D.C.: President Obama was not wearing his wedding ring during his press conference last week….

A political divorce in the making?
What does it mean that President Obama wasn’t wearing his wedding ring during his press conference last week? Does it mean that he and Michelle are getting a divorce? Or just that there is trouble in paradise? Hme…first she goes to Spain and leaves him to celebrate most of his 49th birthday alone. Then he takes off his wedding ring….hme…hm..hm..hm…….is this significant? I don’t know. In my family, the men in the previous generation did not wear rings period. Because, the theory is, the man takes a wife. The wife does not take a husband. Get it? Men marry the woman so in a way, he owns the woman. The woman’s ring signifies that she belongs to the man. The man does not likewise belong to the woman. They are married, but she belongs to him and he belongs to himself. That is why, to this day, it is still a greater sin if the wife cheats on the husband. Because women are still owned by men in ways nobody wants to admit. Men still rule.
But back to the President. He must have known that people would speculate about his ringlessness. On the View, they said he says the ring is being repaired. Interesting. Repaired how? It’s not broken because he isn’t doing manual labor on the White House. Maybe, as Sherry said, he’s getting it made smaller. Maybe it’s falling off because he got too skinny….Heck, maybe it’s none of our bisnis?
I don’t think the Obamas are getting divorced. I would be shocked, quite frankly. And more than just a little bit disappointed. I want their marriage to succeed as much as I want President Obama’s presidency to succeed. He’s having a bit of trouble with the latter, isn’t he? If I could give him advice on the latter, I would say, Mr. President:

 NARROW YOUR FOCUS TO THE ECONOMY FOR THE NEXT 3 TO 6 MONTHS. Like, eat, breathe and think about this 24/7. Get people back to work. This is your chance to be the new Roosevelt. And you need people who, first of all, get it. Sometimes, you need representation from the trenches, not all smarty-pants Ivy League people with ultra clean fingernails. Know what I mean? You need people who are also creative to come up with 21st century ideas on what needs to be done and to figure that out, they need to really get what the little people are experiencing. I mean, how come you don’t have any CUNY grads working for you? Only Ivy League? Sometimes these Ivy Leaguers just don’t get it. Maybe we don’t need new roads and highways. But we need other things. I like the focus on small businesses. But you need more than just to pump money into loans. Surely, we need the easy loans; but the creative Ivy League geniuses who advise you can come up with some additional innovative ideas. America, at this time in its history, needs smart, Twenty-First Century ideas of different ways small businesses can be used, formed, and funded to jump start the economy. This includes but is not limited to easier access to loan funds. But what else? There’s got to be more to this inquiry. The solution to what ails the economy is with small businesses but what exactly needs to be the focus? Well, your advisors need to come up with New Deal type plans and initiatives, that are innovative, cutting edge and forward thinking, that will make the difference for little people, for the economy, and for your presidency as well.

What the heck am I talking about? Forget everything I just said. I haven’t had my espresso yet and am talking gibberish. What my inquiring mind wants to know is what is up with the Obama ring? Why did he take it off? And does Michelle have something she needs to be worried about? Hang on Michelle. He’s a good catch. Don’t let him slip though your fingers!!!
UPDATE: I just found this quote on Yahoo News about Newt Ginrich and how he characterizes Obama and his presidency:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich tells NR’s Robert Costa. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president.”
Gingrich says he had the epiphany while reading a Forbes article by writer Dinesh D’Souza titled, “How Obama Thinks”—calling it the most “profound insight” he’s read about Obama in the last six years.
“I think (Obama) worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich says. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”

Hilarious. Is this a euphemism for saying that Obama is Black? Therefore he shouldn’t be president and wouldn’t be president except for his con? Newt’s grapes can’t possibly be that sour? Obama’s mom is a White woman from Kansas! And she raised him to be a gentleman. Obviously. And he’s a great catch because of it. His Kenyan daddy didnt’ raise him. His White Kansan mother did. That is why Michelle loves him and is holding on to him with all her might. I wonder how Newt would characterize the President’s ringless finger? As further evidence of his anti-colonial, Kenyan, “authentic dishonesty,” perhaps? And what’s so wrong with being anti-colonial, anyways? Would Newt like to be colonized?
  Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010