First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

Dr. Paul L. Williams Bio

Email ArticleShop CFP

Photo Gallery

By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, August 17, 2009

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
   
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
   
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
   
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
   
5. $102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
   
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
   
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
   
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
   
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
   
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
    
11. $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
    
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
    
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
    
14. $60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
    
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
    
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
    
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
    
18. $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
    
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
    
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
    
21. $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
    
22. $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
    

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

No, the majority aren't screaming. They are voicing their opinions, calling their congressmen and representatives. They are writing letters to their governors and elected officials. They are actually doing what is their right to do. Protesting the governments policies and unsustainable spending. They are being heard as well.

Finally, the ACORN organization's deceit and corruption with our money is being brought into the light! The policy of all these Czars is being looked into! If the republicans weren't there to bring into the light the dirty deeds of those in politics, it would all be swept under the rug as it has been for many years. What's the matter with some people? They don't like the idea that some people are requireing them to be accountable?

I call my senators (both democrats) and congressman (republican) almost every week. They hear from me and I tell them I will be watching their vote. I just had a letter to the editor published a few weeks ago criticizing said congressman and his sham of a healthcare town hall forum. The letters in my paper are running in favor of Obama and healthcare reform with the public option.

So, someone caught ACORN in a gotcha moment. Those who committed this scandal deserved to be fired. If Obama hadn't been involved with ACORN, you wouldn't even be hearing about it.

Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks as the one on ACORN - mobilize people to dig up dirt, pump it up on talk radio and tv and then demand that Congress do something about it.

bush had a bunch of czars, too, so what? Oh, that's right, it's Obama now, so it matters.

And if the republicans have enough time on their hand to dig up dirt -then I urge them to go back and investigate the bush administration - there was enough dirt there to convict the entire adminstration. That should keep them busy. But no, wait, they weren't interested in digging up dirt when they were wallowing in it under bush. But now with Obama, well that's a different story.

All this outrage is so PHONEY. PHONEY, PHONEY, PHONEY.

From the birthers

To those who think his speech to students had a hidden agenda

To those who think he wants the government to take control of everything

Or that Obama is a muslim or a socialist or a communist

It's all about one thing - their hatred of Obama and their desire to see him fail so that his presidency will fail and the pathetic republicans and their angry, hate-filled, sour grapes followers can have something to Celebrate.

They've said it - the senator who wants the failure of healthcare to be Obama's waterloo or the people who say bury Obamacare with Kennedy. Or "I didn't come armed - this time"

None of these people - the elected ones or their followers - care about improving this country or helping to solve problems. They just won't accept Obama as their president and they have one goal and one goal only and that is to take down Obama. Period.

If this office had said it would increase the deficit you would suddenly give them credit.

Yes, I'd give them credit, for at least then they'd be being truthful.

So, when they say something you agree with, they are being truthful, but when they say something you don't agree with, they are lying.

I think that sums up your perspective. Very interesting! And revealing.

Actually, I don't believe that more people feel like you than me. Obama was elected in a landslide, turned red states blue. It's just that those who oppose Obama and everything he stands for have become very vocal and are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

I think that's proof that the majority of Americans like President Obama, they just don't agree with his vision of healthcare reform as it now stands.

I didn't say that "conservatives" did the killing. I said take a look at who has been killed. And it isn't the right wingers.

I guess I don't understand what you were getting at, then. You implied that the assassinations had some sort of political slant. I thought that also implied that the shooters did as well. But if I read it wrong, please elaborate...

I think that's proof that the majority of Americans like President Obama, they just don't agree with his vision of healthcare reform as it now stands.

Actually, they elected Obama to reform healthcare with a public option or provide universal healthcare and his stance now is what it was when he was a candidate - actually if anything, it has moderated. So, I don't think it's the pro-universal healthcare, pro-public option people who voted for him who now disagree with him. It's not like it comes as a big surprise that he wanted to reform healthcare.

Actually, they elected Obama to reform healthcare with a public option or provide universal healthcare and his stance now is what it was when he was a candidate - actually if anything, it has moderated. So, I don't think it's the pro-universal healthcare, pro-public option people who voted for him who now disagree with him. It's not like it comes as a big surprise that he wanted to reform healthcare.

I guess that's true. I think, though, that the promise of healthcare reform sounded better than the reality.....by that I mean that when candidate Obama said "I will reform healthcare to include everybody".......well, ok, that sounds cool. But when the details such as cost, possible rationing, etc. come out, then some people reconsidered their stance. That's not to say that these people don't want reform (no sane person would dispute the need for reform), but rather the shape of that reform is making up the current debate.

So, when they say something you agree with, they are being truthful, but when they say something you don't agree with, they are lying.

I think that sums up your perspective. Very interesting! And revealing.

I would give them credit for that truth because increasing the deficit is a given in any presidency, and especially Obama's because all he's done so far is SPEND!!!!! But you don't mind all that spending cause he's a nice guy, right?:biggrin:

I think that's proof that the majority of Americans like President Obama, they just don't agree with his vision of healthcare reform as it now stands.

