Michelle O.’s speech: one big lie after another
watched the first few minutes of Michelle Obama’s speech and turned it off in disgust at its unbearable smarminess about Barack’s saintly poverty when she met him . But the speech itself is incredible, as brought out
by Karin McQuillan who quotes it extensively at American Thinker
. At great length, Michelle presented her husband and herself as life-long, true-blue believers in all the American ideals and virtues which, in reality, they so manifestly reject. This is must reading.
The article has one serious misstatement which almost stopped me from reading it. McQuillan claims that Michelle lied when she said that Obama grew up in the U.S., because Obama, of course, lived in Indonesia from age six to age ten. That’s silly and unfair. Other than the four years in Indonesia, Obama did grow up in the U.S. - end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
You may have noticed that Michelle said,
“When we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage. We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.”
And also said (emphasis added),
“He’s the same man who started his career by turning down high paying jobs and instead working in struggling neighborhoods where a steel plant had shut down, fighting to rebuild those communities and get folks back to work … because for Barack, success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives.”
So, you were massively in debt but he turned down high paying jobs? Wow, how incredibly responsible! No wonder the national debt has skyrocketed.
Terry Morris writes:
I woke up this morning thinking about James P.’s comment in which he quotes Michelle Obama as saying that BHO began his career “turning down high paying job offers” for the altruistic reason of working to rebuild financially suffering communities while he and Michelle were in “massive debt.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 06, 2012 12:04 PM | Send
This is the kind of statement that just gnaws at you, y’know? Because whether or not it is altogether true, it does seem consistent with Obama’s character to ignore his personal debt in pursuance of a career in the public sector where wealth (created in the private sector, where some of these high paying jobs he allegedly turned down must have originated) is confiscated and redistributed into failed ventures that are sure to fail again, and again, and again. But it does not matter that they’re destined to fail; it only matters that you’re “changing lives.” Which is to say, helping degenerates stay degenerate at the expense of national solvency.
Former Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon, a Republican, says that he strictly followed a set of four criteria when contemplating any proposed legislation: (1) Do we want this? (2) Do we need it? (3) Is it constitutional? and (4) Can we afford it? “Public servants” like Obama never consider their pursuits in such terms. Their terms are, once they’ve determined that they want a thing; “That we want it means we need it; that we need it means it’s constitutional; that we want it and need it and that it’s therefore constitutional means that we cannot afford not to have it.” Money and the Constitution are no object.