Tags: 
Categories: 
Invited to participate in the Oscar awards ceremony by a trade association receiving $1,200,000,000 in tax credits from the government, First Lady Michelle Obama chose to surround herself with members of the United States Military who were used purely as window dressing to make the First Lady look more impressive. At no time during her remarks did Ms. Obama look at any of the members of the surrounding military or say anything to acknowledge their existence or the existence of the military generally. I kept waiting for some form of explanation for all of the decked out guests behind the First Lady, but none was ever forthcoming. I for one was suddenly cheering for Zero Dark Thirty to win the award just to see the reaction of the First Lady.
Following the broadcast I spoke to several of my friends about the odd moment of Oscar history and was surprised to find that one of my friends that was former military was furious about the misuse of the troops standing behind the Ms. Obama. There is a legal basis for his frustration. Military regulations prohibit “the wearing of a military uniform during or in connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests,” according to the Department of Defense. My friend was not alone in his anger about the President and First Lady taking advantage of a billion viewer audience to use the military for political purposes.
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Pos
Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, noted that Michelle Obama didn’t even acknowledge the military during her appearance:
She declared of the Best Picture nominees, “They reminded us that we can overcome any obstacle if we dig deep enough and fight hard enough and find the courage within ourselves.” Alas, none of the films nor her aides reminded her to mention the military, not those personnel behind her nor those serving overseas, an odd omission for the White House that nevertheless was pleased to have them arrayed behind her like, well, set decoration. (Rubin)
Rubin went on to say that the military personnel were used as nothing more than “props” for the first lady to “intrude” on American entertainment.
And a man who was once responsible for all public relations in the Department of Veterans Affairs said the use of the military may have crossed an ethical line. Ed Timperlake — a former Marine fighter pilot who served as an assistant secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs under President George H.W. Bush — told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday that using the military as “window dressing” for a commercial event almost certainly “crossed the line” into “statist propaganda.” (Daily Caller) “I thought it was unseemly,” said Timperlake, recounting his reaction while watching the Oscars. “I think the use of the service members crossed the line. Putting her up on the stage to award an Oscar is fine. However, putting uniformed military behind her is coming up, maybe perhaps crossing the line where you’re using active duty military in their dress uniform as a prop … for commercial purposes,” Timperlake said. (Daily Caller) “America should be a little bit concerned, if not more concerned,” he suggested. “When you focus on the first lady with military members behind her that have nothing whatsoever to do with the event other than to essentially provide window dressing — which is harsh, but true — I think they were up against, if not crossing the line and that’s a slippery slope I don’t think America wants to be on.”
))…
And the Blogger Razzie goes to….
The pettifogging by the right has reached new lows. The chicanery from the right is appalling.
I’m almost ashamed to admit I read this drivel in its entirety. It was worth reading for the laugh though.
The CAPTCHA was appropriate though….”EFFUM”
Get over it, Snoopy. The author is right. You really ought to have a license to show such liberal/progressive proclivities and/or to take offense at the truth.
Pettifogging is pettifogging. Inconsequential. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Your license would surely be stamped “VOID” the second before handing it over to you. But nice personal attack on alternate opinions…or is that the continued attempt at punitive censorship?
Get over others having opinions contrary to your, VOID.
Mooshelle is the most undignified, least lady-like and unsophisticated First Lady, ever. Shame on her and her Lame Duck Socialist Muslim president for exploiting the office for personal gain. Is it 2016 yet? It can’t come soon enough! They can then move to Hollywood and be close to their HollyLib buddies.
I wish my CAPTCHA would have been EFFUM!
The FLOTUS’s name is Michelle Obama, not “Mooshelle”. Referring to her as such makes you far more than undignified and unsophisticated.
The POTUS is neither Socialist nor Muslim.
Precisely what did either POTUS or FLOTUS gain personally, first assuming your false narrative of “exploited” is true?
Do you even read what you write before sending?
“Envy and jealousy are the weapons of the mediocre.”
