Apparently, Michelle Obama knows no shame. Just coming back from a whirlwind summer of elegant soirées, a sumptuous vacation abroad, and a jet-setting Martha's Vineyard junket on a multimillion-dollar estate, first lady Michelle Obama has sent a mass mailing panhandling America's poor to stuff the campaign coffers of the rich Democrat pols, the same pols whose legislation has impoverished the people and left them jobless.
This, my fellow Americans, is the stuff of wretched regurgitation.
It simply does not get any more vulgar than this. Begging handouts from the unemployed and struggling masses while treating yourself to profligate parties and trips is typical of the wives of third-world dictators. Imelda Marcos, anyone?
On the campaign trail, Michelle said that Americans were "mean" and that she had never felt "proud of her country" until her husband's rise to political stardom. Now it's time to ask whether it is truly Michelle Obama who is mean and viscerally uncharitable. To beg money from folks made poor by Democrat machinations seems the height of hypocrisy, to say nothing of the shabby manners.
Americans need to start asking whether Michelle Obama has ever done a single thing that's made us proud of her.
Let's take that Marbella, Spain vacation, for instance. Some of the folks now being asked to donate a few dollars each to the campaign coffers of rich Democrats might have made a few dollars each if Michelle had decided to spend those millions here instead of in Europe. But apparently that little nugget of reality slid right under the raised nose of Michelle Antoinette Obama. In case Michelle missed these pertinent economic facts, let's review. The U.S. poverty rate has, under Obama, risen to its highest level in fifteen years, with a record 43.6 million Americans now officially labeled "poor." It's mighty hard to stay above the poverty rating when you have no job. Obama's highly acclaimed economists of the years-ago discredited Keynesian school told us that with that stimulus bill, unemployment would never go above 8%. Of course, we now know they sold the citizens a truckload of poppycock. Under Obama, unemployment still hovers just below double-digits, and the real unemployment numbers are more like 20%, taking into account all those who've given up looking for jobs. That's not including the millions of Americans who have accepted reduced hours, regular unpaid furloughs, and part-time positions just to feed their families.
Note to Michelle: How much money could you have given to your political causes if you had skipped just one of your summer vacations?
Of course, U.S. poverty statistics do not take into account the receipt of federal and state aid money, now being dished out at record levels. The numbers of Americans reduced to taking food stamps just to feed their children has climbed to a record 41.3 million. To those Americans, Michelle Obama's request for a $3-or-more donation must seem vulgar in light of her own extravagance, much of it at taxpayer expense. Perhaps Obama-impoverished Americans are supposed to feel guilty that poor Nancy Pelosi can't get enough cash from her mega-rich husband to buck up those lagging campaign coffers. Since taking the Speaker's position in 2007, Nancy Pelosi has made luxury at taxpayer expense her own calling card. Juxtaposed with this obscenity, Nancy Pelosi is one of the fifty richest members of Congress, and her net worth showed a "sharp uptick" last year, even as she was fleecing the public through extravagant expenses and income-stripping legislative maneuvers.
The California Democrat was already one of the 50 richest Members of Congress, largely based on the strength of her husband's broad real estate and investment portfolio. In 2008, she had reported assets worth at least $25.2 million. According to her new disclosure report, in 2009 Pelosi's assets increased to a minimum of $29.7 million, mostly because of the addition of two assets worth $1 million to $5 million - an investment fund specializing in Asian ventures and a United Football League team.
Oh, the woe of it. Michelle needs to stop panhandling the poor for rich Democrat pols and get the money from them who have the extra to give.
On that score, why can't Michelle hit up John Kerry for a few million? After all, he isn't even on the ballot this year, and he must have a few extra gazillion dollars laying around one of his mansions. After all, with a minimum net worth of $186.6 million -- including a boost of a whopping $20 million over his last year accounting -- Senator Kerry, proud Obama booster, is the richest member of Congress. And since he just shimmied out of reach of the Massachusetts sales tax collector with his new yacht purchase, he ought to have plenty of excess cash lying around to plump up those lagging Dem coffers.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.
If the "Isabel" were kept at the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee's summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.
Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.
So the Democratic Senator, who has voted repeatedly to raise taxes on cash-strapped Americans, is a tax-dodger. To boot, his new $7-million yacht was built in New Zealand, leaving work-desperate New England shipbuilders out in the cold. Why wouldn't Michelle Obama hit up John Kerry for a few million instead of trying to panhandle America's poor and unemployed?
Why, indeed. Because, dear readers, this is the way liberals think. Their moral compasses are so rusty from lack of use that these limousine liberals don't even know enough to be ashamed of themselves. They seem not to even be bothered by their hypocritical double standards.
From Charlie Rangel being in charge of writing tax law for the citizens while cheating on his own to Maxine Waters helping a relative's bank, Democrats feel entitled to a different set of rules from the one they impose on the citizens, whom they rule with a bureaucratic iron fist. From Nancy Pelosi's extravagance on taxpayer dollars to John Kerry's sales-tax dodge, the rich Democrat pols think themselves above the citizens they govern.
And now Michelle Obama takes the cake by partying hardy the past two years, wasting more money in one night than many Americans make in a year and then having the unrivaled gall to panhandle out-of-work, poor Americans for the money to fill Democrat campaign coffers.
What's so deliciously ironic about Michelle's begging for money in this e-mail is the conspicuous mention that "[a]cross the country, teachers and firefighters, truckers and nurses have made pledges of support hoping to inspire you to take the next step. Because of them, a $3 contribution will become $6." Any reader with a single ounce of common sense will immediately realize that all the people mentioned as generous donation-matchers are union folks, whose contributions most likely will be pilfered from the union coffers. "Disgusting" is too mild a word.
At least Marie Antoinette was willing to let the people eat cake.
Michelle Obama one-ups Marie by wagging her finger at the same public her husband has impoverished, nagging them to eat healthy when all they can probably afford is a Twinkie.
It's shameful beyond words. And it certainly does not make me proud of Michelle Obama. Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.