Well yes, the factuality of the message seems quite obvious to me, and I made it a habit of being very careful before assigning conspiration theories to a statement. And then, instead of focusing on all possible malevolent implications of a phrase (which can  sometimes be "discovered" in great numbers), I concentrate on the facts, if they are correct or not.

This is not a conspiracy theory, nor an attempt to fabricate malevolent connotations. The slogan is a direct plagiarisation of one of the chief slogans of a very recent campaign to undermine secular democracy in Europe.

Would you also scrupulously evaluate the truth or falsehood of the statement "arbeit macht frei" without attaching "frivolous" historical connotations to it and proposing "conspiracy theories" about the person using that slogan?

For instance if had Sarkozy only spoken of duties and obligations (say, of immigrants) and not of "rights, but also duties", I would have not agreed.
When his statements are balanced and factual

The problem with that statement is that immigrants already have duties as well as rights. So either the statement is true but trivial (like saying "the sun goes up in the East, but it also goes down in the West"), or it is interesting, but alarming, because the emphasis on duties implies that he thinks that more attention should be paid to the duties of immigrants than to their rights (and/or to the duties of other citizens).

(see also this phrase: we are a secular state, but that does not mean we are so in opposition to religions or to churches;

Again, this can be true but trivial (the definition of a secular state is that it is not in support or opposition to churches). Or it can be interesting and problematic, because he conveniently leaves out half the definition, implying that he's not against the state supporting churches, only against the state opposing them.

or this one: a psychiatric hospital is not a prison, but still one should not be able to come and go as one pleases - approx.quot.),

Again, this doesn't pass the "duh!" test. No psychiatric hospital permits patients to come and go as they please if they are a danger to themselves or others - that would be a direct violation of medical ethics. So either he's stating complete banalities again, or he's implying that he wishes to impose restrictions that are not medically warranted.

You're perfectly free, of course, to imagine that Sarko spends his time uttering complete trivialities. I fail to see how that makes him an admirable politician, but hey, he's not my president anyway.

But I hardly think you can blame people for thinking that he actually has a point when he opens his mouth. And that if he doesn't come right out and tells us what his point is, we'll have to give our best guess.

Frankly, I hoped for some criticism from the left, for the sake of safety - maybe they will see something I did not. No trace, alas, except slogans and outcries against the "dangerous monster".

Slogans cannot be criticised with substance until and unless they are turned into actual policy. That's the whole rhetorical point of slogans - to provide a confirmation of one's "values" to core voters, that cannot be challenged on its merit, because it doesn't have any merit to be challenged on yet.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.