The Audacity of Obama; Michelle Obama and "Tax Milk"

A month ago I began a Blog series called "The Audacity of Obama" each Blog covers a different aspect of him, his associations, etc. After the speech provided by his wife last night I though now was a great time to revive it and continue the series, this time all about her.

During last night's speech and as she traveled with the "Dali-Bama" this year Michelle has claimed over and over to have come from a down trodden neighborhood on the South side of Chicago, essentially the same are described in Jim Croce's 1973 recording hit "Bad Bad Leroy Brown." In the song Croce called it "the badest part of town." Truth be told, at least where Mrs. Obama grew up, wasn't. It was and is a well taken care of area with nice craftsman style red-brick homes that in no way resemble what she describes. So either she is lying or she does not remember her "middle-class" neighborhood with much fondness.

Her father was a middle-class guy with a $42,000 a year job at the water treatment facility, so she didn't come from poverty. She was by all accounts a smart, diligent student and was taking college level courses at an early age. Because of her grades and work ethic she was able to take special classes for talented and gifted students at a magnet school which helped her gain entry into Princeton where she graduated cum laude 4 years later in 1985. Once she had graduated with honors it was only a matter of time before she was accepted to Harvard Law school, not bad for someone from a "bad neighborhood" on the south side of Chicago.

Stated plainly, her parents were devoted to their kids and pushed studies, middle-class values and hard work over television, and socializing with riff-raff, etc. Don't know about you but it doesn't sound like a bad life so far... just strict. So, is she lying and painting a poorer picture for impact, or does she genuinely remember things worse than they were?

If you ask me, she should be advocating this type of responsible behavior instead of pushing nanny-state politics on a new generations of people. Yet in numerous interviews with Newsweek, CNN, and others she has credited affirmative action for her making it, not her parents hard work, their dedication and her good grades. I don't get it, why credit the government for something she and her parents worked so hard for?

If she were to say that affirmative action was a "help to her" if and or when she was up against prejudice at college or in the job market, I could understand it, that is what it is supposed to do in my opinion. Instead it is used to dictate quotas when candidates are on par with one another. That would mean, using her logic, that she was a "token black" and I think discredits her accomplishments.

I don't like her because she gives credit where it is not due (the government) instead or shouting from the rooftops "look where hard work and good parental support got me, you can do it too." Instead she helps preach a message of government dependence and then also accepts "gratuities" from others due to her husband's status; like when the hospital she worked for doubled her salary some 260% when Obama was sworn in as a US Senator; how many of us would like to see our salary jump like that when it comes time for our yearly review?

Then there is the Rezko land deal, the campaign funds provided by donors with terrorist ties, the associations and friendships with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, etc. Did I forget to mention the over $1,000,000.00 earmark that the "Dali-Bama" advocated for the hospital where she worked? Those are your tax dollars! Did I also forget to mention the exceedingly over advantageous home loan the Obama's received from Illinois Northern Trust when buying a multi-million dollar home on his Freshman US Senate salary?

The Obama's received a 5.625 percent loan on their 30-year fixed-rate mortgage of a $1,620,000.00 Georgian style fully restored mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. It is what is called a "super super jumbo" there are no origination fees, penalties, discount points etc. Over the life of the loan they will save a minimum of at least $150,000.00. Folks this isn't just "sound investing" it is a sweetheart deal that most people could only dream of. All on his $165,000.00 a year salary. Remember this is before the book deals, her salary increase, the over 3 million dollars in investments back at Illinois Northern Trust, and so on.

The Obama's are not an average, everyday couple, they are not change agents, they do not represent a difference in Washington. They are a "power couple" who have rapidly learned that politics is vehicle to immediate wealth and power.

According to an NBC's Jim Popkin in an article dated March 25, 2008 "Their tax returns recently revealed that in 2000 their combined income was $240,505. That includes Sen. Obama's salary as a young state senator in Illinois, his fees ($16,500) as a "foundation director/educational speaker" and Michelle Obama's salary as a hospital administrator."

