Michelle Obama Requires 24 Attendants...  

Posted by SpotTheDog007 in

The White Paper Report
"...because not everything in life is black & white"



October 2, 2009

   THE DCR received an email yesterday referencing an article by Dr. Paul L. Williams (provided by thelastcrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order) published by The Canada Free Press July 7, 2009. The article stipulated Michelle Obama "required" a staff of 24 attendants "to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." The article proceeded to list the names, positions and annual salaries of each staff member concluding that...

"...there has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayers' expense, when even Hillary (Clinton) had three; Jackie Kennedy, one; Laura Bush, one, and prior to Mamie Eisenhower, social help came from the President's own pocket."

Fact: According to the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff, as of July 1, 2009, there are currently 16 staff members with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama. In other words, there are 16 people with "First Lady" specifically in their title such as Dana Lewis, Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady, with an annual salary of $60,000.
   The 29-page report lists not only Michelle Obama's staff but collateral employees assigned dual positions such as Camille Johnston who serves as both Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communication for the First Lady with an annual salary of $102,000. Additionally, the report lists six other staffers who do not have "First Lady" in their title but are a part of the Michele Obama's office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary ($113,000), and Natalie Bookey, Staff Assistant ($36,000).

Claim: "There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life."
Fact: Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, explained it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." However, she further explained that White House telephone directory records indicate Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.

   With respect to Laura Bush, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, emphasized that Obama's staff is conparable to Bush's in size and resembles a very similar staffing model. We were able to verify that Laura Bush maintained a staff of some 24 assistants, though the actual number fluctuated in accordance to event requirements while 18 maintained a reference to the "First Lady" in their title. Additionally, the combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama comes to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.
   What is most disturbing about the facts surrounding the "Office" of First Lady is that while she is assigned NO specific duties or job function, she employes more personnel than most corporate CEO's and in true Washington bureaucratic redundancy, maintains "special assistants to the executive Assisant to the Director of..." And none of this takes into account her hair stylist and clothing designer.
   Case in point, Camille Johnston, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady, $102,000; Catherine Lelyveld, Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady, $84,000; Tyler Lechtenberg, Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady, $45,000; Deilia Jackson, Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady, $36,000. But equally disturbing, there are some 30 unspecified "Staff" and "Executive" assistants assigned to the White House and First Lady.
   We can conclude nothing from this report except that the Obama White House, in their pledge to decrease the rate of unemployment in America, has taken the lead by increasing administration staff in positions that provide no tangible benefit to the gross national product but rather contribute to the increase in national debt... however minor in substance.

Credits for this Report:
FactCheck.org
Canada Free Press
White House/Office of the Press Secretary
Congressional Record
The Last Crusade






The Dean-Chrysler report is prepared and sponsored by The Agnostic Review in an effort to disseminate factual information in response to internet email/social networking disinformation. We are committed to providing the truth in order for others to obtain accurate information by which to base their decisions with regards to the reckless abandonment of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the Obama Administration and left-wing organizations perpetuating a socialist agenda for America.


Should you have any questions or comments regarding information received in chain-emails or from social networking sites, please email us at DCReport@SpotTheDog007.com.

 

Posted by SpotTheDog007 in , , , , ,

Marriage In The Singular Sense
When Love Seems To Fail...

What is it about love that can destroy a relationship? Are there that many responsibilities involved with love that it destroys it from the roots? Or have we just become a society that so easily says "I love you" without thinking about the consequences, without thinking about the minute details that always seem to surface when we least expect them?
Love seems to have become a catch-phrase in a society that's become increasingly reliant on "out clauses"... that little parachute that subconsciously diminishes the vows of longevity and commitment in a relationship, allowing one to bail at the first sign of trouble. When did we, as a Christian-value nation become so complacent about love and relationships that we've given credence to Shakespeare's adage, "In love with the idea of being in love...?"
I woke up this morning thinking about my recent divorce after 6 years of marriage... a marriage I knew was over a long time ago, but one I hung on to out of some morally-inspired sense of chivalrous upbringing. I had long ago come to grips with the fact that maybe we had made a mistake taking vows with good intentions, perilously embarking on the proverbial "paved road to relational hell."
But I began to wonder how our values had changed so drastically that sacrifice and commitment in the face of matrimony were now a singular proposition, something we deal with separately rather than as a couple. Has the "Me" generation of a society hung up on style and glamour permeated the institution of marriage as well. Have the days of "Golden Anniversary" announcements in the newspaper fallen by the roadside?
Over the past several months I've tried to convince myself that maybe I'm best on my own... maybe I'm just too hard to live with in light of my so-called "stubborn, cantankerous and incorrigible ways." Should I really give up hope that at nearly 50, I'm not going to find love in the way my parents and their generation did? Is there any need to retain the fact that in 12 years I need to buy my wife something made from silk or linen? And I have no idea why I know that...
If I were to be honest with myself I think I would find that my marriages failed not necessarily because we just weren't compatible together, but rather I'm just not compatible with myself... that until I find the person I really am, the person I believe in and can love unconditionally, without reservation, I'm not capable of loving anyone else in the sense of a lifelong commitment.
I believe earnestly in so many of the principles and philosophies of the Bible whether I believe in the writings as a whole. And certainly the most distinguished among them is the writing of Paul in his missive to the church at Corinth:

"Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil...
"[Love] doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with....
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things...
"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known....
"But now faith, hope, and love remain--these three... And the greatest of these is love.
"

When did I lose sight of this? When did I forget that it's OK to love myself with all my faults and shortcomings? How did I forget that I'm not perfect and that I am only me with all that that pronouncement entails? Was there ever a time when I was truly capable of loving someone without fear? With an abandonment and sense of fulfillment that this person cares about me as much as I they, and I deserve that? But I woke up this morning and realized I just couldn't shake the doubt and the question that has been searing my mind...

"When did I forget how to love...?"


Join Us For Live Yahoo Chat
Nightly From 7-9 PM CST


Posted May 29, 2009
The Agnostic Review