Archive for the ‘MIchelle Obama’ Category

Obama the Valet – Part II

December 18, 2014

Sometimes it’s a mundane story that best reveals character, or lack of. So it is with the current story of Barrack and Michelle Obama’s experiences that they perceive depict racism in America. It is, as they say, a story with legs and it is still walking – and revealing.

First of all, if the experiences related by the First Couple are their most memorable brushes with racism, they should be shouting from the rooftops about the success this country has had in combating racism. After all, their related experiences have been shared in some manner by a lot of people of all races and creeds and are far more amusing than demeaning and hardly scratch the surface of racism.

Second of all, their far-from-racist stories show how removed they are and have been from the typical black experience in this country. Almost every member of the black community has, unfortunately, come up against real and hateful racism at some time and the Obamas’ stories demean those experiences and insult those who have experienced true racism.

Thirdly, Michelle’s related Target story turns out to be a re-run and re-spun story. The first telling was on The David Letterman Show in 2012 and it was related as a funny, feel-good story explaining how her fear of having her cover blown while shopping in Target did not materialize. The latest telling darkly spins it to fit the racist America narrative that her husband is actively pushing from the bully pulpit.

Everything coming from the Obamas is agenda driven, contrived, and deceiving. An interview for People Magazine intended to be a personal, inside look ends up stirring more hatred and racial tensions so that…well…it’s just not clear why Obama is deliberately stirring the racism pot. Then, again, a lot of things he does do not make sense.

If you look close, this story gives a much better inside look at the Obamas than People Magazine intended – and it’s not a pretty sight.

David J. Hentosh

Yes – This Election Is About Obama

November 3, 2014

Many Democrat candidates now distancing themselves from Obama are trying to say that this election is not about Obama – but it is. How can it not be?

Democrats have unconditionally backed Obama’s agenda. That includes his executive orders, his failing foreign policies, his poor economy, his refusal to enforce the law or take responsibility for failure, his demonizing of FOX News, and his “transformation of America”. They even blindly backed Michelle’s unrealistic lunch program – the one now being dropped like a hot potato.

Many Democrats were elected to office riding the coat tails of the idealistic Obamacare, blindly echoing Obama’s ruse of keeping our health plans and doctors. Criticism of Obama was unabashedly attributed to racism and a “GOP war on women” was manufactured to scare up women’s votes. Democrats bought into it all and cannot now pretend otherwise.

Democrats were eager for power and wanted to “make history” so Obama’s inexperience and personal desire for social engineering was ignored. The mainstream media, predominantly Democrats, invested their journalistic integrity in Obama – and lost. This election is about them, too.

The Democrat House and the Senate were rubber stamps for Obama and when the House became a Republican majority, the Senate under Harry Reid’s dictate blocked everything sent their way, aided by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. This election is about Reid and Pelosi, too.

Obama’s rallying cry of “hope and change” has become “I hope they change” from a majority of the American people believing the country is going in the wrong direction. They are right, but they need to come out and vote in order to begin to change that direction.

Yes, this election is about Obama – and the sycophantic Democrat Party. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

David J. Hentosh

Michelle Losing Food Fight

October 30, 2014

Michelle Obama’s anti-choice campaign to make children eat what she wants them to eat is falling apart at the seams. Kids, parents, and school systems across the country have had enough of her government school lunches and are, literally, throwing them away.

The National School Board Association reports that since the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act” was passed in 2010, 83.7% of school districts saw an increase in plate waste and 76.5% saw a decrease in participation by students. School districts are dropping out of the school lunch program (321 districts in 43 states in 2013) at an increasing rate, some opting to start their own lunch programs.

In typical government fashion, a one-size-fits-all calorie limit has been established leaving many kids hungry and many lunches unappetizing. Michelle Obama’s kids dine on chicken wings, Cuban sandwiches, cheese steaks, and meatball sandwiches at the elite, private school they attend, but her school lunch program for the masses doesn’t allow anything like that.

Under the federal guidelines, some lunches seem like a joke. In Chickasha, Oklahoma, angry parents complained about a so-called “Munchable” meal consisting of a couple of slices of lunch meat, a couple crackers, and two pieces of cauliflower. Many lunches are skimpy, unappealing and, for many, simply revolting.

Some students are boycotting the lunch program, a move that can cause a financial loss to the school and force a change. Many students are just throwing the lunch away. Sadly, under-privileged children who may not get another meal all day go hungry and receive far too few needed calories.

There has been little negative press for Michelle because, like her husband, she received unconditional media support. She also has the same elite, liberal mindset as her husband, believing she knows best what is good for all. She will now join her husband under the bus as it all comes crumbling down – as predicted.

