Friday, February 28, 2014

Is Michelle Obama a Princess? (Part 2)

The lies, lies and more lies in Michelle Obama’s Coming Out Party in China
There is no longer one but two liars in the White House. And no one ever elected the second one

By Judi McLeod
Sunday, March 23, 2014
The Coming out Party of Michelle Robinson Obama in China proves she’s as big a hypocrite as her husband the president.
"When it comes to expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information - we believe those are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet," Mrs Obama told an audience of around 200 students. (The Telegraph, March 22, 2014).
"Freedom of information, expression and belief should be considered "universal rights", Michelle Obama, the US first lady, told students in China on Saturday.
"My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens, and it’s not always easy.
"But I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world."
In fact were it not for an enterprising newspaper of another country, The Telegraph, the Free World may never have known about Michelle Obama’s Coming Out Party in the Orient because American reporters were banned from the multi-million dollar trip.
"Freedom of information, expression and belief" has all but died a tragic death on her husband’s watch. Barack Obama and his top flight lieutenants former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice blamed the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi on an obscure Internet video.
Her husband uses the raw power of the IRS to blog Tea Party ‘dissidents’ whom he has openly called "Tea Baggers" and continues with his mission to fundamentally transform America that rips the soul out of the country the world looks up to for leadership.
In pretending to espouse "freedom of information, expression and belief" as "universal rights", Michelle Obama, who is counting on Chinese students not knowing about what is going on in the U.S., couldn’t be more wrong.
Chinese students top the class enjoying the reputation as the best students worldwide.
Michelle Obama would have as much credibility with the Chinese students at Peking University as she did when she turned up at the Summer Palace wearing a shirt emblazoned with a picture of a horse, it being The Year of the Horse in China.
"Speaking at Peking University on the second full day of a weeklong, bridge-building family tour of the country, Mrs Obama said: "It is so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media." (The Telegraph)
"Mrs Obama, who arrived in China on Thursday evening, avoided directly criticising Beijing’s draconian control of the internet, media and religion.
"Social media sites including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are blocked in China and Xi Jinping, the president, has been waging a fierce war on dissent since coming to power in November 2012."
Just this month Barack Obama has forfeited US control of the Internet, handing it over to the "international community" which is headed by China and Russia.
According to The Telegraph, China’s heavily controlled state media made no mention of Mrs Obama’s comments.
You can depend on them being the talk of the Internet back home.
Some will report that while her mother did the "barking", Michelle did the lying.
Not likely any of the students Obama addressed could afford the $8,350 per night American taxpayers paid for her stay in the Beijing Presidential Suite.
Interesting how she would answer one student’s question that "Barack has dragged me kicking and screaming into things that I wanted no parts of."
Like any other woman of her day Obama could have applied the universal: "Just Say No".
Meanwhile, the Free World has just become a more dangerous place. There is no longer one but two liars in the White House. And no one ever elected the second one.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:
Should the Office of the First Lady be eliminated?

