The Telegraph reports that George Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, subsists on less than a dollar a month in a hut in Nairobi, Kenya. He says he’s ashamed of his poverty and doesn’t tell people he’s related to America’s first black major party presumptive presidential nominee.
Assuming he didn’t know how his brother was living (benefit of the doubt, and all that), I wonder what Barack Obama will do to help him now, in light of his “we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these” lecture on Saturday at the Saddleback Civil Forum.
I’ll be watching and waiting.
Later…MM says: “Actually, this may be one of the few times Obama did taxpayers a favor — by not bringing his unemployed brother here to live off the welfare state.”
Previous post:
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 47 comments }
I am not inclined to cut Obama much slack, but I read that his father was a serial sperm donor among a variety of women. When a half brother lives on $12 a year, it is an outrage to imagine that you could know that and not help.
On the other hand, I had an uncle who could not stay out of the flop house and alcohol life. We finally just “let him go” as he always managed to crawl back to the low life, no matter what we did to help him.
Obama may have quite a flock of relatives in Kenya. Certainly, he could spare a few lattes to help them make ends meet. But whether he is responsible for them is debatable.
Of course, he traded heavily on “The Dreams of My Father” and then cashed in on “The Audacity of Hope.” Last week, he honed in on “The least of my brothers.”
There is a price to be paid if your pontificating appears to be disingenuous. We might say, that in Obama’s case, “The … chickens …. are …. coming … home … to …. roost!”
I hope that Barack and his family will send his half brother monthly financial help. They can make a real difference in his life for very little. Charity should begin at Barack’s home.
I have sent $50 a month to World Vision for Africa Relief for the last 20 years to try to help those less fortunate than my white / Hispanic conservative middle class family and me. Charity is required by God in the old testament and in the new testament–read Jesus’ parable of the poor man Lazarus and the rich man–he lived well and did not help the poor man–and went to hell as a result. These bible lessons are there to inform us and to protect us.
Rocketman
Well, according to him, the “Goverment” is supposed to help those in need.
His whole campaign rests on the premise that families don’t need to help each other because Goverments provide for all your needs.
Maybe he can provide Kenya a framework for how to redistribute wealth–work up some sort of Goverment program to save his brother.
I understand that Obama has a large family, but the planet is a big place, too….and Obama expects all of us to collectively pay to help people just like his brother all over the planet!
Maybe Obama is just waiting until he’s elected so OUR money, not his, will go toward helping his brother. It is certainly one conclusion you could draw on this situation.
It’s weird that this comes out right after the news that Cindy McCain, who has always claimed to be an only child, has a half sister too, and she’s poor.
I thought Malkin’s comment was kind of a dirty crack, considering that this gentlemen apparently is trying to better himself.
heliotrope, you’re right; I also have relatives like that uncle. We tried over and over to find a job for my brother-in-law; he wouldn’t even try. But not everybody who is poor is a slacker.
Cindy McCain says she grew up as an only child. It turns out that one (there are two) of the daughters that Cindy’s father sired with his first wife, took exception to Cindy’s claim to have been an only child. Well, Cindy was the only child in the family in which she grew up. NPR decided this was “news.” NPR is in part government funded.
Cindy is married to the man running for President.
I have no idea what could be dug up on Michelle Obama. What ever it is, I hope it stays buried, as she, like Cindy, is not a candidate.
The Telegraph reports that the Italian version of Vanity Fair searched out Obama’s brother and presented the “news.” There is much more African family to be found.
If there is a coincidence or even equivalency between the Cindy McCain “news” and the Barack Obama half brother “news” it escapes me. (I commented on the relevancy of Obama’s half brother in #1.)
Barack doesn’t help George because Barack expects the US taxpayers to dole out 850 BILLION in a couple of years.
Well, in all fairness, I don’t think Obama needs to find everyone in his family and “fix” them.
#11 brenda notes:
Hopefully, everyone has noticed that Barack is going to keep the war funding going, but use it for his government fix programs.
On the one hand he campaigns against the cost of the war and then quietly assumes the extra appropriations as a permanent revenue stream. He can feed a lot of half brothers with that money.
I see no evidence that he thinks that the government is the only organization or group to help one another. All because he believes that the government can help people (or should, morally), doesn’t mean that he believes families or individuals shouldn’t or can not help one another.
Why does it matter if Obama does anything for his brother? I have so much family that is having problems that I couldn’t do a thing about it even if I wanted to because they keep falling over and over. I am not a psychologist/therapist and neither is Obama.
The evidence of Obama’s thinking comes from his speeches and positions that advocate government redistribution of wealth. I believe the government can and should help people as well, but by creating and sustaining opportunities. Obama, like other liberals, continually advocates that government help people by somehow guaranteeing outcomes.
Granted, this doesn’t necessarily mean he is philosophically opposed to private charity work. But because of the well-documented effects of tax-based charity vs. private charity, he is placing himself in a practical manner on that side of the argument.
As for his brother, several commenters have stated similar arguments even in the midst of their criticism. The point, though, is that Obama has called America’s lack of charity a national, moral failing while showing relatively few personal choices that affirm his OWN charity. Pots and kettles, as it were.
Who knows what kinda hell Senator Obama has gone through with his brother, whereby he won’t help him?
My youngest brother is an adulterer, alcoholic, and pot-head who can’t keep a job and doesn’t think he needs any help. Who knows what the issue is with this man’s brother? He could be a sissified, sorry, no count, punk. You don’t know anything about him.
I advised my sister-in-law that if she needed to send my nephew to live with me until he graduates from High School, let’s do that, but my brother is on his own.
Justice is making sure that no one is mistreated and that the people who need the most help get that help.
George Obama nor my little brother need the MOST help, especially in the form of money. They need to grow up.
Isn’t that what “personal responsibility” entails?
If you’re going to say that you know people in your family who don’t get it, then say THAT and leave it there.
I know some straight up off the charts liberals who are not enablers of bad behavior, no matter what their partisan mantra may call for.
Gabe,
While I cannot comment on BO’s personal family situation, I think you are right that it highlights a persistent problem with public policy [the pot/kettle phenomenon]. Fundamentally, liberal policy enables bad choices on a global scale.
While many of the liberals that I know are quite intolerant of “loser” behavior on the local scale [family/co-workers/neighbors],they demand a policy for all that they themselves reject at the personal level. And, since elites seldom deal with the painful, often tragic, results of the policy they foist upon others, they refuse to deal with unintended consequences. Hey, as long as they can preen their compassion and feel good about themselves while others pick up their pieces, they’re happy.
All of the evidence shows that in America, it is fairly simple to avoid poverty: stay in school and get married before one has children.
You’re all still off-point.
American policy has nothing to do with George Obama.
“And, since elites seldom deal with the painful, often tragic, results of the policy they foist upon others, they refuse to deal with unintended consequences.”
There is nothing redeemable about what you just wrote.
If there is going to be a contest about which groups have the courage to deal with pain and tragedy as the result of legislation and public policy, no group should form their lips to brag about any of it, because they all fake the funk.
“The point, though, is that Obama has called America’s lack of charity a national, moral failing while showing relatively few personal choices that affirm his OWN charity. Pots and kettles, as it were.” – Gabe
What are his relatively few personal choices that affirm his own charity? Also, what is your definition of charity, or at least the one that is being used as a standard in this discussion?
I’m pretty sure, at this point, we’re talking money donated to charitable organizations, or in the case of government, going to a “charitable purpose.” The issue is private charitable donation vs. government induced “charity” as Obama seems to advocate.
From Obama’s released tax information for the years 1997 through 2005, the Obamas fell below national average giving of around 2.2% of household income. In fact, in 2002 when the Obamas made about $259K, they donated a whopping $1,050 to charity while the average U.S. household had clocked $1,872 for that year.
His giving picked up with the money from his books, but that was also around the same time his national political career started.
Oh, bull feathers! Obama is not strapped for cash. If his half-brother can get by on $1.00 a month, what harm would it cause if Obama were to shower him with $10.00 a month? He is a blood relative living at the bottom of the third world. If Obama were to completely blow $120 a year on him and the half-brother were to turn out to be a true ingrate, at least Obama would have made an effort.
I fire out money to strangers in strange places every month. The reports I receive is that it makes a huge difference in their lives. I don’t need any stars on my charity chart. But if I had a relative in need who could benefit from the modest help I can give, I would certainly make the commitment.
I am struck by the dissonance in which liberals [for want of a better term] give themselves the privilege of determining that someone they know is pond scum and thus not deserving of their charity while damning the same rhetoric in others. Ergo, one commenter speaks of a lowlife alcoholic adultering pot-head brother while accusing everyone else of being mean for not wanting to be on the collective hook for such brothers in the exponential sense.
