The FLOTUS Is Snooty

A reporter for a small town paper removed an item she had written in a column after the paper received a call from the White House asking that it be removed. The White House was worried it made the First Lady of the US look “snooty.”

Amory Gutierrez of the Pleasanton Weekly in California wrote a piece about Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. Guitierrez wrote that she did not get to ride in Marine One but she got a VIP tour. She then wrote that the First lady did not speak to the pilots but acknowledged them by eye contact. This sentence received the attention of the White House because of the concern that it made the First Lady look snooty.

I do not know the context in which it was written but I think that it meant that when Michelle Obama boarded she did not talk just acknowledged them by making eye contact to let them know she was boarding. I could be off base here and maybe she does not talk to them. In any event, why change the story if it is an accurate portrayal of the events? Because the Obama regime likes to control the media (Socialists like to do that) and it likes to control the message.

Gutierrez removed the item because she said it was not a big enough deal to argue over and that might be true but every little bit that is given, more is taken. This is not the first time the Obama regime has tried to control the press. Recently, a reporter was banned from the White House pool and the paper was forbidden from discussing the incident (the Constitution means nothing to them) which it promptly did (good for it). Let us not forget how it has tried to manipulate and exclude FOX.

Gutierrez sums it up with this:

She added, “I thought it was interesting, though, that the [White House] was concerned enough about image to contact a little weekly paper in Pleasanton.” Daily Caller

She is right. Why worry about a little paper where it might have gone unnoticed? Instead the story now has national attention because it is at the Daily Caller and was on the front page of Drudge. That will likely get more attention than an article in a small paper even if the article made its way around the internet from that paper. The DC and Drudge get a lot of traffic.

The FLOTUS is snooty. She feels entitled, thinks that she should tell you how to feed your kids, and sends her kids to a snooty school.

I have no problem with her being snooty because that is who she is but I do have a problem with the White House trying to mold the image and dictate the story.

In any event, she has every right to be snooty. She is married to the smartest man in the world who was able to play nine holes of golf, hop a plane to Pakistan, board a helicopter, rappel into a compound under heavy fire, fight his way to the top floor of a house and then shoot and kill Osama bin Laden, change clothes and give a briefing to America, and then take the body to a US aircraft carrier, prepare it for burial, say a eulogy, tip the board and send the body to the bottom of the sea and then fly back to the US in time to have breakfast with the kids.

At least that is how his sycophants are portraying it…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

31 Responses to “The FLOTUS Is Snooty”

  1. Adam says:

    “Why worry about a little paper where it might have gone unnoticed? ”

    Update from the First Lady’s people:

    Our office has never interacted with the Pleasanton paper, and not knowing the story existed, we never asked for such a line to be removed.

    Sounds to me like this was a small town news paper just trying to get some free press.

    “At least that is how his sycophants are portraying it…”

    President Obama stopped bin Laden. It’s clearly still bugging your side to death and you can’t accept it.

    • Blake says:

      Adam, I don’t give a rat’s ass who got that raghead- you just try and change the subject.
      I do not doubt that flotus is snooty, and entitled and bratty- just judging from her attitude on the news, she is what I would call “high maintenence”, and those types are to be avoided at all costs.

    • Blake says:

      Obama dithered for almost a year, for God’s sake- the CIA knew in Aug. 2010, and only began to seriously “work” on a plan in Feb. 2011- so why take so long? Time to “bump” up the poll numbers?
      And while I willl say that he made the correct decision, I think he did so grudgingly-

  2. Big Dog says:

    You wrote that as if the pronouncement from the FLOTUS folks means it is the truth. How do you know her people are not lying? Besides genius, the story says that someone from the White House called not someone from the FLOTUS entourage.

    Perhaps you have trouble with the difference? I would also like to know how no one interacted with them if they were there for a tour of the aircraft. Just ponder that while you play with your belly button.

    Repaet after me, our soldiers stopped Bin Laden. I also told you but I will type slower. I am happy he was killed. I am disgusted at the way your side is portraying it.

