Michelle Obama: “All This Just For a Flag”
By James S. Robbins

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Just for a flag? If that is what she said it is regrettable. Even with all her years being around those who hold high public office Mrs. Obama does not seem to understand the purpose and importance of ceremonies. They reaffirm the bonds of loyalty and fellowship that cement our national unity. Yes, at one level a flag is just a colorful piece of cloth. But it symbolizes much more. It is the emblem of our land and all its ideals. It has been present at every major event of any importance to the country, battles, celebrations, meetings, and the lunar landings. It is a symbol of unity that transcends party, faction and time. It is something uniquely and explicitly American. Men and women have fought and died for it. Our enemies hate us for it and burn it in the streets. All that should mean something.

Perhaps Mrs. Obama thinks that all the pomp and circumstance she experiences in her daily life has something to do with her, rather than the unofficial office she holds. If so she should disabuse herself of that notion quickly. The official gestures of respect shown to her are the same shown to any First Lady, and if she wasn’t married to the president she would be just another citizen. Ruffles and flourishes are not hers by right, but by coincidence of marriage. Yet this is the same woman who said she had never in her adult life been really proud of America before her husband ran for president, so it is no wonder she might dismiss a flag ceremony as just so much nonsense.

All this just for a flag? Has anyone said, “All this just for Michelle Obama?”

When you can’t fool adults, go for children is the Big government totalitarian approach.

Michelle to kids: Tell grandparents they are ‘wrong’ for not voting for my husband.

Michelle Obama, who has quickly become the Obama campaign’s tip of the spear when it comes to fundraising and vote-getting, is now stumping for children to convince their “great-grandparents” to vote for her husband. At an event at San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – for which tickets cost at least $500 – Michelle said:

I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country.

This is a hallmark of leftist campaigning – the notion that children possess some sort of inherent wisdom to which their elders must heed. It’s insulting and ridiculous, but it’s also the same sort of electioneering that got Obama elected the first time.

Just as her husband’s re-election strategy is inanely simplistic – blame the Republicans for thwarting his brilliant, economy-saving policies – so too is the first lady’s.

Michelle’s back, and she’s madder than ever. She was already pretty angry, seemingly unhappy with just about everything. As her husband wrapped up the Democratic nomination in 2008, she let fly her real feelings: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” A few months into her job as first lady, her French counterpart asked how she liked the gig: “Don’t ask!” she reportedly spat. “It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”

She even seems to be mad at her silver-tongued husband. When the two were to set off on a luxurious 10-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, she left early – four hours early – and flew up alone. And those private vacations. She’s traveled to some of the world’s most plush resorts, taking 42 days off in the past year – that’d be eight weeks of vacay time if she held down a normal job.

Now, she is ready to spew her bilious disgust with America on the campaign trail. A dignified, transcendent first lady? No chance. Michelle is going to break with a hundred years of tradition and play the role of attack dog, heaping derision on her husband’s political opponents like no other first lady before her.

And it’s already begun. Mad Michelle this week popped down to Davis Island, Fla., to hobnob with the very people her husband despises – the 1 percent. At a massive mansion on the bay, filled with the wealthiest of the wealthy, America’s first lady launched into a tirade about “them” – the Republicans.

“Let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history, our daughters – and our sons – watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come – on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here,” she said to applause.

Yes, Republicans hope to regain the White House so they can install Supreme Court justices who will trample Americans’ privacy, ignore the nation’s security, crush free speech and persecute the religious.

Oh, and they’re rich and racist to boot. “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed no matter where they’re from, or what they look like or how much money their parents have. Who are we?”

That’s right, rich people (white, of course) certainly don’t want black people to succeed. They want to squelch success based on what people look like, how much money they have. “Are we going to let them succeed?” the first lady yelled. “Nooo!” the rich white people screamed.

Just as her husband’s re-election strategy is inanely simplistic – blame the Republicans for thwarting his brilliant, economy-saving policies – so too is the first lady’s. She will go to the opulent homes of rich people across the country to tell them how rich people are to blame for America’s woes and guilt them into giving millions for her husband’s campaign.

And the Princeton graduate will tell supporters they simply can’t comprehend the significance of what’s occurring today in America.

“It can be hard to see clearly what’s at stake – because these issues are so complicated, and quite frankly, folks are busy and they’re tired. We’re raising families and working full-time jobs, and many helping out in their own communities on top of all that. So many of us just don’t have the time to follow the news and to sort through all the back-and-forth, and to figure out how all of this stuff connects to our daily lives.”

Yes, only Michelle and her husband can truly understand, although she often tells those uninformed people that when the president returns from one of his campaign trips, “He says, ‘You won’t believe what folks are going through.’ ” So maybe she is the only person in America who understands.

So, America’s first lady will travel the country this election season to tell her fellow Americans just how bad it is out there (between lavish vacations, of course). Unlike President Ronald Reagan, who saw morning in America – that great shining city on a hill – Michelle will tell all who will listen that Republicans want to poison the air and water, stifle free speech, oppress the religious. She will offer not an uplifting vision of what her husband’s America could be but only a vapid view of what Republicans’ America would be.

That is the America she lives in, and by campaign’s end, it will be clear that she’s no longer “proud of my country.” Maybe she never really was.

The president’s two daughters, Sasha and Malia, were listed as “Senior Staff” on the manifest of a family safari to Africa, which cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum, according to a government corruption fighter based in Washington.

The information comes from some of the documentation from the Obama family’s June 21-27 trip to South Africa and Botswana that was obtained under a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Among the bits of information that have been released as a result of the court action were that the children were listed as “Senior Staff” on the manifests for the trip, and the costs of the military airplane used for the trip were in the range of $425,000 – all paid by taxpayers.