Eliminating unnecessary government functions. One function that could be eliminated without any negative consequences is the Office of the First Lady
By Gail Jarvis
Unrestrained government spending and a mushrooming federal deficit have reached such a level that even entrenched bureaucrats should be concerned about the stability of their jobs. Indeed, there is a lot of talk coming out of Washington about cost-cutting and requiring departments to operate with less expense.
But, based on past experience, many wonder if the concerns being expressed are real or feigned. Americans have learned to regard pronouncements by politicians cynically and probably suspect that this cost-cutting talk is just more spurious govenmentese calculated to pacify the public.
But, if officials in our nation’s capital are truly interested in reducing expenses, there are numerous ways it can be done without lessening governmental effectiveness. Economists have identified billions of dollars that could be saved by eliminating unnecessary government functions. One function that could be eliminated without any negative consequences is the Office of the First Lady.
The first 22 wives of our 44 presidents did not have assistants. In fact, it wasn’t until 1890 that Caroline Harrison, wife of Benjamin Harrison, began using her niece as her social secretary, primarily because of the debilitating effects of the disease that would kill Mrs. Harrison while her husband was still in office. In the years following the Harrison administration, first ladies managed with either no assistants or possibly one or two. Even one of our most active first ladies, Eleanor Roosevelt, had only two assistants. But when Hillary Clinton became First Lady, she created a full-time staff of 22, plus 15 interns and volunteers. It has now become de rigueur for first ladies to not only have large staffs, but to pay six figure salaries for their assistants.
Eliminating the First Lady’s staff, or replacing it with interns and volunteers, is a cost-saving concept that has been around for some time. I thought about this idea recently when I came across a poll to determine our best first ladies. I still lend some credence to poll results when the general public is surveyed, but I am skeptical when the opinions of erudite groups are sought. The backgrounds of the participants surveyed determine the results, and this poll was no different. To determine our best first ladies Siena College and C-Span consulted members of academia. As most of today’s academics share a Left-of-center political persuasion, their selections for best first ladies were predictable. Of the top ten in the poll, seven were in the 20th-21st century – six of these were spouses of liberal Democrats.
If I had not been alive during the careers of most of the first ladies ranked high in the poll, I might have been gullible enough to accept the opinions of these academics. But there were few real accomplishments by these so-called “Best First Ladies.” This was just another one-sided poll that told us more about the participants being surveyed than the subject being polled. Although I don’t take this poll seriously, I will review it briefly, and I admit that my views conflict with the poll results.
Eleanor Roosevelt was ranked first in the overall poll. She was first in the category of “advancing women’s issues” and also in the categories of “greatest political asset”; “strongest public communicator” and “performed greatest service to the country after leaving office.”
Mrs. Roosevelt is credited with redefining the role of the first lady. Constantly in the public eye, she pontificated on contemporary political issues, wrote newspaper columns, gave radio interviews and traveled throughout the country. Mrs. Roosevelt was tireless in her efforts to mold the nation to reflect her idealistic view of how it should become, and she had very little tolerance for those who took issue with her views. She would not accept even mild dissent. Her placement at the top of the poll was no surprise, as scholars usually claim that her husband, Franklin, was our best president. But for those of us who dwell outside the walls of academia, where results count more than rhetoric, Franklin and Eleanor are not viewed so reverently.
In sixth place in the poll was Hillary Clinton, who was ranked higher than all others in the category of “capable of running the country.” Hillary also scored high in “performed greatest service to country after leaving office”. (Some of us think Hillary’s greatest service to the country was leaving office.) Hillary Clinton was ranked below fifth-place Michelle Obama, who also graded high in “capable of running the country.” ( I tremble to think what would happen to our country if either Hillary or Michelle managed to get elected president.) Michelle also received high marks for having outstanding “communicating” skills and “balancing family life” with political responsibilities. (I guess having 26 assistants makes her responsibilities a little easier to handle.) Whereas Eleanor Roosevelt had only radio and newspapers at her disposal, Hillary and Michelle benefit from television which they both milk to the fullest. They always get instant media coverage and are favorites of TV show hosts and performers. In fact, with Michelle Obama, first lady duties have become a very real form of “show business. ” Mrs. Obama is frequently featured in comedy skits.
Although Jacqueline Kennedy was ranked third overall, she didn’t score highly in “advancing women’s issues.” (If there had been a category “advancing her own issues”, Jackie would have won first place.) The academics held Jackie in high esteem for “creating a lasting legacy.” (Her “legacy” actually was established after she left office, but it wasn’t a legacy that would serve as a role model for young women.)
Only one Republican first lady made it into the top ten. Betty Ford was ranked in eighth place. She scored well in “advancing women’s issues”; “creating a lasting legacy” and “performed greatest service to the country after leaving office.” As first lady, Betty’s outspoken advocacy of liberal causes often clashed with her husband Gerald’s conservatism. She was especially supportive of issues highly promoted by the National Organization of Women, primarily the Equal Rights Amendment and legalized abortion. After leaving office, Mrs. Ford continued to work with
NOW, eagerly promoting feminist issues and even taking part in protest marches alongside Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and assorted Hollywood celebrities.
Three Republican first ladies, who were not included in the top ten: – Laura Bush, Pat Nixon, and Mamie Eisenhower - took the top three spots in the category”could have done more while in office.” (It’s unfortunate that there wasn’t a category “should have done less while in office.” This would have been an appropriate category for most Democratic first ladies.)
Although this poll does address regular first lady functions, it places more emphasis on how active these women were in “increasing public awareness” of issues important to academics. Those first ladies who dealt with mundane White House matters are considered “outdated.”. Even those who used their prestige to help Americans with drug and alcohol addiction and other mental health problems were not overly esteemed. The highest rankings were accorded to first ladies who attempted to sway public opinion in favor of trendy political issues, including social justice, legalized abortion, gay rights, and diversity issues. In other words, this poll does not identify the “best” first ladies, but rather those who were the most “politically correct.”
Afterword: I have a special feeling for the first lady who was ranked last in this
poll: Jane Pierce, wife of our 14th President, Franklin Pierce. Fate prevented Jane Pierce from being awarded positive ratings in this poll. The criteria used was ill-suited for her era and the poll did not consider individual attributes and circumstances. Frail, shy and weakened from recurring bouts of tuberculosis, Jane Pierce suffered through the deaths of all three of her young sons, even tragically witnessing the accidental death of her last son shortly before her husband’s inauguration. Mrs. Pierce’s aunt represented her when she was unable to attend White House social functions, but gradually Jane forced herself to fulfill her first lady duties. She did so with class and quiet dignity, despite deteriorating health and lingering grief. She was relieved when the one term Pierce administration came to a close but only survived another nine years. It is important to note that until recently, Jane Pierce has been unfairly stereotyped by historians, but she is finally being treated more evenhandedly. Mrs. Pierce deserves our respect.
Gail Jarvis is a Coastal Georgia based freelance writer. Following a career as a CPA/business consultant, Mr. Jarvis now critiques the establishment’s selective and misleading reporting of current events and history. Gail can be reached at:
Supermarket Alert: Michelle Obama on the nutrition label
While her husband socializes medicine, Michelle socializing nutrition labels
By Judi McLeod
Friday, February 28, 2014
Michelle Obama’s feigned concern that nutrition labels on food packages make grocery shopping a difficult and trying experience for the moms of America, is no different than her televised dancing gig with giant anthropomorphic vegetables that kicked off the fourth anniversary of her ‘Let’s Move’ campaign on Jimmy Fallon’s all too accommodating The Tonight Show.
“In pitching new, improved nutrition labels at the White House on Thursday, first lady Michelle Obama tried to identify with women who do the grocery shopping for their families.” (CNS News, Feb. 28, 2014). “Her message was aimed at mothers who want to buy healthy food and depend on labels to help them do that: “So there you stood, alone in some aisle in a store, the clock ticking away at the precious little time remaining to complete your weekly grocery shopping, and all you could do was scratch your head, confused and bewildered, and wonder, is there too much sugar in this product? Is 50 per cent of the daily allowance of riboflavin a good thing or a bad thing? And how on earth could this teeny little package contain five whole servings?”It’s not too much sugar but too much government in supermarket products and almost everything else, Madam Obama.
Michelle Obama now coming on saccharine sweet about concerns for “confused” and “bewildered” Moms at the supermarket, is the same one who bans loving Moms from sending homemade lunches with their youngsters to school.
The best nutrition cops in the world are not politicians’ wives but the everyday Moms down at the supermarket.
“As consumers and as parents, we have a right to understand what’s in the food we’re feeding our families. Because that’s really the only way that we can make informed choices—by having clear, accurate information. And ultimately, that’s what today’s announcement is all about,” says Michelle.
Let’s get real: Michelle Obama’s expertise in ‘Nutrition’ is about as legitimate as her husband’s birth certificate.
Revolutionizing nutrition labels hardly matters when you’re doing it in a nation where your husband is deliberately cutting people off their critical health care.
Everything coming out of the White House is pure show. Michelle showing off her dancing moves with giant vegetable props; Barack Obama now arrogantly claiming that ObamaCare comes straight from God.
Michelle took the use of props to a new high today in a YouTube posted by Britain’s Daily Mail, showing the president and vice president of the US running in circles—inside—the White House.
Like all good little boys on boob tube ads, Barry and Joey return to the presidential office to hydrate with the tall glasses of water awaiting them on paper towel.
“A video has emerged of President Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his vice-president taking a quick run around the White House, in support of Michelle Obama’s’ Let’s Move’ campaign designed to encourage people to get physically healthier and make changes in diet. (
Daily Mail, Feb. 28, 2014)
“The video begins with Joe Biden entering the Presidential office asking ‘are you ready?’
“The President replies ‘Let’s do this’, and the two begin a run around the White House, followed by stretching and drinking a large glass of water each.
“They then promise each other ‘same time next week’ before heading back to work.”
Work is campaigning, vacationing and golfing to the water-drinking, White House joggers.
But the best thing about this video is that even after six hours posted on the humungous British newspaper, a total of 21 persons commented on it at the time of this writing.
The biggest un-typed comment of all: Folks are too busy running around trying to come up with the money to buy food for hungry jobless families and too busy trying to keep their healthcare to pay attention to the overbearing non-nutritionist Michelle and her absurd props, of both the vegetable and human kind.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.Judi can be emailed at:
Older articles by Judi McLeod

