Now that Suaad Hagi Mohamud, 31, was reluctantly returned to Toronto (reluctantly because even though the DNA sample proved she was who she was, they acted as if it was fake DNA that was supplied) by the Canadian government, she through a litigation lawyer are seeking divest the government from $2.5 million in a law suite. Along with that Mohamud and her lawyers are asking for an inquiry in to why this incident ever happened and why it took more than three month and an invasive procedure to prove her self, lost over $2000 plus her clothe, passport and anonymity.
“I don’t care about money. I’m only going to court so this will not happen to another Canadian,” she said. However the lawsuit and the declaration that this wasn’t about the money is the trigger for the troglodytes and trolls to run screaming from their caves and anti-African picnic.
Almost all the replies were questioning why the law suite, or the typical accusation of greed or an attack on immigrants to Canada. It appears that Caucasian Canadians have an issue when Africans seek to fulfil the “dream” that they lie about on their recruiting materials. You know… Canada is a tolerant society, Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world, there is no racism here… rinse, wash and repeat!
The fact that a right wing nut government such as this one, that doesn’t even pretend to be civil or humane is running a supposedly “friendly and humane country” is indicative of the voters as they reflect the mindset of the majority of voters. The most recent reader reaction to the story is also an indicator of the Caucasian public’s support of governmental malfeasance and their latent bullshitedness and anti-African, anti-immigrant behaviour.
Ghandi’s answer: “I think that would be a good thing”
Newspaper reporter’s question: “What do you think of Western Civilization?”
The Caucasian public wet dream fascination with Michelle Obama has taken a decidedly surreal turn, when the latest wackiness about her shorts became another unnecessary intrusion into her personal space. Recently the paparazzi had photographed the first lady descending the steps of Air Force One in shorts. This has created a media orgy of the “whitest” proportion. Interposing, interpreting and predicting public response as “some are saying Michelle Obama, on her way to the Grand Canyon for a family vacation, may have revealed too much skin.” The media is trying to drum up the idea that Michelle is unworthy of being a fitting example of presidential wife material.
Some of the asinine comment made includes “Obama is no stranger to public scrutiny over her fashion choices, such as exposing her bare arms or wearing expensive sneakers to a soup kitchen. “ “I thought the fact that she wore shorts was newsworthy because she’s the first lady to wear shorts on Air Force One,”
The author of the piece had posted a poll online for readers to weigh in, yet most were in favour of the outfit, while a lesser number thought the shorts were inappropriate or too short.
Unfortunately for the trouble makers out there, many news outlets rallied to the first lady’s defence, noting that she was on vacation over the weekend, in sweltering desert heat.
“What should she have worn to the Grand Canyon? A tweed pantsuit? A ball gown? What do you wear on your summer vacation?” asked Elizabeth Snead of the Los Angeles Times.
Others wondered from whom, exactly, the media was defending the first lady.
“Everyone is up in arms – if by `everyone,’ you mean no one, or rather a large, shadowy group of no ones,” Kate Dailey wrote for Newsweek. “August is a slow news month, and covering people who are actually shocked and outraged about health care can only fill so many minutes in the Twitterfied news cycle.”
There were critics online, of course.
Of course you have some who have no clue about a whole lot of things, such as this guy… “Why not wear linen pants … more tasteful,” wrote Charlie Smith of Montgomery, Ala., on the Today site. “She may have been on vacation … but she should respect the Office of the President and the U.S.A.”
Again most responses were firmly in favour of the shorts. Check them out here.
“First Lady Michelle Obama looks great in her shorts and it shouldn’t even be a newsworthy issue … Leave her alone,” wrote Joann Begonja of North Bellmore, N.Y.
“Get a grip folks – these aren’t `Daisy Duke’ shorts,” echoed John Johnson of Dover, Ohio, referring to the skimpy legwear worn by a character in The Dukes of Hazzard.
“I thought the media for the most part held a liberal slant not the retentive right. Grow up she is just wearing a pair of shorts.”
“Michelle Obama always looks great. This is a lady who is comfortable in her own skin and I’m just fine with that.”
“What do we wear on a vacation is right.I see nothing wrong with her shorts,not what I call short shorts.There’s a first for everything,so what,she has a nice figure and wears her clothes well,nothing wrong with that,my opinion anyway.No matter what she wears or does will be scrutinized anyway. “
“Making such a big deal out of being able to see the First Lady’s thighs is just down right foolish. This is a very classy lady who is obviously comfortable in her own skin. She can wear whatever she wants and still emit total grace. Michelle keep being yourself. By the way… 10!”
“Self Righteous Arrogant Morality Invades America…maybe she should wear a burqa in public.”
“Michelle Obama is the first true 21st century First Lady. Her sense of style is almost unerring. The media’s sense of what’s important? Not so much.”
Question: “What do you think of the Western Media?”
Answer: “ A bunch of haters and fools!”