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.

When Obama campaigned on 'change', most thought he meant a change in the way the government does things. We thought he meant he wanted to get rid of government corruption and deception and out of control spending and social programs and 'pork'. We thought he meant to 'change' the way the government tries to take control of us. We thought he meant to change the corruption in Congress. This is not what he meant by 'change'. He meant 'change' us from a free country to a socialistic one. We don't want that kind of change. We want to go back to what our founding Fathers set up and planned for this country.

patty: "When Obama campaigned on 'change', most thought he meant a change in the way the government does things. We thought he meant he wanted to get rid of government corruption and deception and out of control spending and social programs and 'pork'. We thought he meant to 'change' the way the government tries to take control of us. We thought he meant to change the corruption in Congress. This is not what he meant by 'change'. He meant 'change' us from a free country to a socialistic one. We don't want that kind of change. We want to go back to what our founding Fathers set up and planned for this country. "

Looks to me like you interpreted his campaign and the changes he said he thought we need, to be completely different than what he actually said.

How could you do that? He was extremely straightforward and open during his campaign. And he is being more open in his presidency than any presidents have been, that I know of.

Bush nearly completely closed down commuication between the White House and the public. Having a president who is willing to actually answer to the public and who is willing to listen to the feedback he gets is practically foreign to most of us who became accustomed to not knowing what the heck was going on in the White House until long after the decisions had been made and action taken.

You're complaining about a president who wants the government to make sure that we have a country that cares about all its' citizens instead of the few who Bush favored. That's not socialism, but even if it were, it is far closer to what the founding fathers planned for this country than what the imperialistic* Bush gave us.

Your interpretation of what our founding fathers wanted is subject to debate. Just as is your interpretation of the Bible's meaning.

*"Imperialism: The policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire;...characterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjugation and control of territories, the establishment of colonies, etc." Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary

Establishment of colonies? Iraq certainly fits that bill.

patty: "You have such kind words to share about me. Thanks. I believe what you really meant was "Those who love God and believe in him and want a moral country are rocking the boat for us who want the freedom to do as we choose and to not have to answer to anybody."

"For all we want is what is morally right.

The problem lies in sinful human nature and its tendency to rebel against the authority of God."

Yes, I admit that I am not always able to find kind words to describe your posts or to debate your unkind words.

One reason is because you think that your ideas are morally right. I disagree. I think your ideas generally are exclusionary, discriminative as well as small thinking and single minded.

And furthermore, you're quite wrong about what we want for this country. YOUR God does not have the authority to tell people how to make this country function. YOUR interpretation of God is a God that would not treat people as Jesus instructed. And it is YOUR interpretation of GOD's will that people rebel against. Not God. And we do not seek to have a country where no one is required to answer to authority. We are a nation of laws. We need laws and we abide by the law.

Some of the people you seem to agree with politically do not wish to abide by the laws of the land, and they justify that felonious attitude by saying it's what GOD wants. I'm going to call a major ahhhhh-bullshit-chooooo here. Pardon me.

And you cannot divert attention away from your mean desires for this country by accusing us of not wanting to answer to authority. YOUR group of extremists are the ones who are not wanting to answer to governmental authority and the authority they supposedly answer to is a made up authority that they establish to suit their unholy needs.

patty: "You keep confusing 'heath care reform' with 'a government run health care insurance plan'. 2 Different things. Republicans want reform. Reform is a change in the way things are run. (Ins. companies, trial lawyers, medical professionals).We want reform, just not the kind that's being offered. You know, the government insurance option."

You keep confusing healthcare reform with just changing the way the insurance companies operate, and it appears that you're not even for much change of that.

If you think that socialism is putting the people who deserve affordable healthcare in this country in charge of their own health care, then you're also misinterpreting that.

This is why I abhor 'organized' religions. You are right in what you say. This is why every individual needs to read what God has to say, and not believe what their higher authority in their churches have to say about things.There really is no excuse for anyone when they stand before him one day and say," I never knew what you had to say on these issues." For in America, the bible is available to all and we have the freedom to read it.