Jennifer Hudson at Michelle Obama's 50th Birthday Bash: The President's Got Moves!
By Jeff Nelson
Even the commander in chief likes to cut a rug, occasionally.
"Oh, [President] Obama, he's got this one little move. I was like, I've got to watch this so I can imitate this move!"
Jennifer Hudson told PEOPLE of the scene at First Lady Michelle Obama's 50th birthday party last weekend.
"They loved it. They enjoyed themselves, that's for sure," the Grammy and Oscar winner added.
The American Idol alum, 32, who caught up with PEOPLE at Carnival Cruise Lines' Carnival LIVE Concert Series launch on Wednesday, famously serenaded the president on his own 50th birthday in 2011. But on Saturday, she had the night off.
"Everyone thought I was singing, and I walked around the entire party the whole night like, 'No, I'm not singing! I'm not singing!' " Hudson said.
Instead, she spent the night mingling with politicians and celebrities. Her highlights: meeting fashion designer Donna Karan for the first time, and cheering on John Legend, Ledisi and friend/Dreamgirls costar
Beyoncé, all of whom did perform.
"I'm a huge fan of all three of them," Hudson said. "I've never seen Beyoncé perform in more of an intimate setting, which was the coolest thing to see."
Did Hudson have a present for the president's wife? "No, because the White House is not easy to get into. I was thinking, 'Will my gift even make it through the door?' " Hudson says.
"Just being there to celebrate her, I think that's pretty much the best way you can celebrate someone like that ... It was a blast."

