Please tell me you didn’t really just quote with approval a story based on what an anonymous source supposedly told the National Enquirer.

Didn’t say I approved but let’s just say that it rings true. And the National Enquirer is no longer your mom’s National Enquirer. Remember John Edwards? They were the ones who broke that story and stayed with it.

Mark –

What we’re seeing from these parasites (the Obamas, mind you) is a vision of the entitlement society’s elite. Remember, Michelle only now has reason enough to love her country; and she has an excuse to rub the country’s nose in it.

These people have absolutely no love for the USA; they’re doing a very thorough job of showing their contempt for it.

Yow… so much for the champions of the proletariat. I wish Obama would spend more time off, instead of thinking of creative ways to waste other people’s money.

It reminds me of the Orwell quote “They looked from man to pig and pig to man but could no longer tell the difference.”

Thank you, Michelle, for removing your mask so those of us in the barnyard can see what species you really are.

Christopher’s link is actually to The Daily Mail, but that article seems to rely heavily on the National Inquirer, so I’ll agree with Mark on that one (more or less).

On the “diversity office”, however, it’s a good source and a serious issue. Personally, I like a diverse work environment (which is good, since I work in one), but generally regard the matter as too important to relegate to a government bureau.

The National Enquirer is a more reliable source of information than the New York Times.

The federal work force is said to be “only” 39% minority. If that increases much it will be majority-minority. How does that make sense? Like Christopher, I want competence and I really don’t care what continent or ethnic group the competent employees appear to have spring from.

As to the taxpayer cost of Mrs. Obama’s travel, we really don’t need tabloids to be able to see that. Is there some reason why the President’s family can’t travel commercial, with Secret Service in tow? Surely some arrangement could be made to keep their reservation information from the public for security reasons.

While I agree that the Office of Diversity is probably going to be a white elephant (suppose there is a quota for Native Americans in government offices? What about places that don’t conveniently have Native Americans in large numbers living there – are they going to have to specially bus in Native American job applicants or what?), I would be very hesitant about the Michelle Obama story.

It’s easy enough to criticise the President for his taking time off, but all politicians do it, and I’d be wary of a “top source” that’s trying to paint the First Lady as some kind of lush (so she likes good quality spirits? so what?). Damian Thompson, who is certainly no Left-leaning champagne socialist, thinks she’s not that bad:

“The Guardian certainly knows how to sweeten the pill for its readers. A report on plummeting US crime rates – the result of locking up more people – suggested that the inspiring example of Barack Obama may have persuaded a generation of inner-city youths to mend their ways. Bless.

But we shouldn’t dismiss the idea that a role model can change the course of someone’s life. Talitha Lewis, a 16-year-old from a rough part of north London, thought she was destined to become a typical “baby-mum” until Michelle Obama visited her school in Islington. This week she got 10 GCSEs, including three As. Could a lecture from Mrs Obama do that? I think so. Michelle is much less weedy than her husband. She’s a splendid First Lady; we’ll miss her after next year.”

And I have to admit, I was impressed by the Obamas’ state visit to Ireland when they ventured down to my brother-in-law’s neck of the woods in darkest South Offaly/North Tipperary; yeah, he did the obligatory ‘visiting the ancestral homestead’ bit and was photographed with the pint of Guinness in the local pub, but they stayed around for a long time afterwards, shaking hands up one side of the street and down the other, with all the assembled rednecks, culchies, and cross-eyed villagers, and they both (Michelle and Barack) did it with at least the appearance of good grace, interest, and class.

Katherine, You said it. If the US Government actually hired strictly in accordance with demographics this is how it would break out:

White 72.4%
Black or African American 12.6%
Mulatto/Mestizo 6.2%
Asian 4.8%
Two or more races 2.9%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2%

Then out of all that, they’s have to “include” 1-3% for gay/lesbian.

Obviously, this isn’t their goal.

I don’t mind them taking Air Force 1 or Air force 2. Both of them are identical flying White House command centers and mobile Pentagon rolled into one, and the president should never be more than 5 seconds away from those facilities. But they shouldn’t be able to take 1 AND 2 up at the same time. That is a very serious breach of security protocol, and I cannot believe they get away with it.