Snoopy, your hypocrisy is tragic sometimes. With all of your name calling, you denigrate someone who modifies someone’s name? Obama may not be Muslim, but he has been extremely deferential to Muslims while appearing hostile to Jews and Christians and we flat disagree about whether he is a socialist.
We shan’t get into your hypocrisy as that would fill the page and possibly crash the server.
“MOOchelle” is hardly a “modification” of the FLOTUS’s name. It is a total disrespect for both the person and the office. And you claim not to be obtuse. Pffft. Defend the hatred til your last breath.
Continue to push the “socialist” narrative all you want. Intelligent people know otherwise.
And as I have oft done, to the sound of crickets, I challenge you to show where I resorted to “name calling”. Should I start that Final Jeopardy theme on endless loop? (Remember, it’s incredibly articulate, not name calling.)
“Deferential/appearing”….HA! You crack me up!
Snoopy name calling highlights:
“It is the selectivity of the right that makes them so undesirable to the citizenry. They are even eating their own now. That should tell you everything you need to know.”
“Tags: Censorship. Conservative Bias. Hypocrisy.”
“It seems you have an odd fetish for equating liberals with death and murder. What’s up with that?”
“Kudos for being obstinate. You know what they say…absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
“There is little worse on this earth than a liar…right above the rapist and murderer.”
“Stupid memes like the “kool aid” meme do nothing to support your accusations and only serve as your attempt to censor by trying to equate me with a murderous cult leader (or maybe it’s just “drive me crazy – snicker).”
“Your castigating of me has become so vague that it can only be interpreted as vindictiveness now.”
“Do you even read what you write before sending?”
Snoopy, I simply can’t see how anyone would think that you launch personal attacks solely to silence.
Oh Geoff, Geoff, Geoof. So you equate an adept use of language with “name calling”. You’ll notice two things there. Almost none of those posts made it to the blog and not one name was called. The use of appropriate descriptive adjectives is not “name calling”, no matter how oddly you filter things.
Your personal vendetta against me and my contrary ideas are what leads you to be so defensive and so very overly-sensitive to descriptors.
And yes, I noticed how you changed your false narrative from “name calling” to “personal attacks”. Quite transparent…in nearly everything you post. I would never think of silencing your readers (not to mention I am unable, unlike you.) The entertainment value is priceless! Keep allowing others to personally attack me though. I’m a masochist as you can see.
If someone didn’t mention the word MILITARY in the title or I didn’t have past military and was a regular citizen, I would have been asking why the hell does Michelle have a bunch of waters and waitressesd from the Mumbai Hilton standing behind her in clown suits.
I always refused to wear the parade clown suits when active duty. I would wear my issued Full Dress uniform proudly. These bow tie clown suits for military are a slap in the face to all enlisted, reserves and veterans anyway.
It’s almost funny. Go look at Saddams entourage. Our military is starting to look like a dictator posse.
Wasn’t aware there was class warfare in the military. I thought all military were “better than” the rest of the lowly non-military citizenry. Wonder how the immigrant military are viewed in that elitist 1%’er organization.
Don’t pick on my typos above. I know they are there. I was trying to enter it fast enough to beat the captcha change over so I didn’t have to hit the back button.
Just click Refresh CAPTCHA 3 or 4 times before entering and submitting and you won’t lose the text. Guess ya get what ya pay for ’round here.
So snoopy hates the constitution and now proves it hates the UCMJ rules. Hmmmm. Did snoopy vote in Kenya too?
It’s your lie….tell it any way you like.
Panties, meet bunch…
I really wished that there was a full disclosure on this website, instead of half-truths and mis-information.
The Military members flanking the First Lady are indeed authorized to wear their Dress uniforms in this environment. Ofcourse, I would never expect you folks to read all of the regs, especially when you cannot go on your rampant bullshit-o-thon. FYI:
Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interest, or when engaged in off duty civilian employment.
**When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.**
When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
The venue they are standing for is not a political event, nor is it a commercial interest in which the members are attempting to make, or are submitted for any sort of financial gain. Thus this is considered a speech, and I am fairly certain that the President is a competent Authority as per SOP.