This used to be called hypocrisy………….
I never said my brother was a lowlife, did I?
I can say whatever I want about my brother that I want, because I have put in the WORK of sending cash, books, paying fees, helping with the light bill so that my niece and nephew aren’t sitting up in the dark somewhere.
Talk about what you know. My POINT was that like me, maybe Senator Obama has put in the WORK and as such needed to take a step back and watch to see if there is any humility that will lead that individual to repentance.
And I don’t know what YOU mean by brothers, but your brothers are not MY brothers.
As far as those whose world view falls under liberal on this blog, I don’t know who you’re talking about.
Chris, are you a so-called “liberal”?
Gabe,
From my own research you seem to be correct about the amount of monetary charity the Obamas have given. However, I am not going to assert it is because they were people who hate personal monetary charity. Even though they did not give much (I am pretty sure that they started earning a lot more money around 2002)during this time Obama was still paying off college bills while he was writing the Audacity of Hope, and having two very young children certainly makes you want to be pretty stringent with ones money (who wants to not have money for your family when you might need it?). To be fair, $1,000 isn’t much money to others (to me it is alot. I am a college student that is going to graduate with $70,000 in loans which will quickly double over time and who knows). Hell, I don’t have ten cents to donate to charity.
However, the overall idea that Obama has barely been giving to charity is false. I don’t mean monetary charity:
charity
1137, “benevolence for the poor,” from O.Fr. charite, from L. caritas (acc. caritatem) “costliness, esteem, affection” ]’
1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one’s life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.
Last I checked Obama’s history has been one of helping and working with people. He certainly has been charitable with his time. Also, many times has Obama raised money for organizations with his power and influence (according to what I have read but I can come up with some facts here just to make sure this is absolutely true) which definitely is many times the monetary charity he has given.
I am certainly not defending Obama’s supposed plan to spending your or my tax money on the poor. I am just saying that people probably don’t want to be going around pointing the finger saying “Gotcha, you are a stringent hypocrite!” I have no money right now, but I plan on having a lot of money when I am older. I will probably start feeling charitable at a certain time too, but I will have to feel very comfortable with my money before I start doing that (I have over 70k with interest to pay off) plus living expenses, plus my girlfriend, plus children. Sounds extremely expensive to me.
Chris says:
“I am certainly not defending Obama’s supposed plan to spending your or my tax money on the poor. I am just saying that people probably don’t want to be going around pointing the finger saying “Gotcha, you are a stringent hypocrite!””
Exactly. This man is not my candidate, but I’m not going to say he hasn’t put in work in loving his neighbor or helping out folks who REALLY need it.
Some folks really NEED help, and some want to be enabled. Refusing to enable someone, especially in one’s on sphere is not ‘conservative’ (ESPECIALLY) and definitely not ‘liberal’. This punkish, sissified notion that virtue (or lack, thereof) has to be couched in partisan terms is why people have such irreconcilable differences.
* That is, future children that I will have.
Am I a liberal? I have professed in the past that I am a liberal, but now I find myself to be a bit too complicated to be labeled one thing. I am sure that there are things I am liberal about but others I am conservative on.
Why?
I never said my brother was a lowlife, did I? [comment by TBD]
No, to be fair, you simply said that your brother was “an adulterer, alcoholic, and pot-head who can’t keep a job and doesn’t think he needs any help.”
Most of us think of true charity as being defined by giving with no expectation of return. The second corollary is that true philanthropy involves sacrifice. When an individual, such as BO, uses community organizing as a seque into a lucrative future, the water gets muddied.
The owners of the half-way house next door to me have become wealthy off of their philanthropy-with-the-money-of-others schemes. For some reason, I have a difficult time viewing the ravages of their money-making chicanery [the police are more appalled than me] in a positive light.
“No, to be fair, you simply said that your brother was “an adulterer, alcoholic, and pot-head who can’t keep a job and doesn’t think he needs any help.”
You’re right, jb, that’s EXACTLY what I said, and that’s exactly what’s he’s been doing for about 9 years, and it’s cost him darn near everything.
But, he’s my brother and my blood, and always will be, and he may not always be walking this path. I can’t help him, but I sure will help his children, which are also my blood.
“* That is, future children that I will have.
Am I a liberal? I have professed in the past that I am a liberal, but now I find myself to be a bit too complicated to be labeled one thing. I am sure that there are things I am liberal about but others I am conservative on.