[INSERT NAME HERE]……2 funny!!!!

And what about the disabled and handicapped? Hmmmm? Aren’t they going to be included?

We do already seem to have plenty of mentally challenged on government payrolls, though.

What is the fastest way of sending your country into decline? Let diversity trump merit!!!

When am I going to be allowed to have a go at winning the Olympic High Jump Gold Medal by getting the rules changed to allow me to do so:(A four foot bonus to start off with would help. Or even a proportional competition: i.e. how high one can jump proportional to one’s height!).After all no one of my ethnic background has ever done so. Its about time we got a go!!!

Pilgrim

1 is the Prez, 2 is is VP. There is another identifier for their families only.

It is used for whatever aircraft the Prez/Veep is on including commercial aircraft. The prefix is based on what service branch provides the aircraft.

A lot of moms and dads make a point of not flying on the same plane. The idea is that if one of the plane crashes, the children still have at least one surviving parent. This is particularly true if neither has a sibling they feel is capable of caring for their minor children.

I worked for the federal govt over thirty years ago, and “diversity” was hot stuff even then. I lived in an area with very low black population and a black male employee was worth his weight in gold, meeting-guidelines-wise. Got a young black male supervisor once, one of the best bosses I’ve ever had, a bigger & badder office snapped him up in a trice. When the 1980 census revealed that 50 or so Aleuts lived in our state, we immediately assumed there would be an all-out effort to hire one.
Since this sort of thing has been government policy for so long, exactly why do we need a new bureaucracy to deal with it??

Hearing about the vacation excesses vis-a-vis the Obamas’ vision for wealth redistribution and social engineering, I can’t help but be reminded of one of the many great lines from one of my all-time favorite movies, Dr. Strangelove. When the President calls the Soviet premier to inform him that USAF nuclear bombers have been “accidentally” given the go-code to bomb Russia, only to find that the premier is drunkenly carousing at his dacha, the Soviet ambassador explains, “our Premier is a man of the people, but he is also a man…”

J.
You are correct. Time of night had me thinking of both Air Force 1s being in the air at the same time; not one and 2.

Miss Sippi,

You asked:

…exactly why do we need a new bureaucracy to deal with it??

I guess you didn’t get the memo. The President has promised to “create new jobs.” Are you telling me that you honestly think there is any way in which he can do that other than by inflating the bureaucracy? The only other means any politician has for creating “jobs” is to hire personal staff (gardeners, butler, maid, housekeeper, cook, etc.) to work at his private residence. The President doesn’t have a private residence, so he would have to go to extraordinary lengths to “create” an actually productive job.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

From http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/08/17/presidential-vacations-how-does-obama-compare-very-well/
So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

The optics of ranch, clearing brush one’s self, and the optics of Martha’s Vineyard and the Costa del Sol are not quite the same.

As my hard working father would say. A change is as good as a rest.
So optics and spin top reality.

John, I don’t particularly mind Mr. Obama’s taking vacations, or even playing golf. The question raised by this post is about Mrs. Obama’s travels and her choice of destinations, most of which have involved large parties traveling with her and large staff and security details. I would have expected the Obamas, either all or the female members of the family, to travel more often to their home base of Chicago, where they have a home and long-time friends and connections.

the French have a name for it: nouveau riche

Don’t we already have the EEOC? Or some such initialized commission that oversees equality in hiring.

Martial Artist wrote: “The President has promised to “create new jobs.” Are you telling me that you honestly think there is any way in which he can do that other than by inflating the bureaucracy?”

Answer: Nope. A Socialist can only create ‘road gang’ and ‘bureaucracy type jobs. They do not believe in the private sector unless it is a hybrid nationalized (wink-wink) ‘private’ entity in which fat cat elites can line their pockets.

Socialism always morphs into oligarchy in which the few elites hold power while pretending to answer to the people and where the few and powerful eat steak, fly in jets, ride in limos, drink champagne, expensive martinis, while the masses eat cabbage and beans drink rotgut and can barely afford housing and public transportation.