    But I can understand it. You put this little boy with no experience in the job and then he screw stuff up, bows to everyone and displays weakness. A bunch pf people tell him, hey Bin Laden is here, definitely here and we can get him and you will get good ratings for it and people won’t think you are weak. We have 2012 to worry about.

    So he says do it and he is the one who killed the guy.

    And Adam, just because you keep saying it will not change the truth. Not bugged he is dead. Bugged at how you guys are playing it considering how you felt about Bush when he was hunting for the guy.

    I expect it. Liberals are wretched pukes of maggots who suck slime out of sewer drains and poke ice picks in their ears. Liberals are the scum of the earth. In fact, OBL alive would be a good trade off to end liberals and liberalism.

    No go play with your toys while dreaming about your little boy leader.

    • Adam says:

      “Besides genius, the story says that someone from the White House called not someone from the FLOTUS entourage.”

      That is one plausible situation. More likely this newspaper just made it up. The simple answer to why the White House would care about the article is they did not care and this whole thing is made up.

      “Bugged at how you guys are playing it considering how you felt about Bush when he was hunting for the guy.”

      Osama is dead. Bush failed. Obama succeeded. One more reason Bush was a miserable failure. Obama’s list of accomplishments just keeps growing.

      • Big Dog says:

        You really are delusional. How did this paper make up the VIP tour of the helicopter? It is more plausible to you that a newspaper made it up rather than someone not in the FLOTUS group called. Yep, delusional. And this from a guy who believed the faked Dan Rather memos.

        Bush’s policies allowed us to get him. If we followed what Obama wanted to do then OBL would still be alive. Oh yes, that list of accomplishments. Obama is a failure…

      • Big Dog says:

        Our military succeeded. Let me ask, if he escaped the military and made it out would you and your libs be blaming Obama or the “inept” military for letting him get away.

        never mind, we all know the answer. Obama can do no wrong in your eyes.

        • Adam says:

          “How did this paper make up the VIP tour of the helicopter?”

          I’m not saying the paper made up the tour. I’m suggesting they made up the story of the contact from the White House in order to build up an otherwise useless tour story. The paper was probably one of dozens of outlets that were part of the tour though. I’ll say the thing could very well have happened right as the paper said it did but given how little the actions make any sense and your side’s history of jumping the gun on so many attacks on Obama I’d say keep your retraction tools handy.

          “And this from a guy who believed the faked Dan Rather memos.”

          Don’t rewrite history. I never saw much about the memos. The story of an AWOL Bush started long before Dan Rather. Your side used Dan Rather’s failure to cover over what little real evidence there was. In the end we’ll never know for sure and it doesn’t matter now anyway.

          “Let me ask, if he escaped the military and made it out would you and your libs be blaming Obama or the ‘inept’ military for letting him get away.”

          I doubt we’d ever know it happened. Most likely there’s been several of such raids over the years that found nothing of significance or something so important that it was worth keeping a secret on. You can play on the hypothetical with this but we know how it did turn out in reality. Obama succeeded where Bush failed.

          • Adam says:

            Actually I’m probably wrong about the tour. Seems a little more private that I was imagining when you look at the photos posted.

          • Adam says:

            Actually I now believe the story did happen, just not for the reasons suggested by the Daily Caller and repeated by your side.

            Gina Channell-Allen details in the comments of the article that the request was more related to security than it was to how the First Lady was perceived. That makes logical sense. The Daily Caller simply published an e-mail that was meant to be private in order to blow up the story. I was right that this was all about press but I was wrong about who it was that wanted it.

      • Big Dog says:

        Well, if Bush failed it looks like Obama failed. He did not want to do it even though Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper all wanted to. Valerie Jarrett did not want to go because failure would look bad for a man whose numbers and credibility were already low with the American public. As part of a delay Obama told Panetta that he could do a ground op if the situation allowed figuring it would delay (more planning). Obama did not know that Panetta already had the plan together and he gave the go. They tired one last time to get Obama buy off but Jarrett said no (who is the leader again). Panetta got the opening and gave the go order.