While Michelle Obama delivered some speeches on the trip, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the taxpayers’ money was wasted.

“This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business,” said Fitton. “This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military.

“No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information.”

The organization previously uncovered documentation revealing that a “date night” for Barack and Michelle Obama in 2009 cost taxpayers more than $11,000 in Secret Service costs alone.

The organization, which investigates and fights government corruption, also earlier documented what appears to many to be the extravagant spending by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Records showed Pelosi cost taxpayers $101,000 for in-flight food and alcohol over a period in 2008 and 2009. At one point she instructed the Air Force to provide chocolate-covered strawberries for a snack, since it was her birthday.

“Dark chocolate preferred” was the order.

Judicial Watch earlier filed a lawsuit over the federal government’s refusal to reveal how much taxpayers spent on the Obama “family outing.”

According to documents that were obtained under the legal action, taxpayers spent hundreds of dollars ($928.44) for “bulk food” for passengers aboard the flights and the calculated cost of the C-32 (a military configuration of a Boeing 757) was $424,142 (34.8 flight hours at more than $12,000 per hour).

The other expenses, meals off the plane, transportation, security, miscellaneous services and other costs – “Have yet to be disclosed,” Judicial Watch said.

The organization also reported, “The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama’s daughter’s, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as ‘Senior Staff.’ The manifests also list Mrs. Obama’s mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama’s makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright),” Judicial Watch said.

The “professed purpose” of the trip “was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues,” the report said.

But the trip also included tourist events such as stops at landmarks and museums. There also was a private family safari at a South African game reserve for the Obamas.

The court case was launched just about the time The Daily Mail in the United Kingdom touted the $10 million in public money Michelle Obama has spent on her “vacations.”

“Branding her ‘disgusting’ and ‘a vacation junkie,’ [reports] say the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been indulging in five-star hotels, where she splashes out on expensive massages and alcohol,” the London paper said.

The report said Michelle Obama is believed to have taken 42 days of vacation in the last year, including a respite in Spain that cost $375,000 and a $2,000-a-night ski trip to Vail, Colo.

When the report came out, the family was on another vacation, at Blue Heron Farm on Martha’s Vineyard, where the rental fees are estimated at $50,000 a week.

The paper reported the situation was aggravated because the Obamas took separate airplanes to the Massachusetts retreat – even though they traveled the same day.

Also, the report cited figures from a Hawaii Reporter investigation into the Obamas’ trip to Hawaii last winter, where the costs were $63,000 to bring Michelle Obama to town ahead of the president, $38,000 for a beach property rental, $134,000 for staff members to stay in a nearby hotel and $251,000 in police overtime.

Another staged moment in the lives of Barack and Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama just had to get out to Target to do a little shopping last week. But, before the shopping run the White House tipped off AP photographer Charles Dharapak so that he would be at the store to memorialize the moment.

What is memorialize is THE Obama’s disrespect for the American people. A shopping trip to a store just like real people, only when you go shopping do you call ahead to let the press know where your going???

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants – - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

$172,2000 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$102,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 – Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$65,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$60,000 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
$50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
$45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$45,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$36,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
$36,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
************************************************************************************************
FULL ARTICLE: www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13827

While even casual hip-hop fans wouldn’t characterize him as a controversial rapper, Common found himself under the microscope after First Lady Michelle Obama invited him to the White House for an arts event. In question: the lyrics to “A Song for Assata,” about convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Assata Shakur.

The White House said Wednesday it stood by the decision to invite Common. Press Secretary Jay Carney said the conservative backlash distorts what Common stands for, and added that the president appreciates Common’s work with children in Chicago.

FOX News and Sarah Palin condemned the decision after the Daily Caller published some of Common’s lyrics, including some that criticize former President George W. Bush.

For New Jersey police, the outrage centers on “A Song for Assata” lyrics like “Your power and pride is beautiful. May God bless your soul.”

Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. She escaped prison in 1979, and is living in asylum in Cuba.
“The young people who read this stuff, hear this stuff, are getting a very dangerous and deadly message,” David Jones, president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association union, said on Tuesday.

After the union made the case on Tuesday, the New Jersey State Police itself issued a statement on the controversy on Wednesday.

“We cannot dictate who is invited to the White House, but we will always view Joanne Chesimard as a fugitive who killed one of our own,” Major Gerald Lewis, spokesman for the state police said in a statement. “We will continue our pursuit of her until she is brought to justice.”

Known for being more of a brainy poet type than a thug or a gangster, Common seemed to be amused by the dust-up Tuesday, tweeting and retweeting the various news items, such as FOX News’ description of him as a “vile rapper.”

Really????? What does she think about the loss of jobs and children forced into poverty by the Socialist push by The Obama, Reid and Pelosi???

National Security is more than heavy people and the government attempt to take over our choices of food.

Some of the goals include ending what Obama referred to as “food deserts” with a $400 million a year “Healthy Food Financing Initiative,” which will bring grocery stores to low-income neighborhoods and “help places like convenience stores carry healthier food options.”
 
Obama called for overhauling many federal laws and guidelines, including adding $10 billion over the next decade to “update” the Childhood Nutrition Act, which feeds 31 million children at school and would add funding to feed more children.  Maybe the GOVERNMENT should just feed everyone what the GOVERNMENT thinks they should eat!!

May be if the Democratic Socialist in charge would work to free the free market from oppressive government control Americans could start getting jobs from business and not from the Government!! People with jobs have money to make choices. It is time for the people to make the choice and NOT the government.

May be Michelle Obama should comment on: Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a pro-life Democrat, said the White House and House leadership are pressuring him to keep quiet about the taxpayer-funding of health plans that cover abortion as mandated in the Senate health care bill.  Why don’t we hear her speak out on this issue?