As far as using the bible to support hate and discriminatory views, I believe that people need to take the bible at it's word, not their own word. How can these words be interpreted any differently? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is detestable."(Lev.18:22) The whole chapter 18 is entitled 'Unlawful sexual relations'. A verse before it says, "Do not have sexual relations with your neighbors wife and defile yourself with her." The verse after it says, "Do not have sexual relations with an animal." There is NO way to misinterpret God's intent here. Sorry. But he says it is just as wrong as the sins of adultry or having sex with an animal.

In the same chapter it also says not to have sex with a woman who is menstrating as she is unclean. Why don't I see the religious right protesting that this is happening? It is given equal importance to all the other "thou shall nots..." in that chapter.

Also, there is nothing in this passage prohibiting a woman "lying" with another woman so I am going to take that to mean that lesbian sex is okay.

Edited September 8, 200917 yr by Cleo's Mom
add something forgotten

You keep confusing 'heath care reform' with 'a government run health care insurance plan'. 2 Different things. Republicans want reform. Reform is a change in the way things are run. (Ins. companies, trial lawyers, medical professionals).We want reform, just not the kind that's being offered. You know, the government insurance option.

Actually, in these polls, the majority of republicans was opposed to healthcare reform. They don't want any change. They are the defenders of the status quo.

Think we've come full circle in this debate.

Republicans who argue against the proposed changes are the people who I maintain are the tools of the insurance companies.

Yeah, patty and others will argue that they think for themselves and that they just don't agree that the proposed changes are the right ones.

But their arguments fall flat because they don't have a viable answer to the insurance company controlling our medical treatment. What they seem to be proposing, when they do actually come up with anything but negative comments, tends to support insurance companies ruling the proverbial roost, but in a somewhat compromised fashion. Big deal. That won't do the trick. Too little, too late.

Get out of the way. Time for a change. Call it socialism if you like, but people need relief from the system that has evolved. Major change is what is needed. Unfortunately the proposed plan is not what many of us have hoped would become the kind of major change that Americans would all benefit from. But it is a start and if we must take baby steps, which I think is wrong, it's change I can deal with on the path to real, lasting, major changes.

Think we've come full circle in this debate.

Republicans who argue against the proposed changes are the people who I maintain are the tools of the insurance companies.

Yeah, patty and others will argue that they think for themselves and that they just don't agree that the proposed changes are the right ones.

But their arguments fall flat because they don't have a viable answer to the insurance company controlling our medical treatment. What they seem to be proposing, when they do actually come up with anything but negative comments, tends to support insurance companies ruling the proverbial roost, but in a somewhat compromised fashion. Big deal. That won't do the trick. Too little, too late.

Get out of the way. Time for a change. Call it socialism if you like, but people need relief from the system that has evolved. Major change is what is needed. Unfortunately the proposed plan is not what many of us have hoped would become the kind of major change that Americans would all benefit from. But it is a start and if we must take baby steps, which I think is wrong, it's change I can deal with on the path to real, lasting, major changes.

I agree, except that with only baby steps now it will nearly impossible to take the big steps later. The moment was supposed to be now, the stars aligned. I did my part to get the progressive people elected but they have not lived up to their part. Republicans be damned. The country voted them out. They are a regional and increasingly rightist party. I'm tired of listening to the party of no. When Obama talked of bipartisanship - let's not forget that it takes both sides and the republicans aren't cooperating.

How could you do that? He was extremely straightforward and open during his campaign. And he is being more open in his presidency than any presidents have been, that I know of.

Really? During his campaign he talked about health care reform, but never once did he say his reform was for the government to run a health care insurance company for everyone. That's not what I call open and clear.

But, as you know, it's not about the American people and what they want. It's about them! They want to keep their jobs. They know that there are far more people against the bill being put thru than for it, and even if they are for it themselves, if they want to keep their seat, they better vote against it or we are going to boot them out!

Obama won the election 52.9% to McCain’s 45.7% (365 to 173 electoral votes). It may have been a while since you took 7th grade math so I’d like to inform you that that is a majority, and by the way its also a plurality, which has great significance in our political system. Democrats hold a majority in the Senate with 57 seats (2 Independents, 1 open seat, and 40 Republicans) and a sizable majority in the House with 256 seats (178 Republicans, no Independents, and 1 open seat). A good number of the voters in 2008 rallied behind Obama because of a number of his core issues, not the least of which was a major overhaul to our failing Health Care system. Several of the current congressional democrats were swept into office with him on that wave of change. So surprise Patty, change is what we (the voters) want, it’s about us (the people). There are not far more people against it as you put it, the numbers don’t support that claim.