Why?”
I didn’t know. JB mentioned “liberals” in his response and I didn’t know who he was talking about you. I’d like to think that there are conservatives on here that actually try to be fair to Senator Obama, regardless of the errant policies he’s embraced.
I’d like to think that there are conservatives on here that actually try to be fair to Senator Obama, regardless of the errant policies he’s embraced. [comment by TBG]
Have the rest of you read criticisms of BO that lie outside of his “errant” policies????
Just curious…..as TBG only “likes to imagine” that such folks exist……outside of himself, that is….[Yeah...we all know. TBG, that you are the only fair, thinking, compassionate conservative on the planet. After all, you tell us all the time how special you are.]
Speaking as one who has lobbed no stones at BO oustisde of policy, frankly, I don’t have the foggiest clue what TBG is talking about….
jb,
I do not like the half-brother junk being dredged up on Obama. I do not much care for the constant weasel words that Obama uses. From what I can deduce from his rhetoric, I do not like his philosophy of government.
I might enjoy sharing a coffee with Obama at the cafe. But I would stay away from politics and community organizing chatter with him, because aspects of his belief system are anathema to me.
At worst, I think he has delusions of grandeur or is playing a role that requires duplicity as a strategy.
I don’t know how that plays with this comment: “I’d like to think that there are conservatives on here that actually try to be fair to Senator Obama, regardless of the errant policies he’s embraced. ”
I would not vote for him and I would not seek his advice and I would not align with him. Does that make me “unfair?” I suspect that Obama, if he knew me, would feel the same. Or more so.
“likes to imagine”?
“After all, you tell us all the time how special you are”
Stop hatin’, jb.
There is nothing charitable about spending other people’s money.
That’s the real problem with liberals, Barack Obama included. They want to spend other people’s money, not their own. That’s not charitable or generous. It’s greedy and cruel.
I’ve been on both sides of the counter, and I can tell you unequivocally: the least effective way to help anyone is to involve the government.
Chris,
To your comment in #26. I agree that charity comes in many forms. I don’t imagine Obama’s taxes show however many hours he has volunteered.
But the issue is that Obama’s rhetoric has more than suggested that “The Rich” (i.e. people making more than $250,000/yr.) are not paying their “fare share” in taxes, and their wealth must essentially be redistributed in order for America to be redeemed from its moral failures. He has said all this while not holding himself (someone others would consider rich) even to the standard of matching the average household charitable contribution.
Personally speaking, I started my life as a “grown-up” saddled with about $90K in college debt, a young daughter, and an immigrant wife who had to wait for work authorization for a long time(so no help on income). But I made it a priority to give no less than 10% of my gross income to my church, and whatever I could to various local charities. Now that I own a small business, I try to give about 20%.
So perhaps I take Obama’s criticism of America too personally. But I find it two parts laughable and one part maddening that he would deign to criticise us all for our lack of charitable compassion when he wasn’t even matching the gifts from people making 1/3 as much as him and his wife until he started eyeing national office.
Helio,
Ditto!
To be honest, my concerns about BO go beyond his errant policy. At first blush, BO appears charming and earnest. His voice has a lovely cadence, his children are exquisite, and he has overcome a number of obstacles in his life. He has achieved some lofty pinnacles worth admiring; editor of Harvard Law Review, author of two books, etc..
I want to like this guy.
Unfortunately, there are disturbing elements to the pretty picture he paints that go beyond his errant policy positions.
Off the top of my head:
– He is so nuanced that he cannot even agree to protect the life of an already born infant.
– He calls pro-lifers liars while lying through his teeth about his votes on infanticide.
– His lies often show a degree of hubris that is dismaying. A great example is lying about “his” committee.
– He handles criticism very poorly; he can dish it [and dishes far more viciously than he admits] but he can’t take it.
– He shows a persistent pattern of poor judgment in his associations and then is dishonest about those associations.
– His oh so nuanced positions often seem to be little more than wanting-to-have-his-cake-and-eat-it-too. Anyone who is a parent, spouse, employee, or neighbor does “nuance” all day long, but at the end of the day, the toddler has to go to bed.
– He has used the race/patriotism card against an opponent who did not merit the pre-emptive strikes.
– Even for a politician, he exudes narcissism.
– Chicago…machine politics…getting opponents knocked off of ballots…yadayadayada
And then there is that BIG government thing….
