 |
| 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.”
###