Doesn’t matter what you post here, Zeus. The fringe “ideas” here are not to be taken seriously.They’re in their own little bubble and hate is clearly their driving force, not intellectual honesty.
I’m really surprised no one has accused the FLOTUS of giving Christie cooties for sitting next to her during the Governors Ball immediately prior to her appearance on world-wide TV. You see the incessant unfounded disrespect in the comments here. They just can’t handle her popularity with the people and attempt to denigrate her at every opportunity with the most petty of “arguments”.
Sad…but oh so predictable.
You’re seriously going to contend that the Oscars – the epitome of Hollywood’s self-aggrandizement – is not commercial but instead a speech? Laughable.
And what is the commercial benefit of a surprise appearance by FLOTUS? Had it been previously advertised to draw viewers, maybe, just maybe your “argument” wouldn’t be laughable.
The regulations Zeus himself cites prohibts military uniforms to be worn in furtherance of any commercial interest, but allows them when authorized for public speeches. If you are seriously arguing that Ms. Obama gave a “speech” rather than presented an award at an entirely commercial event (rather than simply being contrarian), then yes, your argument is as laughable as Zeus’s.
Snoopy, this kind of comment is why your comments go through moderation. I at least understood your argument until you dismissed Mr. Woodard’s position as laughable. You did the same thing to me when you attacked my piece on Congressman Ellison’s post. It just makes it painful to have to respond everytime you stretch a comment from your insight to an insult. It really reduces your credibility and diminishes your perceived intellect. You are obviously an articulate smart guy but your comments often portray you to the contrary.
So it’s ok to refer to one’s argument as laughable but not for me to respond in kind. Double standard…or are you just continuing your vendetta against me personally?
You moderate (and censor) my comments because you stretch your definitions to the point of breaking.
Geoff, I’m ok with him calling my argument laughable because only a truly myopic liberal would claim that the Oscars is not a commercial event simply to say that he/she is right on their argument.
Rewriting my post and hearing what isn’t said, are ya Greg? I never said the Oscars wasn’t a commercial event. What I asked was:
“And what is the commercial benefit of a surprise appearance by FLOTUS? Had it been previously advertised to draw viewers, maybe, just maybe your “argument” wouldn’t be laughable.” (see…responding “in kind, not insulting…unless you too are being insulting.
)
So have you come up with how many soft drinks were sold as a result of FLOTUS’ unadvertised, surprise appearance?
And will you be censoring/attacking Greg as you did me when I used the word “myopia” in response to another poster attacking me with the “rose colored glasses” meme, Mr. Willis? Or is rebuke only reserved for a liberal? Sauce goose/sauce gander?
So now you won’t even take credit for you own posts, Snoop? My original comment was directed at Zeus and his contention that the event was a public speech, since he identified the regulations that prohibit uniforms to further commercial interests. Then, you stepped into the conversation and called my argument that the Oscars is a commercial event laughable(I’ll let the good readers determine whose argument is truly laughable). If that is not an admission that you don’t feel it is commercial, then not much else will suffice. As I don’t look forward to yet another response from you that ignores the commenter’s argument and interjects your own comment for the sake of posting it, I bid you good day.
I’ll allow your false inferences to stand on their own.
No, you didn’t let it stand, you can’t let it stand, you responded.
No, I did not waste keystrokes on confirming or refuting. I let the false inferences stand on their own.
poTAYtoe/toMAYtoe.
No, I did not waste keystrokes on confirming or refuting. I let the false inferences stand on their own.
poTAYtoe/toMAHtoe.
By the way, Geoff, let me congratulate you on such a “trivial” story that it elicits no less than 19 comments from Snoop. Keep up the pettifogging!
Yes, counting posts is indeed pettifogging.
And thanks for reading! But the numerous, as well as now your, attempts at censorship has no effect, as you see. Only Mr. Willis has the “power” to truly censor me.
Snoopy, it is not censorship, it is simply the fact that your prolific posting is generally aimed at jabbing instead of engaging and is simply tiring. Less quantity, more quality.
