Michelle Obama’s Envy Tirade

by | Sep 5, 2012

Today, the Democratic Party opened its convention in Charlotte, North Carolina by appealing to those who hate capitalism, Jews and the rich. It started with news of a refusal to acknowledge Israel’s capital in the party platform and ended with a scathing speech which is one of the most vitriolic denunciations of American ideals in […]

Today, the Democratic Party opened its convention in Charlotte, North Carolina by appealing to those who hate capitalism, Jews and the rich. It started with news of a refusal to acknowledge Israel’s capital in the party platform and ended with a scathing speech which is one of the most vitriolic denunciations of American ideals in a major political speech. The invective was delivered by the woman known as the First Lady, who lost any right to that term with an assault on the United States of America.

Watch the speech and make your own judgment. After nearly 30 minutes of watching Mrs. Obama denounce making money, ownership of material possessions and everything self-made, I’ve made mine. Michelle Obama came out of the closet, as the saying goes, with her unfiltered hatred of capitalism and individualism and the moral basis for both: egoism. In a speech preluded by an artist who has in recent days apologized for offending gays, climaxed by an unemotional spurt of emotionalism to induce unearned guilt, and finished by her not so much walking as storming off, she gave what was unanimously declared brilliant, ingenious and moving by those fools that pass for intellectuals on Fox News and other TV outlets.

The hate speech was coded, but the hate was there, like the blowing of a silent dog whistle, which we keep hearing so much about: she wants to take down and destroy what’s left of capitalism and kill it. Let there be no doubt who she aims to attack: anyone who creates value, produces wealth and makes money and lays claim to have created, produced and built it, rightfully owning it, or those who want to. There she was praising her husband for “turning down high-paying jobs” and being altruistic, i.e., “giving back” to the community, which means sacrifice for the sake of the collective, or race, or gender – anything but acting for one’s own pursuit of happiness, a noble ideal which she and her husband detest – while presumably dastardly Mitt Romney had the audacity to have a Swiss bank account, another idea she hates. All this while grimacing and letting a forced, hostile smile repeatedly turn to a sneer. Hers was a diatribe against America and the Americans she hates. The intellectuals accepted it as harmless, every last word of it, and non-controversially successful.

But the Michelle Obama speech was hateful, not successful, by any honest measure; contemptuous of those who make money. Moreover, hers was an attempt to pass her husband off as a deity based on what she considers the virtue of poverty – being penniless, poor and deliberately depriving oneself of wealth – hailing his digging through dumpsters and looting someone’s trash while driving a beater as evidence of his moral superiority. Like her predecessor, a forgettable keynote speaker named Castro who sounded more like the Communist dictator than the mayor of a city in Texas, Michelle Obama lied. She said she supports a woman’s right to choose to control her own body, an assertion which contradicts her support for her husband’s devastating two-year-old law ObamaCare, which negates every American’s right to his own body, health, property, and life.

In the most vicious moment, she railed against America as a place where her father had to work to pay off her government student loans, a fact she clearly resents, though she pitched the resentment differently, distorting the facts and casting an inversion of her father in the role of the self-made man, who knew, she said in a swipe at real self-made men (and women) who created, forged and made this country, “what it meant to be a man”. In warped Michelle Obama’s primitive, thick-headed macho version, a virtuous man is one who is proud merely to have made a payment on (not even paid off) a government loan, as against the man who earns enough money not to have a loan, the type of man she regards as an unfairly advantaged man whom we should envy, resent, hate, tax and take down. There is the meaning of and forecast for a second Obama administration, in what amounts to this wrong, wretched woman’s middle finger at the United States of America: a bitter, hateful pitch for self-abnegation and envy.

Some foolish pundits, such as MSNBC’s pathetic Chris Matthews or Fox News’ vacant Brit Hume, were content to condescendingly pat her on the head and tell her she did a good job and wore a pretty dress (how far feminists such as her have set back women). But none of the commentators bothered to notice that the presidential Mrs., wife of Obama the Nothing Man, expressed pure hatred for the productive individual. On the day the Democrats stripped our ally Israel of recognition of their capital, their leading female comrade, praising poverty as virtuous, mocked and denigrated our nation for its highest principle: the right to life, liberty and the inherently selfish pursuit of happiness. Some of us already knew that the Obama administration was leading us to poverty. Now we know that Mrs. Obama is leading the way, poking her preachy middle finger with an attitude that says ‘up yours’ to any honest moneymaker. Let the intellectuals rave about who she’s wearing and genuflect over the empress and her new clothes. Some of us see Michelle Obama for what she is: a cruel, callous, backward woman with archaic and rotten ideas.

Scott Holleran's writing has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Classic Chicago, and The Advocate. The cultural fellow with Arts for LA interviewed the man who saved Salman Rushdie about his act of heroism and wrote the award-winning “Roberto Clemente in Retrospect” for Pittsburgh Quarterly. Scott Holleran lives in Southern California. Read his fiction at ShortStoriesByScottHolleran.substack.com and read his non-fiction at ScottHolleran.substack.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Special interest groups and big donors make campaign contributions because they believe that the candidate will support legislation favorable to them and their agenda.

An Electoral College Within Each State

An Electoral College Within Each State

Instead of the United States abandoning the Electoral College, state legislatures should take us in exactly the opposite direction. From now on, they should abandon a statewide popular vote for president, and instead either appoint electors directly or implement an Electoral College-type system within each state.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest