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.

We haven't seen anything yet! Obama's spending will be done in intervals. Just wait. You won't be singing his praises any longer when your pocketbooks get hit, and it's coming. But, you like him.

I think it was appalling how he spent money and rallied to get the Olympics in his Home town. Any president would know enough not to favor your own town, for it may make you look like you're only out for you and yours. He shouldn't have done that. Even the 'world' knew what he was up to. For they voted him the first one out.

The people are beginning to see him for who he is. SNL has started to poke fun at him. And they loved him at first, and were saddened that they wouldn't have a president to berate. (Yeah, right.) He is taking this country down the path of socialism and that's NOT what the American people want. That's what he meant by "Change". Too bad he was the only one who knew what he was talking about when he campaigned on that one. My husband used to ask me during the campaign, "He always says "change" is coming", but what change?" We never knew. Now we understand. It's a change to socialized government control. He will be out in the next election. Praise God!!!

We haven't seen anything yet! Obama's spending will be done in intervals. Just wait. You won't be singing his praises any longer when your pocketbooks get hit, and it's coming. But, you like him.

I think it was appalling how he spent money and rallied to get the Olympics in his Home town. Any president would know enough not to favor your own town, for it may make you look like you're only out for you and yours. He shouldn't have done that. Even the 'world' knew what he was up to. For they voted him the first one out.

The people are beginning to see him for who he is. SNL has started to poke fun at him. And they loved him at first, and were saddened that they wouldn't have a president to berate. (Yeah, right.) He is taking this country down the path of socialism and that's NOT what the American people want. That's what he meant by "Change". Too bad he was the only one who knew what he was talking about when he campaigned on that one. My husband used to ask me during the campaign, "He always says "change" is coming", but what change?" We never knew. Now we understand. It's a change to socialized government control. He will be out in the next election. Praise God!!!

The selection of cities in contention for the 2016 Olympics was determined long before Obama became president. HE didn't select Chicago - it was selected long ago as one of many world cities considered. He didn't do anything that leaders of other countries in contention for the Olympics didn't do. They went to Copenhagen to plug their country. President Obama did the same to champion our country.

I am proud that he did this. I am pro-America and wanted the Olympics here. So what country did you root for to get the Olympics? Brazil?

Shame on those who cheered when Chicago wasn't selected. How anti-American that was. It had nothing to do with anything but a hatred of Obama. rush limbaugh had two speeches prepared for the day after Rio was selected - one for if Chicago was selected and one for if it wasn't. Both portrayed Pres. Obama in a bad light. And shame on glenn beck for being giddy for Chicago losing.

As for SNL - it's a comedy show. It is a non- discriminatory basher of everyone. It makes fun of anyone about anything. Don't put too much stock into it. Did you enjoy it for the 8 years it bashed bush?

Pres. Obama inherited a HUGE mess from bush who didn't deal well, or at all, with many of our problems. He started the two costly wars, he started the bail out of the banks, he put Gitmo into effect, he ignored global warming and becoming energy independent. He ignored the need for financial (wall street) regulations. And health care - well he said people can just go to the ER.

Now that President Obama has tackled each of these issues I have heard criticism of him for taking on too much. And there is also criticism for him not having accomplished much. So, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't and he's only been in office less than 9 months. People are impatient and unfair.

And then there are those who just hate President Obama and are using any excuse to attack him. They are very transparent.

Hell to the yeah, Cleo'sMum. Republicans and right wingers look like idiots when they rant and rave about all the terrible stuff they claim our President is doing. They circulate bash and trash lies and exaggerations on the internet and on the Fox network and right wing radio stations. And what we've learned from listening to them and reading their diatribes is that they are NOT fair, they are usually intentionally misleading and at their worst they outright lie and make stuff up.

Their champion, Sarah Palin is a shining example of the lying. She was the tool of the Republican right wing during the campaign and she continues down that path. And she looks very stupid, just like the rest of that group who perpetrate the lies and extremist blathering. They are fine fodder for Saturday Night Live and every legitimate fair minded talk show.