David J. Hentosh

Questions to Ponder This Week

October 8, 2014

Why is Jesse Jackson going to Texas to talk to the family of the Ebola victim? Is he a doctor? Is Ebola a racial problem? Or is it just because there are cameras?

Why did former CIA director Leon Panetta remain silent on Benghazi when he now admits that he knew from the “very beginning” (as we all did) that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack on our compound”? Was he silenced? Did he fear the administration? Or was he just waiting to reveal it in his book?

Why was Oprah surprised and upset when actress and singer Raven-Symone said she considers herself “American,” not “African-American”? Shouldn’t Oprah applaud such a post-racial idea? Does Oprah fear a color-blind society? Or does she believe that all black women must toe the liberal line?

Why does FBI director James Comey believe Americans fighting with terrorists in Syria are “entitled to come back” unless their passport is revoked? Is he just being politically correct? Does treason no longer exist? Or does he fear offending the left by being too judgmental?

Why does anyone care about Jimmy Carter’s criticism of Obama’s Middle East policies? Is it because Carter was such an expert on Middle East solutions? Or is it because compared to Obama, Carter is starting to look like a competent president?

With over 600 school districts (and counting) across the country dropping out of the school lunch program, why hasn’t it been overhauled or removed? Is it because Michelle Obama is a nutritional expert? Or is it because the liberal agenda requires unconditional support for the Obama’s and cannot admit failure?

Why is the producer of an anti-Obamacare movie being audited by the IRS? Is it just a coincidence? Or is it because the mantra “there is no scandal at the IRS” worked and the IRS is back to business as usual?

David J. Hentosh

Another Feel-good, “Make History” Election?

March 19, 2013

Former Democrat Party spokeswoman Karen Finney tells us that a 2016 presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama “…would truly be a dream team for America…Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children”.

It seems that making history by electing (then re-electing) totally inexperienced Barack Obama felt so good that doing it again is even more desirable. Breaking the “glass ceiling” with a woman president would again make history, and combining it with a woman vice president would be a great historical twofer to cherish.

Michelle Obama’s absolute lack of professional political experience is irrelevant. After all, she “raised children”, proving she is an “effective leader”. (Sadly enough, that may be more of a real accomplishment than Barack had when he was chosen to make history.) Hillary, of course, proved her qualifications by becoming a Senator with no political experience and then was anointed Secretary of State – perhaps because she also “raised children”.

It has always been a fault of our election process that popularity played such a key role, but it was mostly the popularity of politicians. In today’s politics, popularity is bestowed upon whomever the progressive media decides is worthy, and combining that with a desire to make history is a recipe for disaster.

Should Hillary decide not to run, the media could push Michelle to the forefront and bring in Sandra Fluke as candidate for vice president. She, too, has no political experience but was made a celebrity by the progressive media because…well…one isn’t quite sure – much like one isn’t quite sure why Kim Kardashian was made into a celebrity. It’s a media thing and people follow.

There’s the frightening thing: People buy into it. Voters elected Obama with no experience because of media endorsement, then re-elected him because the media ignored negative results of his inexperience. The media has already decided making up news is part of its job, so making history is a natural progression. Michelle becoming president would not be a fluke, but Fluke could very well be vice president.

We may be doomed.

David J. Hentosh

Separation of Hollywood and State Needed

February 25, 2013

From the White House, Michelle Obama presented the Best Picture award at this year’s Academy Award ceremony. It is the first time a president or first lady presented an academy award, but it certainly isn’t the first time the White House used Hollywood. That has been occurring frequently the past several decades, but Obama has taken it to a level screaming for some of the attention separation of church and state receives.

Hollywood is universally known to tilt left and in recent years, many celebrities have used their popularity to speak out in favor of left-leaning politicians and policies. The mainstream media, also left-leaning and infatuated with Hollywood, indulges these celebrities with air time as if they were political experts, creating a false sense of a majority acceptance that highly influences many voters’ opinions.

Michelle’s Academy Award appearance topped off years of Obama’s blatant use of Hollywood’s partisanship. His election and re-election were aided enormously by Hollywood celebrities and his continued appearances on entertainment TV shows are used to bolster favorability ratings in the polls, not to inform the public.

In April of 2012, Barack and Michelle were credited with a total of 195 TV and movie appearances, surpassing those of President Reagan and his wife Nancy (both former actors). In his short political career, Obama has appeared seven times on the “Letterman Show”, five times on “The View” (once with Michelle who also appeared four times on her own), six times on “The Daily Show”, and five times on “Leno”.

