Barack Obama seems to have no trouble making things up. Girlfriends, unemployment numbers and now an imaginary woman named Julia. See her fabricated story here.
But who is Julia? And why does she want to live cradle-to-grave dependent upon the government? Others have answered better than I.
Who the hell is “Julia,” and why am I paying for her whole life?
David Harsanyi, Human Events
It is also a mindset that women should find offensively patronizing. When they’re old enough, I hope my two daughters will find the notion that their success hinges on the president’s views on college-loan interest rates preposterous. Yet, according to the “Life of Julia,” women are helpless without the guiding hand of Barack Obama.
Obama campaign’s “Julia” a vision of life as a ward of the state
Norm Leahy, Bearing Drift
How sweet. Though if all she has is Social Security to live on, Julia’s volunteer work in the community garden may be motivated more by the need for a bit of extra food than by altruism.
Julia Left Conway Twitty For Barack Obama
Erick Erickson, Red State
This is Barack Obama’s vision of America — a welfare state from cradle to grave where parents and spouses are not needed because you have a federal government there for you the whole way from the delivery room to the death panel.
The Lonely Life of Julia
James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
This may explain why, in the campaign’s telling, nothing happens to Julia between 42 and 65. That period includes the typical peak earning years–the time at which, assuming Julia is gainfully employed, she will be paying the biggest price for “Obama’s” generosity.
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be “Julia”
After hyperventilating for months about the Republican “war on women,” Democratic new-media gurus inadvertently have exposed the real Barack Obama: a chauvinistic control freak who would tether every last woman and child to his ever-expanding, budget-busting Nanny State.
A Nation of Julias
Rich Lowry, National Review
The point of view of “The Life of Julia” is profoundly condescending. It assumes that giving people things will distract them from larger considerations of the public weal — the economy, debt, the health of the culture. This view’s infantilizing tendency is captured by Obamacare’s insistence that, for purposes of health insurance, young adults are children who belong on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. It devalues self-reliance and looks at us less as independent citizens than as drab Julias, bereft without the succor of our life partner and minder, the state.
Perhaps the best response is provided by The Heritage Foundation: A Better Life for Julia.