Rotating Header Image


Sometimes, everyone seeks out a little fantasy to escape what can be tedious or worrisome burdens throughout a week. We read fiction, we watch movies (more fiction, by about 99.99%), we draw pictures, we paint walls, we engage in sports (a form of fiction: I can do this, I can do this), we sit there and our eyes glaze over because our thoughts are roaming hopes and dreams in weaving fantasy environs encouraging us on to strive more.

But when we are surrounded by “publications” and media otherwise that’s literally — quite, quite — fiction but poses as opinion or, worse, some sort of “commentary representing a higher authority” (fashion magazines, “women’s” magazines that are comprised of nothing more than unknown sources, for the most part, “advising” others on how to live their lives in minute details and unreliable courses of remedies, the “entertainment industry” fare that is nothing more than more of that unreliable source-advice naming with some attempt at finality who it is who should be admired or not), when we encounter publications and other media such as these that declare definitives that are utterly implausibleand we know it as individuals based upon our own perceptions — it is not only tedious, it fuels the unreality that surrounds us, we question the source/s (as a reasonable person should).

220wde_MichelleObama_Glaring Figures, then, individuals or groups held up as grand or as icons or representatives-from-a-higher-than-you-are realm, become laughable. Because most people — MOST people — can individually recognize this implausible venue as also the implausible premises involved: when a clearly ugly, detestable cad is named “Great, Great!,” most people know they’re being lied to and reject the source as, well, a liar.

The Leftwing media has glommed onto Michelle Obama (as also her cadly husband) as some sort of “beauty” and, worse, heroically admirable beauty, when MOST people who can read and/or hear for themselves can very easily determine those declarations to be utterly and completely nincompoopishly ridiculous: obviously, the woman, Michelle Obama, is not attractive (physically or psychologically), she’s not admirable (her lifetime of rallying for anti-social and often anti-human goals is despicable), her statements are a wreck revealing a confused and undesirably altered mind, she’s self-indulgent beyond even the excessive margin, her pet projects advocate the deaths of human lives — her biggest fund-raising push is to raise money and support for partial birth abortions, including more partial birth abortions — she’s gone worldwide glaring and pushing (verbally and sometimes, physically) at Allies and other nations in general (her disasterously demanding, condescending “speech” recently regarding the Olympics-for-Chicago, which went over like the ill-mannered lead balloon it was), she can’t seem to dress herself appropriately, even with the employ of (what’s the count up to now) twenty-three “assistants,” including one hired on to paint her face and redraw her eyebrows (it is extremely difficult to accept that an adult female with even a tad of decent intelligence could not be able to learn how to — and then do it independently — apply a pleasing cosmetic routine to her own face but Michelle Obama cannot [rather, likely, will not — someone should eventually ask her why she won’t]), her physical appearance is bizarre to a point of being utterly weird while we are supposed to accept that this woman engages in frequent physical fitness routines thanks to the largesse she now has available to her in the White House yet she appears even more misshapen and bizarre as ever she has even before all this access to largesse

220wde_MichelleObama_GlaringAgain Her academic history, such that we the public have had access to, involves scathing, resentful, even emittered animosities about “White people” she seems to have convinced herself of years earlier are somehow to blame for all her individual quirks, resentments and whatever else her general negativity involves.

And yet the public is told often and repeatedly by the Leftwing media that Michelle Obama is “beautiful” and “attractive” and whatever else the apparent lie-campaign is, while the public can easily recognize that we’re being lied to in this regard (among others but the subject here is this woman as the media is hyping her): if Michelle Obama was met on any public street in any Median Town, U.S.A. or likely globally, the last thing most persons would assume was that she was “attractive” except in, likely, an applied sense if she was wearing those awful sparkling-rhinestonery-rocks around her neck that she wore to the Presidential Inauguration at 11:00 A.M. on a morning in D.C.

I mean by that, that some people regard highly decorative affects to represent “beauty”: if a person has certain highly decorative affects applied to themselves, a certain perspective-affected individual will be captivated by those affects and not observe who is draped in them. Thus, it’s a distraction for people who do not observe substance, behavior, values, ideals, goals and elective associations, but for those who are captivated by affects, it can be “stunning” or even regarded as “beautiful” when a person is draped with affects — to others, it’s annoying because it’s an obvious effort to distract by he or she who is draped.

That means, those focused on the substance of a person reject most people as to the “beauty” factor when they present with draped affects — it indicates falsehood, an attempt to deceive at it’s worst extent, or sometimes just foolishness. So it’s not beauty, it’s bad taste.

220wde_MichelleObama_GlaringAgainAgain And enter Glamour magazine (named badly at this point): naming Michelle Obama “Woman of the Year.”

Michelle Obama “Woman of the Year”. Why? For hiring a live-with makeup “artist” to apply her eyebrows daily? For needing to be dressed and even then it’s an ongoing, failed project? For advocating for partial birth abortions? For behaving like a brute with Allies and condescending all over the world?

The part I find most offensive — all said and done — is Michelle Obama’s running through the White House lawn recently, barefooted and badly dressed yet again (recurring bomber-belt around her chest) before children invited from public schools in D.C. who obviously are going to be too hyper-complimented at just being there at the White House to NOT declare they’re happy with the behavior they’re exposed to there.

220wde_MichelleObama_Raging Michelle Obama, whose message to those children, yelled out in her “nasally” imitation of who she performed as “a child” was that she “(doesn’t) want the whining, we want you to eat it, just eat it!” when referring to vegetables in one’s diet.

There are few things worse than an adult who openly disrespects other human beings when they are children. There’s no excuse for it, it’s not entertaining, it does not represent humor, it’s entirely a disgusting display by anyone who does so.

Children are most often far too vulnerable with adults to object when being mistreated, disrespected, made the stuff of jokes. They’re far too vulnerable to mind but I mind for them, as do many other adults.

But there we had an adult woman in the White House, of all places, running amuk on the White House lawn, doing anything because she could, behaving like a mad-woman on a barbaric plain before the captive children of the invading hoard in need of punishment, this woman, Michelle Obama, yelling “we don’t want the whining, we want you to eat it, just eat it!

Whining, indeed.


Dot-Black-SML Read more:

Of Course. Michelle Obama Wins Woman of Year Award From Glamour Mag
Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 11:54 AM – Jim Hoft

…if Barack can win a Men’s Health Award for “Top Fittest Male” (while smoking), a Grammy for spoken word, and a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing…

Then it’s only fair that Michelle takes home a prize or two as well.

Glamour Magazine features First Lady Michelle Obama on the cover of their Women of the Year issue that pays tribute to courageous and inspiring women who are changing the world.

We wouldn’t want Michelle to get upset now, would we?

Reuters reported, via Free Republic (Read it all…)

Dot-Black-SML These are the monsters among our humanity: deeming an individual whose primary focus in her professional life has been the promotion of partial-birth abortions, the denial of medical care to those she deemed undesirable while employed by a Chicago hospital (apparently, to perform just such an function), who ridicules youth and promotes their service to a Communist ideology (“service” she calls it, “mentoring” she regards herself as being engaged in)…these are the monsters among our humanity, adults such as Michelle Obama who ridicule the very worth of human life by seeking to eradicate it while applying illustrious words to the deeds and goal in order to manipulate the vulnerable among us. Monstrous.

Dot-Black-SML Speaking of Monstrous, there’s this drunken stupidity from the likes of Bob Schieffer at CBS about Michelle Obama’s shoeless-run-with-hoola-hoop through the White House grass, while yelling in her “best nasal imitation” of the children she was ridiculing while so engaged.

These are but two examples among many from the Leftwing as they proclaim the monstrous to represent the beautiful, and the beautiful to be the enemy. Attacking our very language is but the first toe into the door.

Dot-Black-SML More/Related:

Michelle Obama’s Partial-Birth Abortion Fundraising Letter

Michelle Obama’s Early Militant Racism Revealed (her thesis from Princeton University reveals immense racism)

HYPN-O-SIS (exposing the real Michelle Obama)


And, last but not least, this dreadfully wretched bit of propaganda from The Washington Post, complete with statements quoting David Axelrod’s “rebranding Michelle Obama” and Valerie Jarrett‘s reliably crafty, sneaky anti-American sick fandom.

Footnote: Take a look at how Leftwing media, in these article search results, tries so very hard to push Axelrod’s “rebranding Michelle Obama” message (deeming her racially-resentful if not hatefully racist thesis to be, rather, simply-blanched, to be “on racial-division” and “on the racial divide”) while ignoring who wrote specifically what, and most importantly, failing to address what she wrote and what it represents about the author for having written it.

C O M M E N T S : now closed