Michelle Obama

Protecting Their Own, The Media and the Obamas

Published by Papa Giorgio

Fox News’s Jim Pinkerton on March 3 cited Media Research coverage of how ABC edited an interview with First Lady Michelle Obama. ABC claimed the edit, which removed Mrs. Obama’s inaccurate claim that an “assault” weapon” was used in a recent Chicago crime, was for “time.” Pinkerton remarked, “As Scott Whitlock of Media Research Center pointed out, it was an eight and a half minute segment.” (See more at Breitbart)

US Magazine Says Michelle Obama`s Kids on Orwellian Diet (Updated: Adam Carolla Lambasts CBS`s Leslie Stahl)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATED

UPDATED

From Gateway Pundit:

You just can’t make this stuff up… Liberal 60 Minutes reporter Leslie Stahl calls it “Orwellian” that terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was forced to drink Ensure.

 From The Blaze:

Limbaugh laughs over this exchange, saying “These liberal newspeople can‘t believe he’s forced to drink Ensure. That’s torture to them.” Limbaugh goes on to explain a time when he was in the hospital and given Ensure for its nutrient value. He says:

For those of you who don’t know what Ensure is, it’s a dairy-based beverage that’s loaded with calories and nutrients, primarily for cancer patients who can’t eat.  It is a compassionate product.  It’s a product designed to keep people alive.

Michelle Obama’s Daughters Malia and Sasha “Have a Set Diet”

Speaking to Access Hollywood‘s Billy Bush in Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday, the 48-year-old First Lady said her daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10, aren’t allowed to pig out in the White House kitchen.

“They can’t pick up the phone and order anything. They’re kids,” Michelle explained. “That’s the point that I make to them: You live in the White House, but you’re a child.”

After the First Ladies 16th Vacation in 3 Years, Class Warfare Is Top Priority for Michelle Obama

Published by Papa Giorgio

Keep in mind also that Obama played more golf in his first two years than Bush did his entire 8-years in office! Gateway Pundit riley notes,

Michelle Obama bashed the rich during a big donor luncheon today in Cincinnati. She just returned from the family’s 16th vacation in three years.
The Examiner reported:

First lady Michelle Obama has joined her husband’s bandwagon to hit the rich and spread the wealth, questioning how well-off families can feel good if others are struggling.

To about 300 supporters wealthy enough to pay $300-$10,000 to attend the mid-day event, the first lady said, “If a family in this country is struggling, we cannot be satisfied with our own families’ good fortune.”

She also rapped the rich, as has her husband. “Who do we want to be?” Obama asked. “Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.”

Fundraising in Cincinnati, Ohio as her husband raised cash in Florida, she also said that the change President Obama offered in 2008 “does not come easy.” And she added, “change is slow, but we will get there,” according to a pool report of the event.

Didn’t Michelle come from humble beginnings? Then why is she lecturing Americans on a country where “success is limiting to the few at the top?”

This reminds me of a small portion where David Mamet is explaining how the irrational is defended by the left. He gives an example of taxes and jobs:

Here is an example. President Obama, in a speech in July 2010, declared that the Government should be ready to support Green Business—that if anyone wanted to create these jobs, the Government would be there to help.

What was the help? He was offering rebates. But what are rebates but tax cuts?

To suggest that giving back (to approved entities) some of the money drained from them in taxes, and to characterize this as “help,” is like a mugger pausing in administering his beating and characterizing this pause, to his victim, as assistance.

If, as President Obama announced perceptively, cutting taxes creates jobs (as it does; as anyone not blinded by theory knows: when taxes are raised, businesses close), then why not cut all taxes?

This inconsistency is ignored only by those who benefit from it (the administration), and the confused (Liberals).

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture(New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 113.

When A Joke Was a Joke! (Joan Rivers vs Don Rickles)

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Radar Online we have this (I combined this with Big governments post of the video that follows the Joan Rivers news):

Comedienne Joan Rivers revealed she once ditched a joke about First Lady Michelle Obama from her stand-up routine – because she feared she’d be accused of racism.

Recalling the wisecrack to shock Jock Howard Stern, the comedy legend said: “We used to have Jackie O now we have Blackie O!”


Paying for Programs

Published by Papa Giorgio

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].”

A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher



HotAir notes that Michelle Obama’s pet project is being funded by money already allocated for food stamps:

When Democrats paid for their EduJobs bill last week by taking money out of the food stamp program, the media barely noticed it. Undoubtedly that has created an incentive for Democrats and the Obama administration to steal from the poor once again. This time, they will pull $8 billion already allocated to food stamps and other aid in order to fund Michelle Obama’s pet project, the anti-child-obesity bill:

Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

…(read more)…

I wonder if the Democrats will count Michelle’s program a success when reports come back that obesity is down. More specificly, down 8-billion dollars because the kids went to bed hungry? I have my own thoughts on the program, but using progressive Democratic thinking on the matter (these programs are for the poor), where does this lead? Could you imagine if Bush did this? Oh wwhat a firestorm! CS Lewis was erudite enough to pen:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.)