Allow me to share some wise words passed to me from my grandparents.
From my grandmother: It is rude not to acknowledge and reply when addressed directly.
From my grandfather: Say what you believe and believe what you say and never back down from you convictions.
I follow these tenets in my life as they are very good rules to follow. The “quantity” of my posts reflect these wise words.
“Quality”, of course, is a highly subjective interpretation of my posts, and I posit very prejudiced here.
I won’t apologize for defending myself when attacked here…or anywhere. The “quantity” of my posts is inconsequential as each directly engaged in discourse with the previous post, the presumed purpose of this blog.
Some wise words from my grandparents – when you see someone on the street ranting to themself treat them with compassion, patience and understanding but do not engage them.
I interpret that to mean silently “treat” them with compassion so you can skip away, hands to ears “la la la’ing”, never having to actually show compassion.
A perfect example of OBOZO using every thing he can to keep his regime in the forefront. This savage who detests the US – HER OWN COMMENTS-AND HER HUSBAND DO NOT BELONG ANY WHERE NEAR THE MILITARY – BUT THEY SURE USE THEM AS THEIR OWN SCAPE GOATS. this IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING but WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THE REGIME -
Who’s “Obozo”?
Certain “inconvenient truths” and references are not allowed here, baab, and will be removed (censored) each time. Rephrase without that “reference” and your left leaning post might be allowed.
Yes, you’re correct. The citation has been taken out of context to fit a narrative of hatred for everything Obama, whether him or her. Of course this is just one man’s opinion.
It’s a reference to Obama. And then he calls Obama a “savage.”
Hey Geoff, how’s THAT for thinly-veiled racism?
Geoff, not being snarky theses are real questions. Where did you get the number for tax break money? Is this the only administration to offer tax breaks to the film/television industry? Are you against tax breaks for corporations to incentivize their staying in the Unites States? I guess I am wondering what the purpose of that statement is.
The numbers were taken from a OMB report – I will look for the cite – they were also reported on FOX the night of the Oscars. No, Obama is not the first sdministration to grant these tax breaks and many of them are also given by state governments as well as the federal government. I am generally against corporate welfare and seldom see a reason to intervene in the free market. Obama has received huge donations of money, time and personality from the entertainment industry.
Is it the Entertainment Industry or individuals who are in the entertainment Industry? the Industry itself is not just Movie Stars and Producers. The industry employs thousands and thousands of regular old workers many of who (whom? I never know) are Republican! None of which has anything to do with your comment about tax breaks anyway.
If your point was Obama has contributors from Hollywood that is a different point.
It seems as if the comment doesn’t have any bearing on anything except to stir the pot further. And as it doesn’t begin to compare to the billions of dollars in tax breaks foroil companies I am not sure why it matters any more than that does.
Theses tax breaks are either studio or production company tax breaks. While there may be a few very quiet Republicans in the industry, the vast majority of the campaign contribution money coming out of Hollywood went to Obama. Point of the piece is that Michelle Obama was misusing the military as window dressing and seeking publicity at a high profile event to “return the favor” to large donors.
Imposing an absolute on an unknown (return the favor), Mr. Willis? I didn’t know you were the arbiter of all truths now, like that unsubstantiated $1.2 trillion you just “threw in” to see if it stuck? You should at least have some factual backup at the ready for your citation of what is most surely contextually challenged “information” from the MSM. Do you not vet your “sources” before parotting?
You missed my point. I’ll try to clarify. Tax breaks are given to production companies or studios to encourage them to film here in the United States. It is much cheeper often for a company to film in Vancouver or Toronto. Many thousand workers benefit from the industry staying here as well as support business in the area who are affected by production leaving the State. Among those many thousands of people are probably about the same amount of Republicans as Democrats. Thus, Republicans are also benefiting from Hollywoods tax cuts not just the liberal elite.
Campain contributions are another subject and it is not surprising that those in the Entertainment Industry donate more to a Democratic campaign than a Republican. Historically this has usually been true. It is also true that Fossil Fuel energy companies donate more to Republicans. We know why people donate. I understand this was not even the point of your article and I am not even meaning to defend the practice of tax deductions to keep business in the country. My point is why say it? How does that help further the point of the article. To me, it doesn’t. It distracts and tantalizes your audience. Even I am distracted.