BTW – Libya’s new military government drafted its new Constitution and it’s called the “Great SOCIALIST People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (state of the masses).”

Translation: Oligarchy, totalitarian government with Fat Cat elites rule heavy-handedly with military power, ride around in limos, eat steak, caviar, drink champagne. People eat cabbage, beans and rice, drink rotgut.
Chief means of change of Government: rile up masses, violent overthrow, assisination, conquest by neighboring Jamahiriya.

Enough said.

Katherine. First Ladies are mostly wonderful ambassadors for America.
First Lady Laura Bush traveled To Africa several times and I remember similar complaints from Democrats about free spending Republicans.
I do not believe that Michelle Obama has abused her travel any more than previous First Ladies.
News reports are not always accurate about cost and the size of the retinue.

Of course you don’t believe it, John.

In general, and this applies to both Republican and Democratic spouses, I don’t think First Ladies (or First Gentlemen, because that will happen sometime) should do a lot of official functions. This veers towards looking at our elected chief executive as temporary royalty. I would prefer to see our elected leaders focus on leadership and cease trying to be national figureheads and national therapists, which is how the press and public have come to view them. There are moments, of course, especially in crisis, when we need something like that, but normally I think it’s something to be avoided.

Mrs. Obama has gone to a number of exotic and expensive locations and has done some high-profile expensive shopping. Politically the optics of this are not good.

Because we do not have a Queen or other ceremonial figure First ladies are appropriately assigned to that position.
As a conservative I thought you would allow people to spend their own money where they choose. Or are you suggesting Michelle was spending US tax dollars.

Uh John, who do you think is footing the bill for the security retinue?

She clearly does spend U.S. tax dollars when she flies and when large entourages of staff and security people accompany her. There is no question about this.

She can spend her personal money as she chooses. Choosing high-profile expensive shopping in a severe economic downturn is not a great political choice.

I don’t think it’s “appropriate” for us to view our chief executive’s spouse as a substitute Queen. This is a Republic, as Ben Franklin said, if we can keep it.

Expensive taste and extravagant shopping reminds me of Jackie Kennedy Onassis.

Rosalyn wasn’t that type at all. Lady Bird had more money than she or Lyndon could spend…but she wasn’t the wine and dine sort either. Except for their support for abortion, I liked Barbara and Laura Bush.

As for Mr. Obama’s new government (push my favorite friends into lifelong jobs at the taxpayers expense) bureau, it’s redundant and silly. Another excuse to stack and pack Democrats into government jobs and exploit the US taxpayer.

Obama’s idea of creating jobs is idealogically bent toward socialist means…work corps, bureaucracy, etc.

He is not a friend of business people…except for leftists…like Soros, Buffet and those who support gay sex and abortion.

Many countries divide their political and ceremonial affairs of state but this is a Republic with no Premier or Queen and the Presidents wife or sister or whomever he choose for that position is a reality in American life and totally appropriate.
Just because you do not like the Presidents choice does not mean that she should be unprotected during her travels.
Taking cheap shots at a presidents wife is not something I want to indulge in.

Who took cheap shots, and who wants her unprotected? You’re reverting to type. I remember all the hard-line liberals making nasty and intensely personal remarks about Bush, his wife, and his daughters. All people here are saying is that a high-spending lifestyle looks bad when the nation is enduring hard times. That’s not a cheap shot.

Tell me you approve of it all, John, when Anita Perry is representing the nation. We have Cabinet officials to represent us at official events. I would prefer they do it rather than the First Spouse.

Somehow i don’t think John will be nearly as approving when it is a Republican First Lady.

And I am still trying to find the comment where someone said Michelle Obama should travel unprotected since she is disliked.

Carolyn:

“And I am still trying to find the comment where someone said Michelle Obama should travel unprotected since she is disliked.”

You won’t find it. It exists solely in John’s imsgination.

