JOHNSON GOOD ADVICE

Friday, August 26th, 2011 | Uncategorized

Mr. President?  I know that you and I haven’t exactly been close.  The fact of the matter is that I’m probably going to vote against you next year since I enthusiastically support [INSERT NAME HERE].

Nevertheless, I would like to take a more constructive tone around here than I have in the past so in that spirit, I propose two moves you might make to help the economy.  Granted neither will save anywhere near the amount that needs to be saved but they will help counter the prevailing notion that you are nothing more than a hard-left social engineer gambling with the house’s money.

First off, rescind this idiocy:

The economy remains in shambles yet President Obama keeps wasting taxpayer dollars expanding an already bloated U.S. government, this month launching a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies.

The new Office of Diversity and Inclusion will ensure that the entire U.S. government develops comprehensive strategies to drive and integrate diversity and inclusion practices. It will assist the different agencies in building a workforce that “respects individual and organizational cultures” by examining policy options, data trends and employee survey findings.

The goal is to eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians. The idea is to create a workforce that truly reflects America’s diversity, according to the Obama Administration.

In fact, the Obama executive order creating the new agency assures that it will promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion. It will also establish a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote the cause. The investment is worth it because a commitment to equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion is critical for the federal government as an employer, according to the commander-in-chief.

Sir?  I assume you’re going to pay the diverse people who diversely work in your diversity office.  Since nobody likes unemployment, these people are going to have to justify the salaries they receive.  So we can expect them to produce entire libraries full of studies, reports, analyses, recommendations and regulations(“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of trees suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly cut down”), all to advance a cause about which nobody anywhere gives a crap.

When most people have to deal with any government office, be it the IRS, Social Security, the Passport Office or any other, they prefer dealing with an office that is competent.  They want to know that the information they receive is accurate or the forms they request are the forms they need.  Nobody but a blockhead ever says, “Well, the IRS sent me the wrong form, my taxes are going to be late and I’m going to have to pay hundreds of dollars in penalties but golly, that was one diverse office!”

Second thing you can do is to remind your wife of the fate of Marie Antoinette.

The Obamas’ summer break on Martha’s Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers’ money on vacations alone in the past year.

Branding her ‘disgusting’ and ‘a vacation junkie’, they 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 ‘top source’ told the National Enquirer: ‘It’s disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.

‘When it’s all added up, she’s spent more than $10million in taxpayers’ money on her vacations.’

The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family’s nine-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: ‘Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

‘The vacations are totally Michelle’s idea. She’s like a junkie. She can’t schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next – all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.”

Just sayin’.

54 Comments to JOHNSON GOOD ADVICE

Mark
August 26, 2011

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

Christopher Johnson
August 26, 2011

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.

gppp
August 26, 2011

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.

Smurf Breath
August 26, 2011

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.

FW Ken
August 26, 2011

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.

Jim the Puritan
August 26, 2011

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

Katherine
August 26, 2011

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.

Fuinseoig
August 26, 2011

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.

The Little Myrmidon
August 26, 2011

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.

The Pilgrim
August 26, 2011

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.

Sybil Marshall
August 26, 2011

[INSERT NAME HERE]……2 funny!!!!

The Little Myrmidon
August 26, 2011

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.

LaVallette
August 26, 2011

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!!!

J. Stuart Little
August 26, 2011

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.

Marie Blocher
August 26, 2011

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.

Miss Sippi
August 26, 2011

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??

Joshua 24:15
August 26, 2011

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…”

The Pilgrim
August 26, 2011

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.

Martial Artist
August 26, 2011

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

John
August 27, 2011

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.

Ed the Roman
August 27, 2011

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.

John
August 27, 2011

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

Katherine
August 27, 2011

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.

Lina
August 27, 2011

the French have a name for it: nouveau riche

Geosez
August 27, 2011

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

St. Nikao
August 27, 2011

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.

John
August 27, 2011

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.

Katherine
August 27, 2011

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.

John
August 27, 2011

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.

mithrax
August 27, 2011

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

Katherine
August 27, 2011

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.

St. Nikao
August 27, 2011

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.

St. Nikao
August 27, 2011

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.

John
August 27, 2011

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.

Katherine
August 27, 2011

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.

Carolyn Peet
August 27, 2011

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.

the pilgrim
August 27, 2011

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.

John
August 27, 2011

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.

Katherine
August 27, 2011

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.

J.M. Heinrichs
August 27, 2011

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

Cheers

The Little Myrmidon
August 27, 2011

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.

Whitestone
August 28, 2011

“… 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.

Whitestone
August 28, 2011

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.

Whitestone
August 28, 2011

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.

Sinner
August 28, 2011

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.

The young fogey
August 28, 2011

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.

FW Ken
August 28, 2011

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.

John
August 29, 2011

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.

FW Ken
August 29, 2011

You superiority is noted, John.

John
August 29, 2011

Superior to what? Ken

Michal
August 29, 2011

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.

John
August 29, 2011

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

FW Ken
August 29, 2011

Michal -

I was being sarcastic.

Michal
August 30, 2011

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.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta