Category Archives: Michelle Obama

Yuck, The Movie

A 4th grade kid wanted his parents to let him bring packed lunches to school.  The parents said no.  So the 4th grade kid violated school rules by secretly filming the meals he was served.  Then he showed his parents how reality compared to the fantasy menu posted at the Department of Education website.

He must have made an impression.  With the help of his dad, this 4th grade kid–Zachary Maxwell–has turned his footage into a documentary:  Yuck.

Of course, we’ve all known since before I was a 4th grader /cough cough! years ago/ that school lunches are generally mediocre at best.  But we also know that folks have spent lot of time, effort, and money at district, state, and federal levels in the past few years to Make It Better–nutritious, yummy, calorie-rationed food to nourish active, alert, non-obese children.

Word has got out about the sad reality of these Michelle-approved meals, here and there. However, we can’t expect the schools dependent on the National School Lunch Program to just get off their heroin federal money addiction overnight.

If the unwashed masses continue to reject what Nanny Government says is in Your Best Interest, whatever will the bureaucratic nannies do?

Ban bag lunches?

It has been proposed in England recently.  How many years do you figure are we behind Old Blighty on the progress of nanny statism?  And did anyone ever get around to slapping the hand of the North Carolina nanny that took a girl’s packed lunch away from her last year?

Anyway, this film is just dripping with Awesome Sauce, guys.  (PS. I found this movie via

UPDATE:  I’m having trouble embedding the video.  For now you’ll have to click on one of the links below.  Sorry!  If any of know a trick for embedding Vimeo stuff, let me know.


If Revenge is a Winning Campaign Platform

. . . then we are losing the culture war far worse than I realized.

I see a lot of “we’ll keep fighting” tweets on my Twitter feed.  Lovely sentiments from tireless patriots.

Many conservative civilians see the 2012 election as just another battle in the never-ending political war.  They are moving on, setting their sights on the bigger picture.  I am grateful for that tenacity, for their imperviousness to the affects of this defeat.

I don’t share the sentiment though.

I am Milspouse.  The president is my husband’s boss.

This election, and every election, effects us all, yes.  Very yes.  The military is exhibit numero uno, and I’m not even talking about the budgetary effects (hello sequestration).  I’m talking about the effect on morale.

The effect is huge–beyond description, which is saying a lot for a gal who loves describing things.  I’ve seen it firsthand, the way morale swings on a dime–well, really on a change-of-command ceremony.

This effect on morale translates into a very immediate change for the NoOne family.  Today, we go from “maybe you can stay in for the long haul and shoot for that extra promotion” to “maybe you can get to the bare minimum and punch out.”

Maybe Hubs can get to the bare minimum–if his conscience, political correctness, and budget cuts don’t interfere.


Even if he does, will the federal government be solvent enough to make good on the retirement benefits it promised?

I dunno.

In the meantime, all I can think about are the years when we didn’t establish roots.  We didn’t become part of a community.  We didn’t help a church grow.  We didn’t make improvements on real estate.  We didn’t learn how to grow a garden and preserve the fruits.  We didn’t protect our interests.  We put the nation’s interest before our own.

How much longer can we do that?  I sure can’t keep fighting for the big picture after Obama’s reelection.  The smaller picture–my family’s future–is weightier.  My posts will probably reflect this shift in priorities.

The establishment of roots.  Preservation and protection of assets.  Education of my children.  These are the priorities now.  The fair citizens of Idiocracy can water their crops with sports drinks, for all I care.

A hiatus is probably in order.

I’m not quitting.

Just refocusing.

Best wishes and prayers for all my readers.

Disturbing Report

. . . is the title of the latest DCCC spam.  Ha, ha!  Share and enjoy:

“Linda —

I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday’s Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.

There’s no spinning that number. It’s a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.

And that’s not all. Since the VP announcement, Romney’s campaign has brought in over 70,000 donations from his Tea Party base.

We’ve got to step up our game and mobilize our supporters — starting right now.

Donate $3 or right now to help us rally our base around President Obama’s agenda >>

Listen to what one Republican supporter said about Paul Ryan: “I love him…He’s going to excite the Tea Party and get them on board…”

We can’t let the Republicans claim the momentum. Donate $3 or whatever you can:


Brynne Craig
DCCC Field Director”

Via Rogue on Twitter I see that I’m not the only one to notice.  So.  How bad is this “enthusiasm gap?”  Hard to say, but incoming photos and reports are heartening.

Here’s my attempt to compare the enthusiasm of both sides, using images available on the net.

Folks waiting for the Romney/Ryan Rally in Mooresville, North Carolina on Sunday August 12th (via Legal Insurrection):

Folks waiting for the Council Bluffs, Iowa Presidential appearance today, Monday August 13th (via a person on Twitter):

More photos of Romney/Ryan are available at the Legal Insurrection link.  My Google image search did not bring up any better photos of the President’s Council Bluffs crowd, though.  USA Today’s article used an old photo from earlier this year.  Annoying.  The New York Times used an image from today, but it is more artful than informing.