It is a cheap shot when your party is the reason we are in financial difficulties.
I am not concerned about Anita Perry but Michelle Bachmann would use her husband and that would worry me.
I am a proud liberal and never attacked Laura Bush. You are reverting to type, accusing me of something I never said or believe.
The vast majority of any retinue is Secret Service and Foreign Office types.

I am glad to know you never attacked Laura Bush. Many liberals did. And why does Marcus Bachmann worry you? Because you disagree with him? How is that different from what you are accusing conservatives of doing with reference to Michelle Obama?

If you think the Republican Party is the cause of the financial difficulties, you need to read “Reckless Endangerment,” written by a NY Times financial reporter.

“… when your party is the reason we are in financial difficulties.”
Quit voting Democrat!

Cheers

I don’t think the number of vacations is as much the issue as the extravagance. Both Bush Sr. and Jr. took most, if not all, their vacations at their own homes (Sr. went to his home in Kennebunk, ME and Jr. went to his ranch in TX) while Reagan vacationed at his own ranch in CA. This cost the taxpayers nothing other than the cost of flying out & back. Both Clinton and Obama have rented expensive Martha’s Vineyard vacation homes.

“… when your party is the reason we are in financial difficulties.”
Quit voting Democrat!

AMEN – J.M.Heinrichs.

I hooted when I read John’s comment.
For the last century Democrats have grown into the liberal party… liberal morals, liberal spending. Over the past decade they have consistently been the party of BIG spenders and grabbers – of power and of other people’s money.

Obama’s new department of diversity has come right out of the propaganda handbook; it is pushing or nailing down the idea that being LBGTQXYZ places one in a different irrevocable category equivalent to race and nationality, that it is a valid orientation and not a disorientation.

Obama is trying to make concrete, irrevocable changes in public thought and policy – change that will be hard to erase. He’s been so rabidly pro-pansexual, one could easily conclude that he has a personal stake in this.

The pansexual agenda being pushed by Obama is absolutely a denial of fact and reality shown by research and clinical practice in medical, mental health, CDC and police statistics…and of thousands upon thousands of people who have repented and left these abberant and unhealthy ways of feeling, thinking and acting. Moreover, it is a denial of Scripture and thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition and practice.

The politically correct sexuality paradigm is a propaganda tool and a lie. All sexuality outside of GOD’s boundaries results in negative spiritual, psychological, physical, societal outcomes.

President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.

Just goes to show you shouldn’t elect Presidents who don’t own a ranch.

You’re right but none of it matters, because nobody’s paying attention to what he says or does and everybody will call you a racist if you do. White guilt will hand him another term, like it handed him this one and the Nobel Peace Prize, unless the depression gets much worse and maybe then too.

If memory serves, Bush 43 bought the Crawford ranch after his election, to have a place for get-aways and informal meetings with foreign leaders. I think LBJ did the same thing, although he had that ranch with Lady Bird’s money. Presidential getaways are a smart move: FDR had Warm Springs, I think Ike had a farm, Kennedy and Bush 41 had seaside family compounds, and, as noted, Reagan had a ranch. The advantage is that security arrangements are stable, as are the communications the president needs wherever he is.

I still think the important part of this post is the diveristy bureacracy. The vacation thing is a little cheesy, but it did go well with John’s whine.

I love the spin. When I give you meat and potatoes you think it’s cheese and wine. Your optics and olfactories are turned to far to the right.

You superiority is noted, John.

Superior to what? Ken

For the future I think we need to regard “John” as just a troll who’s trying to waste our time. He’s clearly in the weeds regarding just about everything. And for the record: “John” isn’t superior to anyone…in this country everyone is equal…politically. Some may have more of some of the goods of this world educationally and financially, but that does *not* make them superior to anyone else despite what the “elites” think.

Michal. That is exactly right. I am not superior to anyone. I have no idea where that came from.
Far from wasting time, I enjoy the free exchange of ideas.
The name calling is unnecessary but if you enjoy it, go ahead enjoy

Michal -

I was being sarcastic.

FW Ken

I figured that, but thought I’d lob one at “John”, anyway. Don’t intend to respond to him…pretty much ever. I do see him as a waste of my time.