Obama girls Malia and Sasha unimpressed with holiday in Ireland
By Cormac McQuinn
19 June 2013
Trinity College may have reminded them of Hogwarts, but the Obama children looked like they would have preferred to be at a Harry Potter theme park than poring over dusty documents showing their distant Irish heritage.
The glazed over expressions on the faces of Malia (14) and Sasha (12) during their brief visit to Ireland with First Lady Michelle Obama didn't go unnoticed by the US media.
ABC's Good Morning America featured a segment with the reporter noting that "Even the president's daughters can get a bit bored with history" as they were shown the Book of Kells.
It played a clip of Mrs Obama saying they were "thrilled" to be at a private Riverdance Show in the Gaiety Theatre, with her daughters shown in the audience rubbing their eyes, apparently drowsy after watching another of their parents' speeches.
The ABC news reporter referenced 1980s Chevy Chase movie National Lampoon's European Vacation, where teenagers are bored by the sights of the continent saying: "As they meet with distant Irish cousins how quickly these once in a lifetime experiences can take a turn when the children become about as impressed as the Griswalds".
After the report, anchor George Staphanopoulos quipped: "Oh man, lunch with Bono again?"
RTE News presenter Bryan Dobson later picked up on the Obama daughter's apparent boredom, tweeting: "#spareathoughtforthekids a genealogy lecture, the Book of Kells, Glendalough, a pub lunch with Bono! What was your worst childhood holiday?" He later suggested the girls might have visited Tayto Park instead.

Is the Obama marriage on the rocks? Astonishing claims emerge of ugly fights over that selfie, and even a Presidential affair

Michelle Obama alleged to have discovered her husband has been unfaithful

Reports claim they will separate at the end of his presidency in 2016
Follows claims in two books that couple neared divorce in early 2000's
17 January 2014
With invitations warning guests to ‘EBYC’ — Eat Before You Come — and rumours they’ll be dancing to star turns from Beyonce and her rapper husband Jay Z, it won’t be your usual White House knees-up.


Michelle Obama was 50 yesterday and President Barack Obama will be feting his redoubtable First Lady tonight with a party that will give them the chance to let their hair down and forget their troubles for a few hours.