In 2007, Oprah, the most powerful celebrity in the country, openly backed Obama’s candidacy on her show, hosted a 1500-guest fundraiser, and made four campaign appearances. Her endorsement is considered to be the major reason that Obama, an unknown, became the Democratic presidential candidate instead of Hillary Clinton. Obama learned well.

The White House visitor logs are highly populated with Hollywood celebrity names, and some have even taken part in supposedly serious policy-setting meetings. It is not for the good of the nation. It is only for the political good of Obama. Separation of Hollywood and State is in need of a national discussion before the president and the White House become a reality TV show. Or is it already too late?

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s State of Denial Address

February 13, 2013

President Obama once again delivered a campaign speech disguised as a State of the Union address. Obama is good with rhetoric that stirs emotions while denying reality, so those who succumb to such gibberish will be ecstatic. Those who are not in denial will be frightened by the direction this president is taking.

Obama’s denial of his administration’s failure to improve job growth was evident in his calling for a higher minimum wage. If there are no jobs available at a minimum rate of $7.25 an hour, how would raising it to $9.00 help create more? It wouldn’t, and many experts have warned against such an increase at this time, especially since it could result in jobs being exported to China.

Obama further denied the job crisis and threw out another emotional bone to hungry believers by stressing a college education. The unemployment lines are full of college graduates unable to find jobs, so the primary emphasis needs to be on the economy and job growth. Talking of college educations certainly plucks parents’ heart strings, Obama’s intent; but it hides his administration’s failure to improve the job market and reduce unemployment.

Obama declared Al Qaeda to be a “shadow of its former self”, denying Al Qaeda’s continued successful attacks around the globe. Declaring Al Qaeda defeated doesn’t make it so, but it rationalizes bringing troops home so he can cut the defense budget. Obama only cares about his social programs and cutting the defense budget will help him finance those programs. Pretending Iran and North Korea are of little threat also helps him in that endeavor.

In Obama’s eyes, everything is going well because he is, by hook or by crook, finding a way to get everything he wants. Consequences are meaningless to one convinced of superior intelligence, especially when duped voters and a highly invested media ignore accountability.  His “green” agenda has been a costly disaster, but that bandwagon is still full and rolling.

Inadvertently, the president did touch on reality in his speech at one point when he said his spending proposals would not increase the deficit by “a single dime”. They will increase the deficit by billions of dimes and saddle future generations with the bill, higher taxes, and programs they will no longer be able to afford. On the brighter side, fast food joints will end up with the most educated employees of any industry – as long as Michelle doesn’t find a way of eliminating fast food.

David J. Hentosh

Michelle is Superwoman?

December 7, 2012

Celebrity Samuel Jackson continues to be quoted by a media enamored with his political acumen. It was Jackson, if you remember, who unabashedly admitted that he voted for Obama because he was black, “…Cause that’s why other folks vote for other people”. His honesty was admired by the media as strongly as his ignorance was ignored. Sadly, his vacuous reasoning continues to be a media favorite.

Jackson recently proclaimed: “Michelle is Superwoman. What can’t she do?…She can be on the Supreme Court and anywhere else she wants. She can be the president. She’s history and she’ll stay history because she is so amazingly smart and together.” The basis for this acute assessment is wishful thinking, the driving force behind much of liberal progressivism.  The media loves it because they, too, believe it.

If you think that Jackson’s rave is just one celebrity’s nonsensical blather, you are mistaken. According to a survey done by Public Policy Polling, Mrs. Obama leads over Sen. Mark Kirk 51 to 40 percent, should she choose to challenge Kirk in 2016 for an Illinois senate seat. Repetition of Michelle’s imaginary accomplishments is working as it did for her husband.

Before anyone heard of junior Senator Barack Obama and before he accomplished anything, his superior intelligence and presidential qualifications were repeated as fact by liberal progressives. These “elites” treat anyone who shares their views as intelligent, and one preaching those views is automatically considered “superior”. Such is the self-absorption of progressives and they are now using the same repetition tactic to advance Michelle.

And why not? The public is still susceptible to it. By aggressively and loudly stating views while shouting down and demeaning anyone who disagrees, progressives have cowed the silent majority into submissiveness. When the progressive view is the only view the media treats positively, people begin to believe it is the right view. People naturally want to be on the winning side and when progressives claim often enough to be winning, it becomes accepted.

As with so many other forced “isms” throughout history, progressivism will not last. Unfortunately, it has already damaged the country beyond repair. Maybe superwoman Michelle will save us. Samuel Jackson certainly thinks she can, and he should know. Right?

David J. Hentosh