        Obama did not give the order, Panetta did when Obama tried to stall. Obama never bought into any of it and did not know it was going down. Jarrett and Obama were going to use Panetta as a scapegoat if he came up with a plan that went bad but since he had one they did not know about, he went with it.

        Using your logic, Bush failed, Obama failed, and Panetta succeeded. Once again the indecision he is known for comes to the front. Obama is not fit to be Commander in Chief. Let’s put Panetta in the White House.

        It seemed strange to me that Obama would play golf only to cut it short to go back to the WH to watch the op. Now we know why. He did not know it was going down. They went to the golf course and got him and briefed him. He and Jarrett wanted some way to stop it but could not. Panetta had left them in the dark long enough to prevent them from aborting the mission. That is why he played golf, he did not know.

        You can read it here. Obama is a failure by your standard.

        • Adam says:

          I wondered how long it would take this latest bit of right wing nonsense to make it’s way to your blog. You of course base this on the unsubstantiated word of an anonymous “insider”. Nutty Pam Geller has been kicking around this conspiracy for days and it’s not going to stick unless somebody can put a name or a face to the person actually making these statements. Sooner or later you’re just going to have to come to terms with the fact that Obama is responsible for killing Osama where Bush failed.

      • Blake says:

        Bari would be holding nothing but his flaccid member in his hand if not for the military AND CIA infrastructure he had put into place, so Bari Soetoro should kiss Bush’s feet that he was given the opportunity to do as little as he did- I am sure it took guts to sit in Washington and give the go-ahead, while SEAL TEAM SIX did the heavy lifting.

  3. victoria says:

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/
    “Squandering Our Victory”

    Sooner or later you are going to have to come to terms with what an incompetant boob is up in this White House.

    • Adam says:

      Strange that an incompetent boob just keeps coming out on top in every situation though, right? The death of Osama won’t save Obama’s presidency single handed but it does add to the list of his administration’s accomplishments that my side can crow about when we face off against one of the putzes your side rolls out against Obama starting this year.

      • Big Dog says:

        It is only a matter of opinion about accomplishment. You see, what you see as an accomplishment, others will not. And accomplishing something that people do not approve of is not a good thing. The word accomplish is not necessarily equal to good. Hitler accomplished the eradication of millions of Jews but it was not good. There are plenty of things that they will not want to crow about because they know it is not good.

        If the economy is still in the tank he will have a real problem and the $5 a gallon gas he is causing will be a problem.

        Bush accomplished a lot of things (and much of it helped Obama find Osama) and a lot of people view what he accomplished as good. You and your peeps view it as bad. It is a matter of perspective. Any bump Obama gets for telling the military to kill Osama will be short lived. OBL did not affect the lives of people the way gas and food prices do.

        I understand your need to call people putzes. Most of the folks who would run have real world business experience and have run something. Since you come from genes that require dependance on government and taking from those who work hard, it is understandable that you would hold people who have accomplished something in life, independent of government, with such disdain.

        For any person (or putz as you call them) on the right who has announced or is thinking about it you can come up with a negative thing to say but one thing you cannot say is that they have no business experience or real world experience. Obama has none of that. He has never run anything of consequence or in the private sector. He has always lived off the gubmint.

        • Adam says:

          “You see, what you see as an accomplishment, others will not.”

          That much is clear. Obama’s approval has remained pretty strong for his whole term because people do not see his accomplishments in the light your side does.

          “If the economy is still in the tank he will have a real problem…”

          Still in the tank? It’s recovering. Gas is a problem that will hurt Obama but not because of anything he’s done.

          “Since you come from genes that require dependence on government…”

          That’s a low blow even for you. I come from multiple generations of hard working, tax paying Americans, thank you very much. It’s just that when you see the kind of poverty that folks remain in even when they work hard and try to do the best they can you start to understand how important social spending is to families. Your side has to project an image of lazy, free loaders sucking up tax dollars in order to justify your disdain for poor people and your propensity to continue rewarding the richest Americans for being super wealthy.