The fact that SNL is an equal opportunity comedy show is right and good. If they didn't make fun of our current president, they wouldn't have any credibility when they use comedy to make a political statement. It was cool when they put Sarah Palin and John McCain on their show - they allowed them to both look ridiculous with little help from their writing staff.

When I hear someone say that the president is going to lose in the next election, I am amazed. But I have to admit, the Republican party as a whole right now will do anything to win so we need to brace ourselves for something very wicked. Who would have thought they could get away with what they did with the Swift Boat campaign, and now what they're doing to a man who has been in office less than a year? We know what they're made of and nothing should surprise us anymore.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans are seeing through the clap-trap and are willing to discuss and criticize (as well as praise) our government and politicians, purely on the merits of actual, valid points.

You're absolutely right, BJean. The republicans really have no one to run. Sarah Palin? Please! She would be a gift to the democrats. Maybe Sen. John Kyl who said he didn't want maternity care in health insurance because HE didn't need it. Or "you lie" Joe Wilson. Or maybe the family values CA rep who resigned when he accidently spoke into an open mike about his sexual affair with a lobbyist that involved spanking. Or maybe Ensign or Sanford. Or perhaps Bobby Jindal who thought it was a waste of money to monitor volcanoes (are you listening Sarah Palin?) or best of all - whacko Michelle Bachman - who thinks there's a commie under every rock.

These vocal minorities didn't vote for Obama and wouldn't vote for him in 2012 either. Organized by Dick Armey and Glenn Beck, these people jumped at an opportunity to bash a president they already hated. They have no credibility because the same things they criticize Obama for - bush did and nary a peep out of them then.

PattyGreen - with regard to Chicago and the Olympics and your criticism that Obama was rallying for his home town (read: America) - this is what then Pres. Bush said about it in Jan. 2008:

January, 2008

President George W. Bush: I want to thank the members of the 2016 Chicago bid to get the Olympics. Listen, Mr. Mayor, you and your committee have put together a great plan. It’s a plan that will make America proud.

They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we’re fortunate enough to be selected, but really it’s coming to America, and I can’t think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago.

This is a well thought out venue. There will be — the athletes will be taken care of. People who will be coming from around the world will find this good city has got fantastic accommodations, great restaurants. It will be safe.

And so I — this country supports your bid, strongly. And our hope is that the judges will take a good look at Chicago and select Chicago for the 2016 Olympics.

He must have been in collusion with Obama back then predicting that Obama would win and this would be good for Obama's hometown.

Geez - again NO credibilty PG!!!

Don't think for a minute that that's all the spending that was done. (4-6%)

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

In a West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage foundation. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

This is outrageous, and unsustainable!!!

Let me preface this by saying that if ACORN were not a largely black organization helping poor people (who usually vote for Democrats) get registered and receive information about housing, employment, etc.. we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But if that loud noise we hear (which is Glen Beck patting himself on the back about ACORN) has subsided - then let us look at the following from Sen. Bernie Sanders who wants to apply the ACORN standard to federal defense contractors.

Lockeed Martin , Boeing and Northrop Grumman (the top 3 federal defense contractors) all have a history of fraud and other illegal behavior. Combined these companies have engaged in 109 instances of misconduct just since 1995 and have PAID FEES AND SETTLEMENTS FOR THIS MISCONDUCT TOTALING $2.9 BILLION.

Their reward for this? In 2007 their received $77 billion in government contracts. (No one said we should deny them federal funding did they? - maybe we should get the teabaggers on that one. ROFLMAO)

By contrast, ACORN received a mere $53 million since 1995 and they were tripping over each other to cut off their funding.

Let's apply that standard to ALL contractors - including and especially the defense contractors - but it appears we reward them rather than punishing them. Where are the Glen Becks on THIS issue? Why haven't we heard them ranting and raving about Lockheed? Makes you wanna go hmmmm.

Now with regard to your term "welfare" - that actually is The Aid to Families with Dependent children and it amounts to about 10% of our federal budget. And I don't begrudge helping our poor children. It says a lot about what kind of country we are that we do. Without this safety net - well we would be just another 3rd world country - you've seen the picture of their hungry children.