The email inviting guests to the ‘snacks & sips & dancing & dessert’ advised them to wear comfortable shoes and practise their dance moves.
Purse-lipped Washington etiquette experts have tutted at the informality of it all, but the Obamas have always been keen to appear accessible, even if the stand-offish reality is somewhat different.
The Obamas are the world’s most scrutinised couple at the best of times, but it will be rare to find a guest at the bash who won’t be secretly watching them with particular interest.
(left: Formidable: Michelle Obama with her husband)
After all, the last time they were pictured together — at Nelson Mandela’s memorial — the First Lady was looking none too pleased as the her husband posed for a ‘selfie’ photograph with the leggy blonde Danish Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
Indeed, if the U.S. tabloids are to be believed, the relationship of Washington’s golden couple is facing problems that go far beyond dirty looks.
Under the headline Obama Divorce Bombshell!, the National Enquirer claims their 21-year marriage has dissolved in a string of ugly fights that were prompted by the Mandela memorial incident and — far more outrageously — Mrs Obama’s discovery that Secret Service bodyguards had been covering up infidelity on her husband’s part.
It’s an allegation the White House has declined to comment on, though after Bill Clinton’s trouser-dropping scandals, Americans would be rather less sanguine about any extra-marital activity than the French appear to be over President Francois Hollande’s behaviour.
Mrs Obama, the Enquirer claims, intends to stand by her husband until his presidency is over, at which time he will move back to Hawaii, where he grew up, and she will stay in Washington with their children.
For the moment, they are allegedly sleeping in separate bedrooms after Mr Obama’s attempt to ‘mend fences’ backfired so badly on a recent Christmas getaway to Hawaii that he returned to Washington with their two daughters, leaving his wife behind.
The National Enquirer, it must be said, quoted only anonymous insiders in support of these sensational claims, and is hardly the most reliable source of hard news.
Obama advisers are certainly not talking as if there is any scandal in the offing.
The couple are ‘role models for parents all across the country’, according to old friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett. ‘She’s at the top of her game. She’s fabulous at 50.’
Washington’s media has ignored the story.
But everyone remembers how the Enquirer famously got it right when it claimed the supposedly squeaky clean Democrat presidential contender John Edwards had fathered a love child by a former campaign worker.
Thin as its story may seem at the moment, might it be on to something again?
At least it was right on one point — Mrs Obama did remain in Hawaii. The White House quickly offered an explanation, saying the extended stay had been a birthday present from her husband.
‘If you have kids, you know that telling your spouse they can spend a week away from home is actually a big present,’ said his spokesman.
Before returning home on Wednesday, Mrs Obama holed up for more than a week at TV star Oprah Winfrey’s spectacular 12-bedroom house on a mountainside estate on Maui, the second largest of the Hawaiian islands.
Their girls-only get-together was joined by Oprah’s close friend, the TV presenter Gayle King, White House aide Valerie Jarrett and Sharon Malone, wife of the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
Oprah has described the estate as a place where she and guests sit on the porch sipping guava cocktails, and ride horses to the top of the mountain to watch the sun go down.
Why would anyone rush back to chilly Washington from such an idyll?
But if the rumours are true, and there were more painful reasons for Michelle’s reluctance to rejoin her husband, this would not be the first time such tensions have apparently surfaced.
Since he was elected President, two books have claimed the couple came close to splitting in their early years together, with Mrs Obama even drawing up divorce papers after deciding his burning political ambition was ruining their chances of domestic happiness.
In 2009, veteran Washington reporter Richard Wolffe claimed that the marriage almost collapsed nine years earlier because of Obama’s political drive and the family’s shattered finances.
‘There was little conversation and even less romance. She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful,’ wrote Wolffe.
At the time, Mrs Obama had only recently become a mother — their daughters Malia and Sasha are now 15 and 12. Her husband, whom she had met while they were both working for a Chicago law firm in 1989, was a mere State Senator in Illinois who had just been thrashed in a battle for a seat in Congress.
‘She hated the failed race for Congress in 2000 and their marriage was strained by the time their younger daughter, Sasha, was born,’ wrote Wolffe in Renegade.
Wolffe noted, though, that they seemed to have got over their past issues by the time they made it to the White House.
‘We’re going to be fine,’ he quoted Mrs Obama as saying. ‘We’re strong enough to take anything on and be OK at the end.’
Yet, according to some accounts, Mrs Obama didn’t take well to Washington life.
Former French First Lady Carla Bruni revealed in a book how she had asked what life was like there. ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Mrs Obama reportedly told her. Mrs Obama later insisted she had never said that.
In 2012, meanwhile, political writer Edward Klein claimed Mr Obama had become so depressed about his failing marriage in 2000 that friends feared he was contemplating suicide.
Mrs Obama had been furious because she had warned him not to fight the disastrous Congress election battle which he lost, said Klein.
‘During the dark days that followed his defeat, he turned to Michelle for comfort. But she was in no mood to offer him sympathy,’ wrote Klein, who claimed Michelle’s friends told him she had even drawn up divorce papers.
‘He had dashed Michelle’s hopes of creating a stable and secure future,’ he wrote. ‘As a result their marriage was on the rocks, and Obama confided to friends that he and Michelle were talking about divorce.’
Could the couple have reached such a crisis again?
In an interview published to coincide with her birthday, Mrs Obama provided glimpses of a woman who — after devoting years to her husband’s career and raising their children — now feels ready to put herself first.
The formidable and often forthright First Lady, who has routinely been portrayed as the one who really wears the trousers in the Obama household, says she wants to be more like her mother.
‘She does exactly what she wants to do every single day without apology,’ Michelle said.
Long an icon of wholesomeness with her campaigns for regular exercise and healthy eating, Mrs Obama even admits she wouldn’t rule out plastic surgery or Botox to keep her looks: ‘Women should have the freedom to do whatever they need to do to feel good about themselves.’
Her life is ‘ever-evolving’, she says, adding: ‘I’ve got to keep figuring out ways to have an impact.’
Her husband knows the feeling. He must wish the rumours of marital strife were the only cloud hanging over the big party.
For the truth is that the promise of the most anticipated presidency since that of John F. Kennedy has long since dimmed.
Mr Obama’s popularity rating is just over 40 per cent, with two-thirds of voters saying the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction. Only the Watergate-plagued Richard Nixon was doing worse at this stage of his time in office.
What don’t Americans like? Pretty much everything.
After winning a second term from unenthusiastic voters, largely because his Republican opponent Mitt Romney was so uninspiring, Obama spent much of last year making many voters contemplate the unthinkable: perhaps even Romney would have been better.
Obama recently joked that if the Washington press is to be believed, his presidency has suffered ‘15 near-death experiences’.
The disenchantment of even some of his most senior deputies has now been forcefully revealed by his former Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
In an incendiary autobiography, Gates portrays Mr Obama as dangerously aloof, arrogant, naïve, indecisive and a worryingly detached ‘commander in chief’ who has no passion for his nation’s armed forces.
Whether forging policy on Iraq or Syria, Obama ignored his military commanders but then rowed back on his promises — such as that ‘red line’ he set over Syria’s use of chemical weapons — when it suited him.
Gates admits being ‘deeply uneasy’ with the Obama administration’s ‘lack of appreciation, from the top down, of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war’.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for the leader of the free world.
And this week, Gates’ icy verdict on his old boss was echoed by another defence insider.
Sir Hew Strachan, an adviser to the Chief of the Defence Staff in Britain, claimed the U.S. President was ‘chronically incapable’ of formulating military strategy, falling short even of George W. Bush.
At home, the second term to-do list has been mired in problems, in particular the furious political rows that surrounded the introduction of ‘Obamacare’, his big idea for a new healthcare plan to reform America’s grossly inefficient health care system and extend health insurance to millions of poor Americans.
So what can he do in his final three years in power to win back the admiration he once inspired? Apart from reforming America’s immigration laws, the White House has run out of ideas.
It emerged this week that the Clintons keep a ‘grudge book’ listing the names of those who have wronged them.
Given the damage Mr Obama must have done to Hillary Clinton’s chances of succeeding him in the White House in 2016, his name is surely top of the list.
As for the First Lady, she plans to show she’s young at heart tonight by doing the Dougie, a hip-hop dance popular with cool American teenagers.
Whether she’ll feel the urge to slow dance with the President remains to be seen.