          “He has never run anything of consequence or in the private sector.”

          I understand how you could think we need to shy away from electing highly educated professional individuals like the Clinton’s or the Obama’s in favor of slackers like Bush that have had plenty of experience running corporations into the ground. After all your side’s goal is to down government in the bath tub. You accomplish that by backing people who mismanage the federal government into near total collapse like Bush did.

          • Big Dog says:

            HAHAHAHAHA

            You are funny. You do realizer that Bush has 2 Master’s degrees and had higher grades than Kerry, who you supported, do you not?

            We do not know if he is more or less educated than Obama because we have never seen Obama’s grades so until we actually see them your supposition that he is highly educated is speculative and the inference that he is more educated than Bush is as well.

            So Democrat policies like the CRA and increased spending on Social Programs that drove us into a ditch are Bush’s fault?

            People from all parties had a hand in this but it was Democrat policies that were the catalyst.

            As for the poor, there wil always be poor and the poor in America would be rich in many other countries. Our poor have TVs and cars, air conditioners and places to live.

            There will always be people scraping by because they had no education (thanks to another government program) and they will have jobs where they do not pay taxes and fail to improve themselves.

            You lie about making the rich richer. The rich pay more, they pay more than enough in fact, and they should not have to keep giving more to make a poor guy better off. My family is working class and we scraped by and my parents were never able to buy their own home.

            But they put food on the table, sacrificed to pay for us to go to Catholic School, and made sure we had a place to live and food to eat. THEY NEVER TOOK A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.

            How about if the people who are poor stop buying luxuries like cell phones and big screen TVs with cable and all the trimmings and save a little each week, which everyone can do. Even $5 a week adds up. Oh wait, they need that for smokes and beer.

            No, we do not have disdain for the poor. The truly poor who have nothing are provided for but that does not mean we should make them rich. The poor who game the system, and there are lots of them (Democrats, mostly) need to be called out.

            There is nothing wrong with getting a job and improving one’s life through hard work and education. You did that. You did not want to live the life of your family before you so you went to college (you are welcome by the way) and got an education. Lots of folks can get better educated.

            If someone is poor because he refused to go to school or pay attention then that is his problem and we should not pay his way. The world needs garbage collectors too.

            • Adam says:

              “You do realize that Bush has 2 Master’s degrees and had higher grades than Kerry, who you supported, do you not?”

              Kerry is an idiot. I didn’t support him because of his brains. He was a terrible candidate.

              “…until we actually see them your supposition that he is highly educated is speculative and the inference that he is more educated than Bush is as well.”

              False. We don’t know an exact value for grades but he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School which means GPA was very high. The MBA is respectable for Bush but you don’t need great grades to graduate. What evidence we’ve seen is he was a C student. You don’t graduate with honors like Obama did unless your grades are outstanding, not C average.

              “How about if the people who are poor stop buying luxuries like cell phones and big screen TVs with cable and all the trimmings and save a little each week, which everyone can do.”

              Let me remind you that you have absolutely no evidence to back up your view that poor people buy too many luxuries. It’s anecdotal at best, complete nonsense at worst.

              “No, we do not have disdain for the poor.”

              Right after you once again stated how poor people are poor because they buy cell phones and booze. Right. No disdain whatsoever.

          • Blake says:

            Adam, there will ALWAYS be poor people- and some of them must like it there, because they constantly make the wrong decisions- but that is a part of what makes our country what it is- we have the freedom to make bad decisions.
            This culls the herd, and (hopefully) keeps the liberal population in check- but lately, after being given govt. issued “soft” helmets, the liberals have spawned another dependent generation.
            I always have to laugh at my old hippie friends who are having trouble coming to grips with the fact that their liberal philosophy is a house of cards, and has failed miserably. The expression on their faces when they finally comprehend this is PRICELESS!

