Thursday, October 29, 2009

Privileges of the First Lady?? - Quite Excessive

I have decided to take down my earlier blog of the same title. I had asked the reader to comment on my blog site what was true or false in this email forwarded to me. Only one did. Others sent me hate emails instead of quoting on my actual blog site what was proven or they felt was in error. These emailers didn't say much about what was true. Why didn't they put their comments in my blog comment section? Most mailers did not acknowledge the last half of the email plus my year old blog, was true.

The original author of the said the "facts" that were wrong on Laura Bush and other first ladies were added without his consent, probably to make Mr. Williams look bad.

The last half of the document is true and was reported in various medias including National Review. I blogged on it a year ago without receiving any emails or comments saying I was wrong. As a reminder, volumes of false information was sent out on all types of media making far more accusations against the Bush Administration in his first year of office; yes a year because he started planning before November of last year, albeit, evidently not all planning was done for the best interests of the country.

That Obama ran on a program of deriding the rich, I thought he was at least obligated to cut expenses at the oval office. It appears he hasn't and that Michelle has approximately 20+ "helpers", about the same as Hilliary and Laura.

It is apparently true that people helping the presidents wife have grown substantially by all first ladies since the 60'.

That this administration has a great problem of telling the truth is obvious on the front page of today's JS. Truth, like beauty appears to be n the eyes of the "beholder".

2 comments:

Peoria AntiPundit said...

She has two small children who just can't go out and skip to school. Mrs. Bush didn't

Jon said...

Merle, I commented on both stories about Michelle Obama - the original (I assume you mean the one about her pay) comment was posted, but apparently you didn't read that link to factcheck.org because that disputes the story you posted.

The second (about her staffers) comment was also a link to factcheck.org, but that wasn't posted and I wasn't rude to you in my comments.