Michelle Obama is at it again *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Oct 15 2008 at 9:12 am | Filed under: Barack Obama
Final word: it’s a fake. See The Corner for more info.
*********************************************************************************
No wonder the Obama campaign has been keeping Michelle in the background. Every time she opens her mouth, something shocking comes out.
UPDATE: The Obama camp is pushing back, saying the entire thing is a fake. And it may well be. True or false, it’s believable since it meshes so seemlessly with things Michelle has said in the past. I will try to remember to keep you posted because, if it is indeed false, it should be removed entirely from the radar.
Email This Post To A Friend
17 Responses to “Michelle Obama is at it again *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hard to believe she could be that stupid. But arrogant overconfidence can lead one to let unexpected words slip out.
Who would have thought that Barack would let these words slip out in talking to the blue collar plumber?
It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Are you getting as tired of Obama’s word “folks” as I am?
So, Obama wants everyone behind me to have a “chance for success”, too. Isn’t that a strange phrase? Everyone in a line, and everyone’s behind somebody else. It’s a classic zero-sum-game argument. Nobody gets ahead, no wealth is created.
Man, in the 1700′s, when there were only, what, ten million Americans, those ten million must all have been stinkin’ RICH! Since no wealth has been created via productive, free enterprise, I mean.
Luckily for Obama, since there’s no such thing as *creating* wealth, there’s no such thing as *destroying* wealth either. That’s a comfort, because otherwise an Obama presidency would lead to such widespread misery, if wealth could be destroyed.
This whole things smells fake.
I fully believe that Michelle Obama harbors the sentiments she is alleged to have made to African Press International (API). However the scenario is just weird.
Why would she even bother calling a little known news source half-way around the world? She’s a smart woman and would know that her call alone, regardless of the content, would generate news.
Plus, what she is alleged to have said just whips up more inquiry into the whole “is Obama a U.S. citizen?” issue.
For now, I don’t believe it. But I would love to know this: What would API have to gain by creating a false story sure to upset the Obamas and the Democrats, particularly considering that Obama is likely to win, which would mean that the API stands to gain big by encouraging a friendly relationship with both Obama and
the Democrats?
Deana
>>Plus, what she is alleged to have said just whips up more inquiry into the whole “is Obama a U.S. citizen?” issue.>>
More important than that(IMO), if it can be shown that he is _not_ eligible for the presidency due to the citizenship issue, it clears shows a prior knowledge of that fact. That would remove any possibility of “innocent error”, and would convict him of fraud.
MikeD – Obama has no idea about how to create wealth because he has never had to do so. His only life experience has been to feed off the wealth of others. For him, wealth is only something to be expropriated, not created.
Come to think of it, that’s not all that different from a Muslim jihadi, but don’t let me suggest that….
Haven’t followed the “final” yet…but if you want to follow the breaking stuff, it’s being written up here…
http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/update-update.html
From NRO, Bryan York.
“I just asked the Obama campaign whether Michelle Obama did in fact speak to that organization, and spokesman Tommy Vietor answered:
The answer is no, it’s not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization.”
Right. So if Obama’s comapaign says it’s fake, then that’s it. Final.
Heh. I don’t _think_ so….!
I think I want another source…!
Republicans are getting so desperate, they make up stuff all the time.
Heh. Keep thinking that, Helen.
I don’t disagree that it well may have been made up…apparently a confirming source is Corsi, and I’ve heard that he isn’t exactly the most reliable source a body could find. As far as I’m concerned, it’s in the “oh really?” column until solid info is available. There are language problems, just among other things…
Danny (#4)
Creating wealth isn’t easy. When you look at Russia, they had a chance to be free, but four generations of cradle-to-grave communism made them incapable of seizing the chance. The criminals seized the chance; the oligarchs solidified their power; the inevitable result was Putin, and darkness descended again.
As each year passes here in America, more and more people come to depend more and more on the government. It is a fearsome thing to know that government cannot create wealth, and people dependent on government cannot create wealth either.
Obama has every intention of exploiting the wealth creators to give their gains to those “behind them in line.” He will go as far as he can possibly dare. The American people *might* be ready to hand him (and a filibuster-proof Democrat Congress) the keys to the car and say, “Drive us wherever you wish.” We are about to experience another concrete lesson in giving up control of our lives and our economy to the government. (And letting the government run everything has proven *so* effective in the past, and *so* much better than the alternatives, hasn’t it?) Sometimes it seems the American people need these direct, concrete, harsh and painful lessons. The lessons from history never suffice.