Intellectual honesty obviously isn’t the “point” of this, or very many, right-wing blogs. That’s why they’re blogs and not news organizations.
Snoopy, this is the type of snarky, pointless attack that was driving away commenters. Other than trying to make yourself feel superior and stifle debate, I can’t see what you are trying to accomplish.
Please don’t blame your inability to attract commentors on my posts. You invite the public to read/comment on your blog. Your allegations are, once again, baseless. My comments, as borne out by the vitriolic responses to them, actually heighten not stifle debate, if the personal attack is considered debate.
Still you single me out to rebuke while allowing all those off-topic, hate filled rants. Wonder why that is? I posit it’s the dissenting opinions that are unwelcome. You don’t accept any opinion of mine as valid and denigrate at every opportunity while avoiding anything uncomfortable or irrefutable.
I expressed my opinion, in response to DeAnn’s comment. As simple as that. Don’t hate because I have contrary opinions or even agree with your “friend”. That’s presumably what this blog is for…to express varied and accept all opinions, not except those that disagree.
We have drifted quite a bit off topic, but suffice it to say I am generally against corporate welfare whether for entertainment or for energy. In a world without government intervention I would advocate for elimination of all tax breaks and subsidies and say let market forces prevail. We do not live in a world without government intervention but in a world where entire governments (China) manipulate their currency solely to give them a competitive advantage so there are going to be times when we have no choice but support an industry or risk losing it, but I would like to see those times minimized where ever possible.
As to why I raised the point, it was simply talking about using the office of the President in ways that diminishes it and I felt that this was one of those times, especially in light of the fact that it appeared to many to be nothing more than a tribute to large donors.
Well ,if that was a point I think your wrong. Surprise! We can talk about the ways Republicans have abused the office another day. This we can disagree about but the following is a fact:
Again, I don’t want to debate tax breaks I want to point out that said breaks are benefitting just as many Republicans as Democrats in the Entertainment Industry. Just as many Republicans work in film and television as Democrats. If you are talking about the Creators, Top Executives and the top donors then you are right they are probably mostly Democrats but they make up a very small percentage of the people working in the Industry. I’d guess 1%
I could not find my original source for the 2012 tax break information, but here is the 2010 information from the Wall Street Journal which found $1.5B in tax breaks for Holywood.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324880504578298080119811240.html
So it’s primarily state governments (multiple governments) not “the” government (Federal Government) which your citation strongly (and I posit intentionally) implies.
Got it!
Also, how is Obama hostile to Christians and Jews? Again not being snarky but it is a strong statement to throw out there without anything linked to back it up. Seems like it would be intended to further inflame rather than create dialogue. Wasn’t the idea of this blog to create a dialogue? It don’t see that so much just more right wing hate mongering that I don’t think you yourself even believe.
DeAnne, that is a reasonable question but will require more detail than I can provide in a response to comments. I will blog on this in the next two weeks to make clear that I am not dodging your question. Keep ‘em coming.
Can’t wait to see how you spin that topic with tangential inferences. The anticipation alone will “drive me crazy” for two weeks.
I’ll look forward to it (said without sarcasm). I tried to research it a bit but got lost in a sea of scary fringe blogs. Aren’t you happy I am back?:)
Yes, welcome back. Funny how there certain topics that are hard to get factual informationa about. Mainstream press will be silent and you have to go to less reliable sources and then try to backtrack in with confirming sources. My job is even harder in my opinion because if I use FOX then I am usually belittled.
Why would you print presumably factual information if getting said actual factual information is “hard to get”?
Methinks Ms. Todd accurate…stir that pot rather than reinforce credibility.
The military people in the pic don’t seem to mind so why should you? It seems no matter what the POTUS or the FLOTUS do someone is going to whine around about it.
You could certainly see your skills in the work you
write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers
such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe.
All the time go after your heart.