Gabe,
I agree that if he meant it in all of those ways as you said then he definitely does not hold up to the average amount of money given (and is much lower than the average). I guess (because I am not academically judging here) that his views coincide with the philosophy that the individual can not affect mass change that is needed but which the government can achieve. Of course, this is all based on the idea of whether he thinks the poor is the responsibility of the society or of no one but themselves. I think he thinks it is the responsibility of the government (and thus our money) to do something about it. But don’t worry about him doing about it…I have worked within politics for some time and I know that most of these political talking points are mostly just personal philosophies that have no bearing on what is going to actually happen in America; republicans promised evangelicals all sorts of promises for over 7 years in just about all the branches and they have delivered about none of them. As if Republicans were going to somehow outlaw gays from the country or create a real sustainable Faith group within the Executive branch. I call it “feeding the people.” Every political party does it.
Jb,
I thought Obama meant his bill when he said his committee.
Also, I have heard this argument that his associations have been poorly kept. However, I can’t help the idea that people keep awful associations around the world every day, but that alone doesn’t make them bad people. Maybe the idea that he can be close to them while not being too close is a good idea? For instance, we all know that Abe Lincoln was a great president, but he thought that blacks and whites couldn’t live together. Or that Jefferson was a brilliant man to live with but the man was a huge hypocrite as well? Do we discount and villify the man just for that? Were Isaac Newton’s scientific laws and experiments tainted by his writings on Christianity which he spent more time on than his scientific studies? Obama spent twenty years with Wright, but was Wright all bad? Was Wright really the devil? Is it odd that half the things he was saying was batshit crazy and the other half true?
Obama lived in Chicago. It has a reputation for corruption, but many Americans find a way to live decent lives there.
I might agree that Obama played the race card when he said that he doesn’t “look” like the presidents on the dollar bills (if look was the verb here). He can be pretty guilty of that one episode. But he didn’t vigorously use it. It has been my reaction that, unfortunately for Obama, he is a walking race card. Hate to say it but every pundit on TV agreed that it only hurts Obama when some type of race card is played. Therefore, why would Obama “play” it? Is it out of defense because there are some people in McCain’s campaign that criticized him not looking like he fits in with the rest of Americans? There is, at least, some truth to that (Both Clinton and McCain, I believe, have used this tactic against him).
Chris,
I don’t remember being promised that the Republicans would, “outlaw gays from the country or create a real sustainable Faith group within the Executive branch.” I DO remember being promised strict constructionist SCOTUS judges. Check. I remember being promised equal treatment of religious and secular charities when it comes to Federal funding. Check. I remember being promised a Federal effort to reign in activist state judges wanting to impose gay marriage. Uhh…half a check.
I’m curious what promises you’re talking about.
Or that Jefferson was a brilliant man to live with but the man was a huge hypocrite as well? Do we discount and villify the man just for that? [question by Chris]
My comments were light years from vilifying Obama and were more in the vein of pointing out disturbing elements. Second, no one has suggested anything as silly as discounting/vilifying a candidate over one character flaw. We are doing nuance here and looking at patterns.
Was Wright really the devil?[question by Chris]
No, Wright is simply a man consumed by hatred who passed malignant views onto his flock.
Obama lived in Chicago. It has a reputation for corruption, but many Americans find a way to live decent lives there. [comment by Chris]
We are only looking at one American…Obama.
I might agree that Obama played the race card … But he didn’t vigorously use it.[comment by Chris]
So, using the race card at multiple campaign stops and smearing another candidate with inferences of racism, one of the most malignant charges today, is ok as long as Obama doesn’t do it vigorously [whatever that means]???
Is it out of defense because there are some people in McCain’s campaign that criticized him not looking like he fits in with the rest of Americans? Both Clinton and McCain, I believe, have used this tactic against him)..[comment by Chris]
No, they didn’t. The only one who has inserted race into this campaign is Obama.
jb and Chris by way of jb,
Your list in #39 draws a huge “ditto” from me. It is a thoughtful compilation of what makes my head shake in shame for this man. I say “shame” because he has the nuanced guile of the demagogue. He knows how to tap into with the weakness and bias of a segment of society.
If he has solutions, he certainly keeps them tucked away. (Remember John Klutz Kerry who wouldn’t tell his great plans until after he was sworn in?)
Obama can not afford to be specific, because McCain would “attack” the details. However, Obama seems to have no compunctions about righteously “attacking” the details of McCain’s ideas.