I was hoping for a more cut-and-dry comparison, as in tumbleweeds v. packed seats, but still.  The Obama campaign is clearly suffering from crowd-size anxiety.  The DCCC spam alone speaks volumes.  Also, there’s the blustering over crowd size at Obama’s Gen44 fundraiser.

Perhaps more comparisons might be available after Obama’s Oskaloosa and Waterloo events in Iowa tomorrow, August 14th, and after Paul Ryan’s Tuesday August 15 14 event in Lakeland, Colorado.

UPDATE:  Corrected date above.

Could be interesting.

In the meantime, here’s a gratuitous shot of the First Lady with Gwennie-Gwen Stefani yesterday, wearing the attire they sported at the No Doubt singer’s fundraiser.

This look seems more flattering than many.  Still, is that another boob belt?

“The Support They Have Earned”

Joining Forces is a national initiative that mobilizes all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.”

Now, about those cushy low Tricare fees . . . we haven’t earned those, I reckon:

“Once again, we see that Obama’s supposed devotion to military families–a cause purportedly dear to the First Lady’s heart–does not extend beyond using military families as political props . . . .”

Sigh.  I hate complaining when the particular federal teat from which my family happens to feed threatens to dry up a bit.  I understand that our paycheck is dependent upon the earnings of hard-working American taxpayers.

But I’ve also heard what it’s like when those that gave their all come home to nationalized healthcare.  And then I learn that “The Obama administration ostensibly wants to help the Pentagon save money; the real motive is to make TRICARE less attractive than costlier Obamacare exchanges.”

So then I know that our President would prefer to dump wounded American military members into an American NHS.

It makes perfect sense, really.  As things stand now, there are concrete benefits to traditional civilian healthcare insurance:  choice of doctors (particularly when compared to Tricare Prime), continuity of care, and competitive market forces.  The only thing that makes Tricare Prime attractive?  Oh yeah, the low fees and copays.

So . . . if the Obama Administration doesn’t want anyone to have those traditional, concrete benefits of choice, continuity, and competitive market forces . . . what’s the point of giving those pesky military members a lower price than the rest of the peasants?

And really, if the whole nation must suffer the consequences of IPAB and the rest of Obamacare, why shouldn’t the military do the same?

I’m not surprised.  Shoot, I thought President Obama would gut military services a lot quicker than he has.

Um, guys?  Could you do a military wife a favor?

Could you vote this jerk out of office before he does any more damage to the country?

Rhetorical question, of course.

UPDATE:  Here’s a better explanation of the situation:

“Essentially, Barack Hussein Obama would rather force military families to partake in Obamacare welfare-backed programs rather than using Tricare, and he had hoped to do this by tripling their premiums in just 5 years.

All the while, the report states that Obama leaves his true friends, the ‘unionized civilian defense workers’, unscathed by tax and premium hikes. . . .”

My Mental War

Recently, Missy and I debated whether Obama spoke out of ignorance or calculation when he said that overturning his healthcare law would be “unprecedented.”

Today I find myself mentally debating this question again, this time about Hilary Rosen’s “never worked a day in her life” schtick.

Was it a gaffe, in which she let the mask slip?  Or was it calculated to distract us from The Real Issue?

I wrestle with this mental debate a lot, and I can never truly make up my mind.  Neither answer satisfies my rather unfortunate urge to understand these people because either way, the truth is unsettling.

Take Ms. Rosen’s case, for example.  Either she is disdainful of women who (if they are “rich enough” to have the “luxury” of the choice) decide not to work, or she is willing to say anything with a straight face if it will benefit her political party.

Which is it?  And did you notice how clever that little limitation is?  The disdain is reserved only for the rich stay-at-home moms, ‘natch.  Disparaging the opinions of all stay-at-home moms would be beyond the pale, even for the most leftist of the left.

Of course, this limitation only works if it’s true.  First, it must be true that rich persons cannot understand the difficulties of the poor.  In other words, there is no such thing as empathy in Ms. Rosen’s world.

Second, it must be true that staying home is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.  And oh, looky, right on cue, the President enters stage left with his ridiculous claim that they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home.  (Never-you-mind about the First Lady’s opinion.  That was way back in 2007 when she said that staying home makes her ill.)

Do you know what?

I’m tired of wondering whether these people are actually thick enough to believe the ridiculous things they say.

Is it purely partisan political hackery?  Or do they really believe that only the rich can live comfortably on one income?  If so, then the Obamas and the Rosens may as well live on the moon, they are so far out of touch.  Come on over to my house, guys.  Meet me and all my stay-at-home mom buddies.  We exist.  None of us are even the teensiest bit rich.

Oh, no.  See what I’m doing?  Mentally debating the “ignorance v. calculation” question.  Again!  I may need professional help.