Also See:
Who is This Guy in the Oval Office?
(Part 1)
16 February2009)
(Part 2)
22 April 2009
(Part 5)
03 January 2010
(Part 6)
20 May 2010
(Part 7)
21 November 2010
(Part 8)
14 February 2011
(Part 10)
10 October 2011
(Part 11)
11 December 2011
(Part 12)
18 April 2012
(Part 15)
14 December 2012
(Part 16)
22 May 2013
Who will be the Next First Lady?
01 July 2008
Is Michelle Obama a Princess?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Only in Canada, Eh! (Part 2)


Ice fishing in Northern Ontario!
Obama Operatives Infiltrate Canadian Liberals

The North American Union
By Judi McLeod
Monday, February 24, 2014
Canada-The ‘North American Union’ (NAU) is here. The same people who ran Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for president are running Canadian Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s campaign for Canadian Prime Minister.
The dreaded NAU has finally come full circle.
Members of the same team that got Senator Barack Obama elected and left the mighty USA in a gutter of despair are running Canada’s Liberal contender for prime minister—poised to win the 2015 federal election.
Obama’s former economic czar Larry Summers, media described as “now the intellectual guiding light for Mr. Trudeau and his key advisors” was the top speaker at Thursday’s opening night at the Canadian Liberal convention.
“The Liberal camp appears to have bought into Mr. Summers views on “secular stagnation”—the idea that Japanese style economic torpor is the new normal in North America.” (National Post, Feb. 21, 2014)
Trudeau was already a Summers puppet before delivering his well-touted, email to -”Friend “important message for all Canadians” at the convention parroting the fallacy that the $250-billion Canadian budget would “take care of itself”.
Floundering America bought hook, line and sinker into Summers’ economic policies pushed by Obama. A former chief economist to the ever-encroaching World Bank, Summers is an ex-Secretary of the Treasury and has been an economic advisor to two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama.
The Summers’ grass did not just grow on the get-me-elected-at-any-price Justin Trudeau. It grew on failed Summers-groomed Liberal Prime Minister candidate Michael Ignatieff back in 2012.
Ignatieff got to know Summers—who was president of Harvard during his stint at the university’s Carr Center.
Liberals in both Canada and the U.S. both train together and hang together.
Ignatieff has even stronger ties to Samantha Power, a senior adviser to Obama during his presidential campaign, a member of his transition team and now US Ambassador to the UN. Power is wife of Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former regulatory czar, and because of his ‘nudge’ for Common Core in the public school system, is considered by many as “the most dangerous man in America.
Summers and his Canadian protégé Justin Trudeau are trying to convince voters that “deficit” and “debt” are no longer dirty words. They can be fully expected to expand it to Obama’s contention that “job” is the dirtiest word in North American lexicon.
“Mr Summers believes that market mechanisms to ensure full employment and strong growth have failed, so governments must adopt what he calls “unconventional policy support”—juicing demand with ‘productive investment”. (National Post)
“To start, this means ending the disastrous trend towards less and less government spending and employment each year and taking advantage of the current period of slack to renew and build out our infrastructure,” he wrote last month.
“Raising demand would mean seeking to spur private spending—for example, governments could use regulation to require rapid replacement of coal-fired power plants, thereby attracting private investment.”
Nor are Obama operatives only feeding at the federal Liberal election trough. The father in law of top Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett’s daughter is Bas Balkissoon, Ontario Liberal MPP. David Axelrod, Obama senior strategist, worked for Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty when he was still in Opposition. People in Trudeau’s close circle include Gerald Butts, who also worked for McGuinty at the same time as Axelrod.
You might say that Obama operatives stud both Ontario and federal Canadian Liberal campaigns.
Take notice, Canadians: Up to now your country has been doing better than any other industrialized country. Your banks are secure. Canada’s is a resource-based economy. Be aware of what is happening to America’s resource-based industries, which Obama is regulating out of business. Now the same power brokers who boosted Obama to the presidency in the country next door are out for yours.
And when the NAU is complete it will be with sorrow and frustration that you will realize that all it took was for Larry Summers and other Obama operatives to infiltrate the Liberal Party of Ontario and Canada to take over the country next door.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:
Booted Liberal Senators Aim To Use Independence To Institute Changes
By Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
Updated: 02/26/2014

OTTAWA - Liberal senators are using their newfound independence to institute changes aimed at making the maligned Senate more accountable, approachable and transparent.
Starting today, they'll give ordinary folks a direct voice in the upper house, soliciting questions from Canadians that Liberal senators will then pose to the government during the Senate's daily question period.
The move is one of five ways the 32 Liberal senators hope to take advantage of their new freedom from partisan ties to improve the functioning — and the tattered image — of the scandal-plagued chamber.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau last month booted the senators from his party's national caucus in a bid to return the Senate to its intended role as an independent chamber of sober second thought.