"In 2006, by contrast, the Obama’s' combined income was $983,826. Obama had become a U.S. Senator by then, making about $165,000 a year, and his wife's income at the University of Chicago hospitals had climbed sharply to about $265,000 a year. Sen. Obama's book-writing career also had become profitable, earning him $551,240 in author fees in tax year 2006 alone. Mrs. Obama also made $51,200 that year, as director of TreeHouse Foods, "a food manufacturer servicing primarily the retail grocery and food service chains," according to the company's website."

"The Obama’s' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Sen. Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year was $316,962 plus another $45,000 for her role as director of TreeHouse Foods.

The Obama’s became more charitable as their incomes grew. In 2000, the couple gave $2,350 to charity, or about 1 percent of their gross income. In 2006, they donated $60,307 to charities, or about 6 percent of their gross income. In 2005, the Obama’s list a $5,000 donation to their church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where the controversial Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., was Sen. Obama's pastor. If Sen. Obama tithed more regularly to the church, there's no record of it in these tax returns."

What this indicates is that as they increased their political muscle after his now famous speech at the DNC in 2004 the Obama's latched onto "Uncle Sam's breast" and started feeding on government "tax milk." Her salary was doubled, and the hospital receives over one million dollars in earmarks; his home loan receives preferential treatment, and once it does he then in return votes in favor of the home loan bailout bill… it is a tit for tat game they are playing... and it is WRONG!

Remember Hillary Clinton's little stock deal that earned her $100,000.00... well Obama is headed in the same direction.

In their front page investigative must-read, Mike McIntire and Christopher Drew of the New York Times report: "Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors."

Michelle Obama could let her hard work and parents diligence speak for her and demonstrate her conscience of character instead of her greed and dependence on the government for success, but she chooses not to. Instead she is reaping the benefits of her husband's success and together they have started to siphon "tax milk" from the American people.

No good conservative will ever tell you that they are against free enterprise, capitalism or making money. Goodness knows we all want to make more than we do but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

I do NOT care how many houses the McCain's or the Obama's own, or how many investments and business ventures they get into to make an honest dollar... as long as they did not use their influence to obtain sweetheart deals or provide a quid-pro-quo to someone in exchange for the benefits of the ventures they get into.

Most important of all, don't start teaching the young people of American that the right way to be successful is by stepping on your neighbor, circumventing the law, making shady deals in a back room or having Uncle Sam (you and me) foot the bill for you.

Michelle Obama could have chosen to be a proud example of what is able to be accomplished in America the right way; instead, Michelle Obama represents the very worst of socialist "tax milkers."

Louder pls:

Her salary was doubled, and the hospital receives over one million dollars in earmarks; his home loan receives preferential treatment, and once it does he then in return votes in favor of the home loan bailout bill… it is a tit for tat game they are playing... and it is WRONG!

Good stuff. Two comments — one is perceptual, the other is informational.

First, I think the reason Michelle credits affirmative action is because she thinks it really did help her. Read her thesis. This is not the work of a major scholar.

Second, Hillary’s $100,000 was not the result of a stock deal. It was the result of commodities trading, except it wasn’t really trading. The only explanation for her success is that she and the Tyson VP, Blair, had a deal. They used a broker, with the great nickname of “Red” Bone (Bone was his last name) who was later kicked out of the business for allocating trades. That is the key. In a real account, you make a decision to buy or sell, and it goes to the exchange, and you get your loss or gain. When trade allocation occurs, the trades never make it to the exchange, or if they do, the identity of the tickets is lost. The broker decides who wins or loses. Blair probably said to “Red” something like, “Me and the little lady is going to do some trading, and her account is going to go up.” Curiously, her account went up almost without any declines from $1000 to $100,000, at which point she closed it. Sounds like a nice round-number bribe to me.

When you look at the probabilities of her trading record being real, and the fact that she traded with huge margin (i.e., a tiny opening deposit), and that these accounts are marked to market every day, there is no other explanation. Incidentally, the records at REFCO, the broker, were lost by the time anyone cared about this.

That, and the Billy Dale Travelgate affair, were all I needed to irrevocably make up my mind about the Clintons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.