I think that if this occurs, then we will be in the Lyndon Johnson ‘Great Society’ phase of experimentation again, but we’d be beginning this disastrous experiment from a vastly weaker position than we began that one in the 60s. Then there will be a Reagan again at some point further in our future. Cold comfort.
Reagan was an actor, if I recall.
>>Reagan was an actor, if I recall.>>
Jawohl. Und?????
Are you suggesting that he was just playing the part of a conservative? If so…I pray we find another such actor!
Reagan was an actor, if I recall.
Republicans are getting so desperate, they make up stuff all the time.
You have no idea what constitutes the fundamental characteristics of people in the Republican party. You have to take off your blinders and de-compartamentalize your mind first, which is unlikely to happen.
Reagan was able to speak knowledgably about the 10′s, 20′s, 30′s and 40′s. He understood the roots of modern progressivism and liberalism. I was surprised when I read and heard some of his quotes and responses to questions.
I imagine it’s fun to disrespect him, but they’ve been at that for years, and they’ve always been wrong.
Yes, Helen, Reagan was an actor. He was also trained as an economist, protected a Union against communist infiltration as its chief executive, a highly successful governor and an extraordinarily well-read and polished writer and speech-maker.
But, it’s so much more fun to deride him for “Bedtime for Bonzo”, isn’t it.
I really do think that I am beginning to understand the need of Democrats to tear down their opponents toward the lowest denominators of human society (think, “Sarah Palin is a c-word” t-shirts or the Sarah Palin porn movie, here). It’s their comfort zone.
>>I really do think that I am beginning to understand the need of Democrats to tear down their opponents>>
Another of Alinsky’s rules: Objectify your opponent and destroy him.
It’s their comfort zone.
I don’t think it is so much their comfort zone as it is the need of narcissists to parasitically obtain self-confidence from exercising their power to hurt others. To lower people better than narcissists down to a level that the narcissist can look at and say “he is pathetic”. This makes parasites feel better about themselves. In fact, it makes any human being feel better to know that somebody else has it worse than they. The difference between a good and an evil person, however, is in how they use that knowledge of the difference in power and luck.
Narcissists don’t take comfort in dragging people down to their level. Narcissists require the exploitation of others through lies and manipulation because the narcissist would start considering suicide if they had only themselves to use up, Danny. Hate must require fuel to sustain itself, I know that very well. If it can’t burn up somebody else by destroying them, Danny, it’ll eat you up instead.
(think, “Sarah Palin is a c-word” t-shirts or the Sarah Palin porn movie, here). It’s their comfort zone.
Concerning Sarah Palin, let us speak of honor. If, say, there was a love triangle between three people. Two men and one woman. You, as one of the men, love the woman yet the woman loves the other man and her love is returned. Your love of her is either unknown or not returned.
To Democrats who ascribe to a zero sum equation, this means that to make the woman happy the two men must fight it out over issues of jealousy or what not on a show like Jerry Springer. Just go back to Iraq 2005 and remember how the Left started talking about how to resolve the violent disagreements between Iraqis and Iraqis and Iraqis and Americans. It was all about how “freedom fighters” needed to fight us over issues of nationalism and loyalty to their land: about how we were making things worse by being in Iraq and needed to give things up to the Iraqis and terrorists terrorizing Iraqis. And the Left doesn’t even give a fig about nationalism, Danny. They also said at the same time that America would fail in Iraq because there wasn’t a history of nationalism. But then again, nobody on my side would claim the Left were consistent in their claims. This is zero sum in that the implicit assumption about Iraq is that three people, Iraq, America, and foreign terrorists, couldn’t work out their differences to the mutual satisfaction of every party. The truth, however, was that America got a mutually beneficial relationship with Iraqis and the terrorists had to be killed so that terrorists could go to Heaven. This was mutually beneficial, Danny. Everybody got what they wanted, except some very grumpy individuals like Zawahiri.
To those who still value the word honor and actually know what it means in the real world, not the Hollywood fantasy world, the logical and correct thing for you to do would be to continue to serve and protect the woman. If her happiness is your goal then let her be happy, even if it means sacrificing your own desires to duty. If the other man mistreats her, then you should intercede as her protector but you should not create problems between them solely because you have a desire for her that she doesn’t return.
Love, in this respect, becomes self-sacrificing in that love is the ability to kill and die for things other than your own life and existence. Love as seen by the Left is seen whenever they talk about America. They say they love America while at the same time sabotaging America’s security and belittling America. That’s not a loving relationship; that is an abusive relationship.
Sarah Palin’s success just incites the jealousy and hate in people, Danny. They can’t stand that people in their way to their goals are able to be happy with people other than the One they have Decided is Necessary for America.