|The Lady in Red with Mother and Daughters|
The White House is not providing any information on the cost of the trip to China by Michelle Obama, her children, her mother, and her usual entourage. It does seem clear that most of the cost, probably totaling in the millions of dollars, will be borne by the American taxpayer. The trip is being cast as not a mere spring vacation but as a kind of diplomatic mission that could potentially bear great fruit politically and economically.
Be that as it may it does seem kind of hypocritical for the Obamas, who pride themselves on their concern for the poor, and who pose as crusaders against income inequality, to publicly flaunt such opulence. We shouldn’t be too surprised though since almost the first thing the Obamas did on assuming the Presidency was to enroll their two daughters in one of the most exclusive private schools in the country. I am aware that they did so out of “security” reasons in the same way as the Clintons did for daughter, Chelsea.
No one can blame them for wanting their children to receive the best education possible but hypocrisy rears its head when President Obama refused to support a voucher program in Washington D.C. for other families who would have liked to send their children to private schools rather than to the notorious Washington public schools. He thinks nothing about insisting that poor children be subsidized so that they can have the same health care as his children, but then will not allow them to have anything like the education his children are getting.
I hope in the future we will not hear the Obamas and their lackeys bemoan the poor conditions in the D.C. schools or the shortage of essential materials like textbooks.
With the money the President and his family have spent on overseas junkets in the past five years every student in the D.C. schools could have been provided with brand new textbooks as well as lap top computers.
The Clinton reference above calls to mind a story in the NY Times a little while ago about the financial difficulties of the Clinton foundation, the large non-profit organization set up by former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton. Apparently, the Clinton foundation has largely exceeded its budget and finds itself millions of dollars in the hole. Even though many of the Clinton family’s old political cronies are on the payroll, the Times reporter insisted that most of the staff works for sub-par wages. I guess people must count it as a privilege to be associated with the noble causes espoused by the Clintons.
Anyway, the Clinton foundation appears to be planning some major changes. Significantly, it would appear that it is planning to concentrate its future efforts on the most important cause of all: the election of Mrs. Clinton as President in 2016. Poor Bill will have to double his efforts on the speaking trail in order to bring in the additional funds necessary to fund the cause. Despite the subpar wages paid to Clinton foundation employees, I’m sure Mrs. Clinton will also bemoan American income inequality when she runs for the Presidency.
This obvious politicization of a so-called charitable organization would appear to be the latest and greatest of all the acts of self-service performed by this hypocritical couple form Arkansas in the name of humanity. Mrs. Clinton’s is now approaching her husband in craven effrontery. Her remark about the four murders in Benghazi—“what difference does it make”—will go down in history alongside her husband’s—“ I didn’t have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
After the end of his Presidency, the Clinton’s decided not to move back to Little Rock but instead settled in Chappaqua, one of the wealthiest towns in New York’s exclusive Westchester County. I suppose Mrs. Clinton’s famous book should have been titled, “It Takes a Village, as long as it’s Chappaqua.” Coincidentally, census figures indicate that about 1% of Chappaqua’s population is black or Hispanic.
It would seem that a primary qualification for a Democrat politician seeking high office must be hypocrisy. The word hypocrite means actor and it refers to someone who says one thing but does another, or who pretends to be some thing that they really are not. Al Gore attempted to succeed Bill Clinton in 2000 but failed after the most contentious election count in history. Florida got all the attention in that election but few noticed that Gore failed to carry his own home state of Tennessee. Perhaps the people of that state were better acquainted with him than the rest of us.
After his defeat in 2000 Gore became the high priest and greatest promoter of the Global Warming crusade. He claimed that the science was settled and that there was no point in even debating the issue any more. There is no need to go into how lucrative this stance has proven for this man who was already one of the richest in America to prove his hypocrisy. One only has to do a Google search for Al Gore’s Pool to discover that the large heated pool on his huge estate uses more energy in a month than the average homeowner will use in a year.
The above hypocrites can now be inducted into the Weekly Bystander’s Hall of Shame, whose motto is,
“Do what I say, but not what I do.”