As for Medicaid - most of that is used for nursing home care for the poor or those who can't pay (who can pay $6000+/month). What do you want to do with these people?

Social Security is not part of the federal budget.

You are lumping all the mandatory spending on entitlements together and calling it welfare. That's because welfare has an inflammatory connotation. And it is a misnomer. Stop using it.

The selection of cities in contention for the 2016 Olympics was determined long before Obama became president. HE didn't select Chicago - it was selected long ago as one of many world cities considered.

Hogwash! Prove it.

He didn't do anything that leaders of other countries in contention for the Olympics didn't do. They went to Copenhagen to plug their country. President Obama did the same to champion our country.

I am proud that he did this. I am pro-America and wanted the Olympics here. So what country did you root for to get the Olympics? Brazil?

None. It would only be fair if it was in some other country, for we've had it here plenty.

Shame on those who cheered when Chicago wasn't selected. How anti-American that was.

It had noting to do with being American or not. Obama showed that he is out for himslf when he chose to campaign for his hometown of Chicago. If I were him, I would have avoided Chicago as the site for the Olympics like a plague, just for that reason. But no.

It had nothing to do with anything but a hatred of Obama.

Of course it did. That's what most liberals use as their excuse for his absurdities. "Everybody hates him, that's why.:rolleyes:"

rush limbaugh had two speeches prepared for the day after Rio was selected - one for if Chicago was selected and one for if it wasn't. Both portrayed Pres. Obama in a bad light. And shame on glenn beck for being giddy for Chicago losing.

Obama needed to be knocked down a peg. You can't get by in the world on being an eloquent speaker alone. He needed to see that he's not God.

As for SNL - it's a comedy show. It is a non- discriminatory basher of everyone. It makes fun of anyone about anything. Don't put too much stock into it.

I can recall the SNL crew's statements when Obama was elected. They were upset that a "wonderful" president like Obama wouldn't give them anything to mock, and that because of their liberal stance, had too much respect for him to poke fun at his mess ups. They have changed their tune, for they now see the light.

Did you enjoy it for the 8 years it bashed bush?

I don't watch SNL.

Pres. Obama inherited a HUGE mess from bush who didn't deal well, or at all, with many of our problems.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard Obama himself repeat over and over how he "inherited" the problems he is facing, as if he hasn't exasberated them at all. He may have inherited debt from the past, but he has multiplied it 20X over. So give it a rest with that phrase, huh? What's he gonna say when he hands the mess he has created over to the next guy? Here's a little tidbit about his mess:

[Time is money, right? If you make one dollar every second, you will have a million dollars in twelve days. You will be a billionaire in 32 years, but it will take you more than 31,000 years to make a trillion dollars.]

He started the two costly wars, he started the bail out of the banks, he put Gitmo into effect, he ignored global warming and becoming energy independent. He ignored the need for financial (wall street) regulations. And health care - well he said people can just go to the ER.

Now that President Obama has tackled each of these issues I have heard criticism of him for taking on too much. And there is also criticism for him not having accomplished much. So, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't and he's only been in office less than 9 months. People are impatient and unfair.

And then there are those who just hate President Obama and are using any excuse to attack him. They are very transparent.

............................................................

I thought I did prove that Obama didn't select Chicago as the city for the Olympics with my quote by bush in Jan. 2008 (22 months ago) but here is another one:

On April 14, 2007, Chicago was selected by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) as the United States Bid city, and on June 4, 2008, the IOC named Chicago as one of four finalists to host the 2016 Olympic games.

Now, YOU prove that Obama made the selection of Chicago!!!!!!!!!!

He didn't do anything that leaders of other countries in contention for the Olympics didn't do. They went to Copenhagen to plug their country. President Obama did the same to champion our country.

I am proud that he did this. I am pro-America and wanted the Olympics here. So what country did you root for to get the Olympics? Brazil?

None. It would only be fair if it was in some other country, for we've had it here plenty.

If it wasn't their hatred of Obama, then what motivated the republicans, tea baggers, the glen becks and rush limbaughs to Celebrate when America lost the Olympic bid?