When Deng Xio Peng unleashed the forces of capitalism on China, he said: “I don’t care if the cat is black or white as long as he catches mice.”
Well, I don’t care if the Obama cat calls himself black, white, mixed or perfect, I want to see real presidential timber.
There is no chance that if Obama were a while Irish O’bama that he would have gotten anywhere near this race or the Senate or the Illinois senate or the affirmative action scholarships to elite schools.
He is glib, but he is dull. Not dull witted, perhaps, but dulled by a meteoric rise that happened because of his race, not despite it.
Now he has to prove what he is made of and what he can do for all America. His sour wife, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and his Moveon.org and Soros ties are not assets. I could be persuaded to overlook them, perhaps, but not by pretending some strange equivalency between Obama and Jefferson and Lincoln.
Helio,
On nuance…Over the last week, I have heard the MSM swooning over Obama’s nuance. In academia, it is popular to equate nuance with intelligence AND to declare that liberals are nuanced; thus liberals are enamored of their intelligence while conservatives are morons.
Truly, this strikes me as ludicrous. As I noted above, anyone involved in any type of relationship “does nuance” all day long, but at the end of the day, the toddler has to go to bed.
To grossly simplify, a parent makes a decision to put a child to bed. However, it is foolish and facile to assume that the decision lacks nuance.
Having raised five kids, I considered many elements before I sent the kids packing to the Land of Nod:
kids need sleep
kids function better when rested
Variation in routine is stimulating and can be fun
I knew the kids would feel bad the next day if
they stayed up too late
the activity they were engaged in could be picked
up the next day or was not particularly
worthwhile [if this was not the case, I
would make an exception]
schedules provide an element of predictability
and security
I valued time with my husband
etc. etc. etc.
In other words, even a simple decision about bedtimes was not always so simple and involved lots of nuance.
However, I did not feel a need to go through the entire litany of nuance with the kids every night so that I could convince them that I felt their pain. My actions as a mother told them more than facile words ever could.
And, at the end of the day, toddlers have to go to bed.
The human brain goes through unfathomable data before a decision is made. To me, what we think of as nuance is often little more than verbalizing the same data that others have chugged through mentally.
I often wonder if “nuanced” folks who feel the need to tell every thing that went into their decision simply lack the courage to stand by decisions that are often tough.
Worse, jb, than going over the litany of thoughts that went into a decision, often the politician showing their nuance are relating different aspects of the issue specifically because they have NOT come to a decision.
Using your example applied to some of Obama’s answers to various questions, it would sound like that paragraph you wrote, but be coupled with the laughter of children continuing to play way past bedtime.
Heliotrope says:
“Obama can not afford to be specific, because McCain would “attack” the details:”
I’m not sure McCain would, but if Senator Obama did specify details, it would be certainly open him up to more legit scrutiny than talking about his “sour” wife.
I had written a response to the “sour” sentiment, but I’m not even going there with you all any more.
THEBIGDODDY,
Hoo hah! Rick Warren asked Obama (and McCain) at the Saddlebrook event:
Obama named Michelle as one of the three. As one of three the wisest people he will rely upon heavily in this administration, it is hard to say that Michelle should get a pass.
“This is the day which the LORD has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Not a sentiment I have instantly connected with Michelle. You may have some disdain for my person for thinking that Michelle is a “sour” personality, but she hasn’t blown much sunshine around.
Hoo hah, indeed….
I am ever amazed by those who presume to dictate appropriate speech venues for others.
While the left found it desirable/fun/acceptable to trash the Bush twins, Obama’s America disparaging wisest-person-in-his-life-advisor wife is said to be off-limits…
Only in an upside-down world….
Using your example applied to some of Obama’s answers to various questions, it would sound like that paragraph you wrote, but be coupled with the laughter of children continuing to play way past bedtime. [comment by Gabe]
now you got me smilin’.
I have never said a single ill thing about the wives of either President Bush or Senator McCain because that’s sissified, punkish, behavior.
None of them are say, on the level of Crystal Magnum, of which whom is noted that many white conservative women would probably put Michelle Obama.
And I don’t care about what the left does, at least not on this blog, which is supposed to be one where sanctified so-called believers frequent.
If you’re not sanctified, then have at it on this venue, JB.
Let a “black” come up in here saying things about Cindy McCain or Laura Bush and we’ll see what happens very quickly.
Take a break from commenting tonight. Enjoy the weekend. – Admin
Comments on this entry are closed.