Even if you are right, and Democrats lose their seats by voting for this, I am fine with that. Making Health Care a Right and not a Privilege is that important. We have been trying to get this done since Truman and we should not cave into the special interests and the Insurance lobby yet again.

Yes, I admit that I am not always able to find kind words to describe your posts or to debate your unkind words.

One reason is because you think that your ideas are morally right. I disagree. I think your ideas generally are exclusionary, discriminative as well as small thinking and single minded.

And furthermore, you're quite wrong about what we want for this country. YOUR God does not have the authority to tell people how to make this country function. YOUR interpretation of God is a God that would not treat people as Jesus instructed. And it is YOUR interpretation of GOD's will that people rebel against. Not God. And we do not seek to have a country where no one is required to answer to authority. We are a nation of laws. We need laws and we abide by the law.

Some of the people you seem to agree with politically do not wish to abide by the laws of the land, and they justify that felonious attitude by saying it's what GOD wants. I'm going to call a major ahhhhh-bullshit-chooooo here. Pardon me.

And you cannot divert attention away from your mean desires for this country by accusing us of not wanting to answer to authority. YOUR group of extremists are the ones who are not wanting to answer to governmental authority and the authority they supposedly answer to is a made up authority that they establish to suit their unholy needs.

There is an end time coming that the bible speaks of. I could see what he says in the bible to be true simply by the way you talk. You sound like you could be one of those people who would feel justified in the persecution of the believers that will happen in the end. May God have mercy upon you.

All the christian religions base their teachings on the bible. The same bible. The fact that they come to different conclusions about what it says and what it means makes my point. The catholic church has biblical references and interpretations for every one of the things you take exception to. I am not defending them, because I think they got some things wrong, too. But my point is that if a major, world wide religion, with billions of members, that claims to be the one true religion because it is the only one that can be traced directly back to Jesus can get the bible wrong, then anyone can. And this is especially true of those who use the bible to support their hatred and their discriminatory views.

Exactly!

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

In the same chapter it also says not to have sex with a woman who is menstrating as she is unclean. Why don't I see the religious right protesting that this is happening? It is given equal importance to all the other "thou shall nots..." in that chapter.

Also, there is nothing in this passage prohibiting a woman "lying" with another woman so I am going to take that to mean that lesbian sex is okay.

In the New Testament Jesus said I have not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it. He then goes on to explain the things that need to continue to be upheld. Homosexuality and adultry were there. People need to read all of the bible to get the overall truth.

You probably didn't hear because there were all manner of issues being constantly screamed by Sarah Palin and various other ignoramuses - like he isn't an American citizen, like he's a Muslim, like Joe the Plumber doesn't think he should pay any taxes, like his minister speaks for Obama, like he's a terrorist within our borders and proof is that he accepted an evening of fund raising at the home of a former dissenter (a dissenter who sounded a lot like you do now), that Michelle Obama hates America, that Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin so he's unpatriotic, like his daddy is a Muslim and all of Obama's people are in South Africa, like oh well, you get the idea.

If all you can do is say "no" and regurgitate meaningless criticism that are lies and clearly meant to cast doubt on the man and his mission, then no wonder you didn't and don't get it.

kartman I learned a long time ago that if there was a really well constructed, easy to understand essay posted, with no misspellings, no gramatical errors at all, it is probably not one of us who authored it.

Now most people at LBT always do the right thing and cite their sources. But there are always a few who would like to take credit for someone else's compositions. It's wrong, even though this isn't something that is to be published or a term paper or a thesis we're writing. This is a public forum and if one is to be given any credibility, one must cite one's sources and when one is quoting even another LBT member, it is unfair and wrong to do it incorrectly.

I have had my words quoted and emphasis put on certain sentences that had no emphasis on them originally and things lifted and moved to change the meaning. There are no guarantees here that people will play fair and I take it as a very obvious indication of the kind of person I'm dealing with.

I have no problem in someone pulling together sources form the internet and using them here, I do it all the time. In fact I often include links so that people don’t think I am just making something up. It just came across in the opening sentence that Patty wrote that it was HER idea and that it was original. Sometimes there is a fine line between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. I think this was the later.