I'll tell you what - because they want Obama to fail - they don't care about America or helping to solve the problems in this country. THEY JUST WANT OBAMA TO FAIL. Limbaugh even said it. What pathetic excuses for people they are.

Shame on those who cheered when Chicago wasn't selected. How anti-American that was.

It had noting to do with being American or not. Obama showed that he is out for himslf when he chose to campaign for his hometown of Chicago. If I were him, I would have avoided Chicago as the site for the Olympics like a plague, just for that reason. But no.

Again, prove that Obama personally picked Chicago or SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

And out for himself? What would having the Olympics in Chicago do for him? He's the most powerful leader of the world, has a beautiful wife, 2 beautiful children, the respect of world leaders and still remains popular. His approval ratings are on the increase. More people now approve of his handling of healthcare than disapprove. So, I'm laughing about "Obama being out for himself" about Chicago. He's doing just fine.

The Nation Brand Index (NBI) which measures global standing in the world shows that in the most recent poll the United States is now number one (#1) as the country most admired - up from number 7. It is attributed to President Obama. So again, he is doing just fine - he hardly needs Chicago.

It had nothing to do with anything but a hatred of Obama.

Of course it did. That's what most liberals use as their excuse for his absurdities. "Everybody hates him, that's why."

We finally have someone with brains in the White House and you call HIM absurd. That just goes to show how out of touch you are. Zero credibility.

rush limbaugh had two speeches prepared for the day after Rio was selected - one for if Chicago was selected and one for if it wasn't. Both portrayed Pres. Obama in a bad light. And shame on glenn beck for being giddy for Chicago losing.

Obama needed to be knocked down a peg. You can't get by in the world on being an eloquent speaker alone. He needed to see that he's not God.

Knocked down a peg??? Well, your true colors are showing. That's maybe a slightly more cleaned up version of calling him "UPPITY". Far from seeing himself as God, Obama has shown a great deal of humility. That's something bush never showed. He couldn't even answer the question about if he had ever made a mistake while in office.

As for SNL - it's a comedy show. It is a non- discriminatory basher of everyone. It makes fun of anyone about anything. Don't put too much stock into it.

I can recall the SNL crew's statements when Obama was elected. They were upset that a "wonderful" president like Obama wouldn't give them anything to mock, and that because of their liberal stance, had too much respect for him to poke fun at his mess ups. They have changed their tune, for they now see the light.

Did you enjoy it for the 8 years it bashed bush?

I don't watch SNL.

For someone who doesn't watch it, you seem to have total recall of their past and present shows.

Pres. Obama inherited a HUGE mess from bush who didn't deal well, or at all, with many of our problems.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard Obama himself repeat over and over how he "inherited" the problems he is facing, as if he hasn't exasberated them at all. He may have inherited debt from the past, but he has multiplied it 20X over. So give it a rest with that phrase, huh?

No chance. Because it's true and the truth hurts. And Obama is helping clean up the mess. It's painful and costly, yes, but to do nothing would have been a bigger disaster.

What's he gonna say when he hands the mess he has created over to the next guy? Here's a little tidbit about his mess:

He's already said that if he is a one term president because he took on the tough problems, then so be it. Quite refreshing from bush's/rove's tactics which involved lies to get reelected. Obama cares about the country more than getting re-elected.

[Time is money, right? If you make one dollar every second, you will have a million dollars in twelve days. You will be a billionaire in 32 years, but it will take you more than 31,000 years to make a trillion dollars.]

How can someone feel all warm and fuzzy toward Glenn Back and Rush Limbaugh? How can any real patriotic American condone the rants and raves against their own country that Beck and Limbaugh do? They are contributing to the erosion of the office of the presidency (surprising that there is any respect for that office at all after George Bush's and Bill Clinton's terms) but these guys are doing all they can do bring this country down - to pit one American against another by lying and misstating the facts and even maligning our president in personal ways.

These guys are terrorists of a kind. Because ithey incite people to carry guns to public meetings where their opposition is speaking, and they're eventually going to incite mayhem of a very real physical nature.

Everybody who has a brain either thinks they are funny or probably harmless. I tend to disagree. I think they are very dangerous and I think that the people who cheer them on are sheep being led to the slaughter.