Actually, they elected Obama to reform healthcare with a public option or provide universal healthcare and his stance now is what it was when he was a candidate - actually if anything, it has moderated. So, I don't think it's the pro-universal healthcare, pro-public option people who voted for him who now disagree with him. It's not like it comes as a big surprise that he wanted to reform healthcare.

He NEVER said that he planned a "Public Option" as part of his health care reform while he was a candidate. He just talked about health reform but never mentioned how he was going to do it. He saved that surprise for after his election! And that is why people who were once for him are now against him. Most people, myself included, thought he was going to do something about tort reform or insurance regulations, or lifting the ban on crossing state lines to increase competition, not run his own insurance business and get rid of the free market for private companies and have everyone on the governments plan only. (And, we all know why he can't 'reform' those lawyers.):biggrin:

Edited September 18, 200916 yr by pattygreen

He NEVER said that he planned a "Public Option" as part of his health care reform while he was a candidate. He just talked about health reform but never mentioned how he was going to do it. He saved that surprise for after his election! And that is why people who were once for him are now against him. Most people, myself included, thought he was going to do something about tort reform or insurance regulations, or lifting the ban on crossing state lines to increase competition, not run his own insurance business and get rid of the free market for private companies and have everyone on the governments plan only. (And, we all know why he can't 'reform' those lawyers.):biggrin:

Why would you think that Obama wanted those things when he never said THAT during his campaign? He talked about universal health care and he also said he supported a single payer plan (which is a public option).

Tort reform is just a distraction from the real issues of healthcare reform. It represents such a very small percentage of healthcare costs as to just be a red herring by those who oppose Obama. Texas has tort reform and healthcare costs have risen.

I would give them credit for that truth because increasing the deficit is a given in any presidency, and especially Obama's because all he's done so far is SPEND!!!!! But you don't mind all that spending cause he's a nice guy, right?:biggrin:

I minded the spending on the Iraqi war by bush and his costly tax cuts for the wealthy because both were unnecessary.

The spending Obama is doing is necessary to tackle the tough problems that need to be addressed.

I actually supported* Hillary Clinton in the primary and then Obama when he won the nomination. I supported both because I wanted a democrat in the White House and I don't give a rat's patooty about the personality of either.

* When I say supported I mean I worked for their campaigns - canvassing, phone banks, etc..

As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind spending as long as the money is in the bank for it. But that's not the case. If the government were willing to give up many of its programs that are costing us a alot of money and if he had been willing to cut all the pork like he had promisaed and if he were willing to slash most of the projected wasteful spending that he's done, I might not be as angry over this new plan.

Whether you like it or not, the war is a way of securing future oil supplies, and without that, our economy is toast!

Whether you like it or not, the war is a way of securing future oil supplies, and without that, our economy is toast!

Really???

Are you actually advocating that? Do you think it is ok for us to attack a sovereign nation so that we can secure their oil for us?

Whether you like it or not, the war is a way of securing future oil supplies, and without that, our economy is toast!

That statement is wrong on so many levels.

First, bush never said invading Iraq was for their oil (but not many believed this).

Second - if that is true, then why did our gas go up to $4/gallon last year?

Third, we were told that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the Iraqi war. I'm still laughing over that one.

Fourth, if our economy depends on Iraqi's oil, or it's "toast" - then all the more reason to support Obama's clean, green renewable energy plans, increased fuel efficiency for cars and less dependence on foreign oil.

Fifth - what other countries should we send our soldiers into so that 4000+ can die for their oil?

Really???

Are you actually advocating that? Do you think it is ok for us to attack a sovereign nation so that we can secure their oil for us?

I can't believe it ... Patty are you joking.... LOL I always said part of this attack is about the oil.... but then again I am with the thought that Sadaam Lynching was all about Papa Bush and Jr wanting to prevent Sadaam from talking about Papa Bush in the up coming trials...

I believe Bush and his cronies should be subjected to the international court and be tried for war crimes, then if found guilty they can be executed . Maybe Bush will be foolish enough to take a vacation outside the country so some country can scoop him up and bring him to justice.

Think about inmates in our country on death row... how many years of appeals etc.... come on and at an important Islamic holiday time... talk about creating more unrest so we have reasons to fire our weapons..... with this war we are not safer we have created more terrorists!

That statement is wrong on so many levels.

First, bush never said invading Iraq was for their oil (but not many believed this).

Second - if that is true, then why did our gas go up to $4/gallon last year?

Third, we were told that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the Iraqi war. I'm still laughing over that one. :blushing:

Fourth, if our economy depends on Iraqi's oil, or it's "toast" - then all the more reason to support Obama's clean, green renewable energy plans, increased fuel efficiency for cars and less dependence on foreign oil.

Fifth - what other countries should we send our soldiers into so that 4000+ can die for their oil?

Thank You !!!

And why is my gas over $3 a gallon NOW. I agree... we should have been investing in alternate sources of energy vs a war that has messed up so many young soldiers and their families and our financial future..... STUPID DECISIONS THAT HAVE COST OUR NATION DEARLY. I expect to see many more vets of a much younger generation on our So Cal streets begging..... this is how we thank our military for their service.

So where are the WMD.... bunch of BS And do ya'll realize WE the USA are not the ones who found Sadaam hiding in the hole... it was set up to make us look like the heros. LOL