          • Blake says:

            Let me see- Goldman Sachs, GMC,BoA,Chase, Chrysler,-yea- your guy has a freakin’ stellar record when he trys to play “businessman”, not to mention the FMs and the housing bubble that your side has to answer for- “Oh, let’s put everyone in a house, regardless of whether they can pay, or have a job, or even the mental acuity to understand what they are doing- housing is a RIGHT.” Yeah, right- your side makes up “rights” that there never were and never should be-

      • Blake says:

        Coming out on top? Where? That man is the most incompetent POS (sorry for bad-mouthing POS’s everywhere) there has ever been, and it is a good thing that he was basically out of the loop on the planning, or it would have been another “Jiminy Carter Moment”.

        • Adam says:

          The problem is you think what he did has been wrong. Every success by Obama has made you more deranged. Obama campaigned on what he has done so far. When a president campaigns on a certain number of promises and then accomplishes many of them that’s success. The same could be said for President Bush but I doubt you can find yourself a list of campaign promises kept by Bush that rivals Obama’s list. If it wasn’t for 9/11 the Bush would probably have ended up being a 1 term president that nobody talks about. Instead he threw out the book on 9/12 and became a war president.

  4. Eoj Trahneir says:

    George Bush killed Osama, by setting in motion the events that lead to the death of Obama…I mean Osama.
    If Washington plants a cherry tree and Lincoln picks a cherry 100 years later, who gets credit for making the cherry? Washington.
    If Lincoln makes it into a pie, who gets credit for the pie? Lincoln.
    If Osama…I mean Obama, picks up the ball and goes on the capitalize on the lead GWB left him with, like, goes on the kill about 200,000 of the diaper headed bad guys, THEN Osama…I mean Obama, can be said to have made his pie.

    But just as Clinton’s actions lead directly to 9/11, so Bush’s action resulted directly in Osama’s death this week.

    The seed didn’t fall far from the tree, did it.

  5. victoria says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/how_obama_bungled_the_aftermat.html

    In trying to steal all the limelight for himself and the left he has stolen the real victory for the military and the families of the victims and this country as a whole.

  6. Big Dog says:

    The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

    Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
    Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
    The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
    Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
    Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
    Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

    Source

    • Adam says:

      Right. So I guess the 1 out of every 4 poor Americans that have a cell phone or a wide screen TV are not poor enough for you? What about the 75% without them? Do they deserve your tax dollars or are they undeserving as well since they have air conditioners, cars, trucks, TVs, etc?

      Heritage at least has the courtesy to remind readers:

      While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty.

      I agree that poverty in reality is certainly different than poverty as depicted by some. But thinking a person isn’t poor if he or she has an air conditioner is showing disdain for the poor.

      • Blake says:

        Hey- if they have a cell phone or a wide screen, then they are not dyin’- now, we could quibble on numbers, but since I am a carpenter, I probably made less than you, Adam, and yet, my wife and I were able to raise a daughter, pay our mortgage, and get by on what Obammer would classify as poverty wages.
        And we took no gubbmint money, and I am proud of that-

  7. Big Dog says:

    Obama campaigned on doing lots of things he then ignored or did the opposite of.

    It all depends on your perspective. You think he is the most transparent and yet he will not release the photos or his school records. And I would like to see the records showing he is magna cum laude. Anyone can say it but can they prove it?

    You thought Kerry was an idiot and yet you supported him. Says a lot about you.

    • Adam says:

      “You think he is the most transparent…”

      Wrong. I think he has tried to be transparent and he certainly is more so than the Bush administration. But the most ever? Doubtful. I think most fair minded reviewers will tell you he has succeeded in some areas and failed in others. He needs to do better.

      “You thought Kerry was an idiot and yet you supported him. Says a lot about you.”

      If you think back you may remember me being more of an independent liberal back then and I didn’t consider myself a Democrat. I almost voted for someone else. In the end I did vote for Kerry but it was a vote knowing Democrats were better for the country than Republicans and that Kerry was certainly an improvement on Bush.

      “Anyone can say it but can they prove it?”

      Harvard’s college newspaper The Crimson mentions his graduation in one of their articles. This is a well known fact about Obama that Harvard has never denied despite publishing numerous articles about his time at the college.