenda he presently promotes, which threatens everyone’s daughters, including his own.

%d bloggers like this: