Last week, the image of Michelle Obama standing with a hashtagged sign pleading for the return of those kidnapped girls got a lot of press.
Michelle’s “slacktivism” got roundly mocked, and her image (predictably) ran the Photoshop gauntlet. Her words on the sign were replaced with references to the myriad scandals looming over this administrations’ head. From here in the cheap seats, this looks like an absolute PR nightmare.
But is that really the big story here?
Stop and think for a moment about the significance of FLOTUS holding that particular sign. What does it say, and more importantly… what does it imply about her confidence in the President?
The sign said “#Bring Back Our Girls”.
Two points to make, here.
First point, she did a radio address — took over the President’s address, in fact. In that address, she told us how deeply concerned and distressed she was for these girls, and framed the narrative as exposing the dangers girls around the world face in the process of seeking an education.
We’re well into May when she’s giving this speech, right? Did you know the girls she claims to be so concerned about went missing — and it was fairly well-known in some circles — back on April 14th, nearly a full month ago?
Should we take her hand wringing concern at face value? Hardly.
Did FLOTUS happen to mention that this group is known for “attacking mainly Christians and Government targets.” (I heard nothing of their forced conversions to Islam, or the girls’ right to their religious freedoms. Did you? That wouldn’t align very well with her RadFem Secular narrative.)
Here’s what I think… this began as yet another systematic attack on Christians so easily dismissed by people like her. This didn’t change until the sheer weight of the numbers, and the reports that they were being sold into slavery made this issue start to trend on twitter. You won’t convince me this anything more than shameless bandwagon-hopping. (Did someone say “Slavery?”)
Second point, the woman whose address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, uploaded a picture with a Hashtag-Imperative telling someone — the terrorists? — to “bring back our girls”.
Bad enough she’s late to the party, but does she actually believe that an armed Islamic militia forcibly kidnapping people, killing others, and selling survivors into slavery is going to read that sign and just send them home?
Imagine any other First Lady in a situation where she “felt deeply” about an international incident. Would ANY of them have played this card?
Think about it. You wake up beside (presumably) the most powerful man in the free world, sit across the table from him at breakfast, and your grand plan is to hold up a sign in the internet?
Talk about your lame-duck signs of weakness… does even the First Lady think the President is useless? She didn’t ask him that he make this a priority? That he offer troops or tools or something to bring the girls home safely, and the thugs to justice?
Mr. President… remember your “Bin Laden is Dead” chest-thumping? Well now you’ve got another group, and even your wife doesn’t think you’ve got the stones to do anything about it.
What good is it to be President if even the First Lady thinks you’re hopeless?