It’s just . . . I’m confused.  I can’t even keep up with the various lines of reasoning.  Does the left believe there is a real Republican War on Women?  (In which women are dying!  Dying!  Because evil conservatives are killing them during childbirth!)

Or not?  Because we have Ms. Rosen saying the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention.

Wait.  Is it really . . . Obama’s War on Women?

Okay.  I guess I’m done.  I thought I’d have something more meaningful to say about The Left and The Right and The Staying Home and The Mommy Wars, which is normally like crack to my little brain.

Yet, here I am too far into a post to just delete it, and with nothing more meaningful to add than this:  it doesn’t matter what we say anymore.  We’d probably be better off not responding at all.

Ann Kane at The American Thinker says it best:

“Wouldn’t it be cool if he next time the Left entices us with some manufactured crisis, we just ignore it and continue on with exposing what’s really going on?”

UPDATE:  John Malcolm takes a stance opposite from Ann Kane, and his argument (via Red State) is quite effective:

“Contrary to what a lot of folks on our side are saying these attacks are far more important to defend against than obsessing over Romney’s position on Afghanistan or the capital gains tax because this election is not going to be fought over issues and ideas. . . .  Obama . . . doesn’t have issues and he doesn’t have accomplishments so all that is left to him is to tear down Romney.

If he can convince you that Romney is a cross between Scrooge McDuck and Moe Howard who adheres to a very strange set of religious beliefs then he wins.”

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative.  Hop on over there, too.  You know you want to!

It’s Gonna Be A Good Day, Tater.

First, Weiner’s ex-district elected a Republican for the first time since forever ago.

Then, comes Great New Material for Mockery:

Instant hilarity has ensued in twitter feeds and comment threads.  Somebody at ABC tried to give Attack Watch a positive spin, but even folks at the Washington Post are smacking their foreheads.

Get on over to Attack Watch, and sign up to Report an Attack. Out of patriotic duty, I signed up and reported my own humble blog site, as well as the First Lady’s attempt to make her husband look bad.

You just can’t make up stuff like this.   Iowahawk tweets it best:

“I’m grateful to live in a country where the totalitarians are so hilariously inept.”

This parody (via Hot Air) is chockfull of mockery-goodness, too:

Better than finding M&Ms in the folds of your jowl skin.

Meet Bob Mack and Chew the Fat about the First Lady

He’s over at Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead.  Apparently, he only just set up shop in August of this year, but he’s already got way more page views than I do.  Annoying!

Alas, he is funny and reminds me of my step-dad-in-law, so I have to give ’em a pass.

He’s following Michelle Obama’s War On Fat, and he’s not even making the easy jokes about how maybe that battle should start . . . closer to home.  A funny cartoon is included, so go check it out.

I’ve followed the First Lady’s pet project too.  Back in May, her Obesity Taskforce issued its Big Report, and I said:

“No amount of “task forcing” or other governmental meddling will change my children’s habits.  Only I have the ability to turn off the Wii and toss the rug rats into the yard for exercise.  Only I decide whether they eat McDonald’s or steamed fish and brussel sprouts.

Folks on the left are lauding the fact that the recommendations are voluntary, not mandated.  Even though, by golly, this President has on taken the insurance, banking, and auto industries, and he’ll take on those evil peddlers of fast and junk food too! 

To those on the left, I must ask:  really?  Is nothing a private, individual decision? (I mean, other than abortion, of course.) “

You know, fat seems a pretty personal thing to me.  It is attached to your body.

Thus, the First Lady’s “war on obesity” is basically a war with her husband’s own subjects constituents.

The latest aspect of this war is the signing of The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307).  I have not digested this new law thoroughly enough to comment on it.  However, I did find an interesting opinion from something called the American Association of School Administrators.

Sounds like a government-friendly enough bunch, to be sure.  Most school administration-y types aren’t rabid right-wing extremists, are they?

Yet even they don’t like the new law.  In a recent letter to the House they wrote:

“AASA is opposed to the intervention of federal government in local school district budgeting decisions.  Setting lunch and breakfast prices and establishing indirect rates are local decisions and should remain that way.  AASA also objects to fines for violating program requirements.  No other federal education program has a fine provision, and we question why they are thought necessary . . . .”  (emphasis mine)

Oh, they are so nice to give the federal folks the benefit of the doubt, but not I.  How often is power used because it can be, not because it must be?

In a November letter to Congress the AASA wrote:

“School districts simply request that Congress pay for the costs of the federal free and reduced priced school meals, and refrain from imposing new federal requirements particularly in this economic environment.  Much attention has been directed to the use of food stamp funds (SNAP) to pay for or offset the cost of the Senate’s Child Nutrition bill.  Unfortunately, little attention has been focused on the drain of local school district funds to pay for or offset the continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced-priced school meals.”  (emphasis mine)

Their mild-mannered protests went quite unheard.

I wonder what’s next.