The senators also intend to periodically throw open the doors of their weekly caucus meetings, inviting experts and parliamentarians from all parties to discuss issues of national importance that have gotten short shrift from elected MPs in the House of Commons.
As well, there'll be no more whipped votes for Liberal senators; each will be free to vote as he or she sees fit on every motion and bill before the Senate.
And they'll initiate a Senate debate on equalization in a bid to re-establish the chamber as the protector of regional interests, as originally envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation.
The senators, who still sit as Liberals but are no longer answerable to or directed by the leader, are also promising to continue publicly disclosing their expenses, which they began doing last fall at Trudeau's behest. Their expenses were initially posted on the Liberal party website, but that option is no longer available, so they're talking to Senate officials about setting up an alternate system.
James Cowan, the Liberal leader in the Senate, announced the measures this morning.
"We have an historic opportunity to use our new independence to try, insofar as it is within our power as a minority in the Senate, to make Parliament work better for Canadians, to make it respond to the needs of Canadians rather than the needs of political parties and their leaders," Cowan said in a written statement.
The Senate has long been maligned as an unaccountable, unelected body but its reputation has nosedived over the last year as the chamber was engulfed in a scandal over improper expense claims.
The scandal has led to charges of fraud and breach of trust against Sen. Patrick Brazeau and former senator Mac Harb. Two other senators, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, are still under RCMP investigation, as is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who gave Duffy $90,000 to reimburse the Senate for his contested living expense claims.
Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin have been suspended from the Senate without pay and more trouble may be in the offing for other senators as the auditor general scrutinizes their expenses.
The scandal prompted Trudeau's surprise decision to expel senators from the Liberal national caucus. The move underscored his contention that practical reforms can be undertaken to improve the Senate without having to reopen the Constitution, as would be required to transform the Senate into an elected chamber or abolish it altogether — the preferred options of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair respectively.
Justin Trudeau boots all senators from Liberal caucus
The Liberal leader’s surprise move is aimed at reducing partisanship in the Senate and restoring its intended role as an independent chamber.
By: Susan Delacourt, Parliament Hill,


OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau stunned Parliament Hill Wednesday by expelling 32 senators to sit as Independents, part of a proposed plan to overhaul Senate appointments to ensure it is a non-partisan body.
He has also written to the Speaker of the Senate, Noel Kinsella, to stress that his intention means, no matter how those now-Independent senators wish to identify themselves, they cannot call themselves Liberals in the upper chamber, the Star has learned.