How can someone feel all warm and fuzzy toward Glenn Back and Rush Limbaugh? How can any real patriotic American condone the rants and raves against their own country that Beck and Limbaugh do? They are contributing to the erosion of the office of the presidency (surprising that there is any respect for that office at all after George Bush's and Bill Clinton's terms) but these guys are doing all they can do bring this country down - to pit one American against another by lying and misstating the facts and even maligning our president in personal ways.

These guys are terrorists of a kind. Because ithey incite people to carry guns to public meetings where their opposition is speaking, and they're eventually going to incite mayhem of a very real physical nature.

Everybody who has a brain either thinks they are funny or probably harmless. I tend to disagree. I think they are very dangerous and I think that the people who cheer them on are sheep being led to the slaughter.

These radical right wing extremists are like terrorists in that they help to incite violence with their constant hate talk. Someone who is already mentally unstable doesn't need much provocation to be pushed over the edge by this kind of rhetoric.

The young guy who shot and killed 3 police officers in Pittsburgh in cold blood when they came to answer a domestic disturbance call thought Obama was going to take his guns away. He was armed to the teeth with assault rifles and a bullet proof vest (both illegal) and was lying in wait to execute those officers. Now, where do you think he got the idea that Obama was going to take away his guns?

However, it appears that those who follow such hate radio and websites have had their 15 minutes of fame and their tantrums have wained. Obama's overall approval rating is going up, those who support healthcare is going up, those who think Obama is doing a good job on healthcare now exceeds those who think he isn't. And just recently more level headed republicans - like Swartzenagger and Dole have come out in support of healthcare reform and have asked their fellow republicans to cooperate with this.

Never been a huge fan of Bob Dole, but in contrast to today's right wing extremist Republicans, he looks mighty good to me. Swartzenegger has always had one foot angled a little to the left, so it's not surprising that he might be one voice of reason. Maybe the two of them and a few other level-headed Republicans can bring some sanity back to the GOP.

These radical right wing extremists are like terrorists in that they help to incite violence with their constant hate talk.

Oh brother!!.... Oh my Goodness , Terrorists!!! What should we do?:thumbup: Give me a break! If you feel that any person who opposes what Obama is doing in the WH is a terrorist and a hater, then you liberals were terrorists and haters when you opposed what Bush did. But I happen to know that your opposition to Bush didn't make you a terrorist or a hater. It just made you different in your views. Someone needs to mature a little. The liberals and the conservatives are both human beings who happen to think drastically in opposition to each other. IMO, the conservative is closer to thinking the way that God has outlined for government to be in the bible. They are usually against abortion and gay marriage due to their sinfulness. They are most likely Christians, but not all. They tend to stand up for what is morally right as oppposed to what is popular or immoral. Liberals tend to have an anything goes attitude and usually don't consider the 'cost' of things. They are spend thrifts and like to be taxed. They seem to love government growth and intervention in the lives of the people. So, the only thing that seperates a liberal and a conservaitive is their mindset. Both are human beings, not terrorists. (Do I need to show you the KILL Bush protestor signs once again?)

Did anyone say that anyone who opposes President Obama is a terrorist? Except for you saying it, no they did not. They said people with extremist beliefs that incite brutality and mayhem are like terrorists.

Fundamentalist Christians can be really extreme in their beliefs also. Just like Muslims who are extreme in their beliefs.

But nobody is saying that all Republicans are extremists or fundamental Christians or that anybody who opposes the President is a terrorist, or that everyone who is Christian and believes in the Bible are extremists and terrorists and/or fundamentalists.

YOU are the one who is lumping everyone in a group. And doing that is no better than saying all white people are good and all black people are bad and all Mexicans are illegals, and all Asians are brilliant. Which as we all know is just plain ignorant.

I hope you can see the difference between saying that some fundamentalist Christians who are very extreme in their beliefs and who show up at political forums with guns and those wackos who are on the Fox network who are trying to incite people to hate, are like terrorists - and that saying what you're saying - that ALL right wingers are this and ALL of those progressives who lean to the left are (fill in the blank), is something entirely different.