Trudeau sprung the strategic shift on surprised Liberal senators at a pre-caucus meeting Wednesday morning, even before he told MPs. He did not flesh out to them his electoral commitment that he would also overhaul how future senators would be named: with the public input of a non-partisan committee.
Trudeau, in announcing the details to reporters, said he wanted to restore the Senate to its intended role as an independent chamber of sober second thought.
The move was effective immediately. The shocked, newly Independent senators huddled for hours before emerging to proclaim they still viewed themselves as big-L Liberals and party supporters. And they did not publicly voice dissent over the surprise move.
Sen. Serge Joyal, a longtime Liberal advocate of exactly this sort of reform, said while he wholeheartedly backed the proposals, “I am sad to a point” he said. I remain a Liberal, I still have my membership card in my wallet.”
“I had a pit in my stomach,” said Sen. Jim Munson, who said he was still in a bit of shock a couple of hours after the announcement. An entire range of emotions were on display when Trudeau spoke to the senators, Munson added. Some said they felt abandoned.
Munson said he was appointed as a Liberal senator by prime minister Jean Chrétien and he would continue to call himself a Liberal.
Chrétien declined any public comment Wednesday.
Trudeau’s political rivals were clearly taken aback. The move sets apart the Liberal approach from both the Conservatives’ call for an elected, term-limited Senate, and the NDP call for outright abolition of the institution.
The Conservatives’ democratic reform minister, Pierre Poilievre, went quickly to the media to denounce Trudeau’s bombshell as a “smokescreen.” He said it was meant to pre-empt a damaging interim report by the federal auditor general into senate expenses, expected within weeks. Poilievre denied he had advance knowledge of the report.
“I think the reality is Mr. Trudeau defended (retired senator Mac) Harb previously and now he’s looking for a public relations manoeuvre in order to avoid accountability which the auditor general will deliver.”
Poilievre then shifted his attack, saying the move does not strip the now-Independent Liberal senators of their partisan leanings. “The only change is that they wouldn't attend one caucus meeting a week,” Poilievre said. “He's made a proposal that would make the Senate far worse than it already is, if you can imagine such a thing.”
He suggested Trudeau’s proposed change to name senators recommended by a non-partisan committee would merely mean some unelected body would still propose more Liberals to be appointed by a Liberal prime minister to the upper chamber.
NDP leader Tom Mulcair took a similar tack. First he denounced the move as an about-face by Trudeau, whom he noted rejected an NDP suggestion last fall to force all senators to sit as Independents. He strongly suggested — but stopped from explicitly saying — that Trudeau’s move was motivated by the forthcoming report from Ferguson’s office, noting that Trudeau opposed an NDP motion to remove senators from caucus back in October.
Whether in practice Trudeau’s move changes much — with the newly-Independent senators suggesting they still support Liberal policies and may pool their resources to work together — Trudeau’s move shifted the political debate Wednesday.
“If the Senate serves a purpose at all, it is to act as a check on the extraordinary power of the prime minister and his office, especially in a majority government,” Trudeau said.
“The party structure in the Senate interferes with this responsibility. Taken together with patronage (appointments), partisanship within the Senate is a powerful, negative force. It reinforces the prime minister's power instead of checking it.
“At best, this renders the Senate redundant. At worst — and under Mr. Harper we have seen it at its worst — it amplifies the prime minister's power.”
Trudeau challenged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to similarly set free the 57 Conservative senators.
There was just one of three senators once named by Trudeau’s father, Pierre, remaining in the Liberal caucus, with the majority of the 32 having been named by Jean Chrétien, and about a 10 by Paul Martin.
Trudeau has proposed that if elected prime minister, he would set up a more open transparent process to allow public input before naming “worthy” candidates, pointing to the way Supreme Court of Canada judges and Order of Canada recipients are named.
“I’ve come to believe that the Senate must be non-partisan, composed of merely of thoughtful individuals, representing the very values, perspectives and identities of this great country, independent from any particular political brand.”
The move by Trudeau has no impact on the Supreme Court of Canada reference case. The Conservative government has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to advise whether it can require term limits or set up consultative elections through a unilateral legislative move, or whether it requires a constitutional amendment and the consent of provinces; if so, how many.
The Conservatives have also asked whether outright abolition of the Senate requires provincial consent.
The high court heard the case in November and is expected to rule sometime within the year.
In a letter sent to supporters, Trudeau said his proposals are “the most meaningful action possible without changing the Constitution.”
With files from Alex Boutilier

Senate Suspension Vote Invalid If Pension Law Is Changed: Lawyer

By Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
Updated: 01/23/2014
OTTAWA - The suspensions of three senators will be invalidated if the government retroactively changes the law to preclude them from the parliamentary pension plan, Pamela Wallin's lawyer said Friday.
The law is crystal clear, Terrence O'Sullivan said: the time Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau will spend under suspension must count toward the six years of service they need to qualify for a generous pension.
That was the law when senators voted Tuesday to suspend the trio without pay for up to two years. Changing it after the fact would mean senators did not make an informed decision about the fate of their outcast colleagues, O'Sullivan said.
"It's not a little technicality," he told The Canadian Press, referring to government Senate leader Claude Carignan's characterization of the pension issue.
"In fact, the law was there for anyone to read, as we did, before the vote (to suspend the trio) was held.
"So, if they choose not to read the law, that's not my client's problem. And if they move to change the law retroactively, then that makes, in my view, the vote invalid because it took place under a legal regime that's no longer in place."
Carignan has said the spirit and intent of the motion to suspend the trio was to strip them of their pay and all benefits — including pensions — except for health, dental and life insurance.
However, the motion did not mention pensions and the issue did not come up during the two weeks of debate on the proposed suspensions.

It was two days after the vote that the Senate administration announced it is required by law to count the time the trio spend in purgatory as pensionable service.

That prompted Treasury Board President Tony Clement, who is responsible for legislation governing parliamentary pensions, to declare that he'll change the law if necessary to ensure the outcasts do not accumulate pensionable service while they're under suspension.
O'Sullivan said Clement's declaration means "every senator who voted for (suspension) was not informed of this position and didn't have the ability to analyse whether or not they wished to support the motion if the legislation was going to be changed."

Apart from the legality of such a move, O'Sullivan said, changing the law retroactively to deprive the trio of pensionable service is "vindictive, vicious and without precedent."
Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau have been suspended for the duration of the parliamentary session, which could continue until 2015 — the same year all three would ordinarily become eligible to collect a parliamentary pension.
The suspension leaves Wallin with "none of the benefits of being a senator but all of the liabilities," including legal restrictions on employment aimed at preventing conflict of interest, O'Sullivan said.
She is already trying to figure out "how she's supposed to support herself during the next two years," he said. To add to that burden by retroactively precluding her from the pension plan "is more mean-spirited than even I could have imagined."

Also See:
Only in Canada, Eh!
(Part 1)
12 November 2013