These radical right wing extremists are like terrorists in that they help to incite violence with their constant hate talk.

Oh brother!!.... Oh my Goodness , Terrorists!!! What should we do?:thumbup: Give me a break! If you feel that any person who opposes what Obama is doing in the WH is a terrorist and a hater, then you liberals were terrorists and haters when you opposed what Bush did. But I happen to know that your opposition to Bush didn't make you a terrorist or a hater. It just made you different in your views. Someone needs to mature a little. The liberals and the conservatives are both human beings who happen to think drastically in opposition to each other. IMO, the conservative is closer to thinking the way that God has outlined for government to be in the bible. They are usually against abortion and gay marriage due to their sinfulness. They are most likely Christians, but not all. They tend to stand up for what is morally right as oppposed to what is popular or immoral. Liberals tend to have an anything goes attitude and usually don't consider the 'cost' of things. They are spend thrifts and like to be taxed. They seem to love government growth and intervention in the lives of the people. So, the only thing that seperates a liberal and a conservaitive is their mindset. Both are human beings, not terrorists. (Do I need to show you the KILL Bush protestor signs once again?)

No liberal talk show host encouraged protesters to arm themselves when they went to rallies. No liberal preacher preached from the pulpit that he wanted Bush to die. I am talking about those in the mainstream media - who have an audience - who get paid to say what they say.

Now, as far as what God would want. Well, I think he would want us to help our fellow man. And the democratic party is the party of the comman man. The democrats have always helped the least among us. That is in the bible. The democratic party is responsible for (among other things)

-the 40 hour work week

-mandatory overtime

-child labor laws

-workplace safety laws

-black lung benefits

-laws for food and water safety

-social security, medicare and medicaid

-aid to families with dependent children

-disability laws

-special education laws

-the family medical leave

-the Lilly Ledbetter Act

The democrats supported workers right to unionize and unions are what created the vast middle class in this country that has supported this country for the last 60 -70 years.

Do you ever watch shows about what life was like when there wasn't any middle class? There was the big mansion on the hill. That belonged to the factory owner. He was a republican. Then below were company owned homes where the workers lived or they lived in shacks. Their working conditions were deplorable, unsafe and many died in work related accidents or later from things like black lung. If they lived in a company house, they had to shop in the company store. You know that song? "And I owe my soul to the company store?" That was life before the unions.

The democratic party supports labor and unions because without them there isn't a level playing field. CEO's get to negotiate their contracts - why shouldn't the workers?

The democratic party is the party of family values because they don't just talk the talk like the republicans do but they help to pass bills that actually help families.

And do you really want to claim that republicans are more moral than democrats? Do you really want the laundry list of the immoral acts the MANY, MANY republican hypocrites have been involved in? I will be happy to provide them if necessary.

My view of republicans is this. There are the 3 R's of republicanism: rich, racist and redneck. Now the rich are the haves and they make it their life's work to make sure that others don't get what they have (eg. healthcare) and the racists and rednecks just hate all people of color, gays, women's rights and anyone who isn't a white male. They support the money, wall street, the big corporations and reject any attempts to regulate any of this.

Here are some examples:

George Allen- republican - calling a person of color - Macacaw

Bob McDonnell - republican (running for VA governor)- saying working women are detrimental to the family and opposes contraception for unmarried people.

Sen John Kyl (R-Ariz.) - questioned why maternity care was in the healthcare bill because he said "I don't need it"

The National Republican Congressional Committee - said this about Nancy Pelosi (after she said Gen McCrystal should view his opinions through the chain of command): "The taxpayers should hope that Gen. McCrystal puts Nancy Pelosi in her place." ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?? IN HER PLACE? Languge used is very telling. This is a put down to women - where exactly is their place? - barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Sec'y Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Jones said the same thing about McCrystal but did the NRCC say anything about them? No, because they're men. And your language about "knocking Obama down a peg or two" is also telling. Like I said before - it's a slightly more cleaned up version of uppity.

Since Ronald Reagan and especially since Bush - the republican party has gone much farther to the right and has become increasingly mean-spirited. That is why so many people (before the 2008 election) who were independent or republican switched to the democratic party.