Posted by
Kenneth G. Davenport on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:12:08 AM
When Michelle Obama made her comments about feeling "truly proud" of America for the first time in her life, there were many who were willing to give her a pass. Apologists in the media were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, signaling (again) that nothing the Obama's do or say will get much real scrutiny.
The facts, however, for those who are interested in such things (liberals are obviously not) -- is that Michelle Obama is someone who doesn't like America and is disdainful of whites. Her sitting for 20 years in the church of Jeremiah Wright is no accident. It is, rather, an affirmation of her beliefs that black separatism is the right course of action for the black community. If Michele Obama is carrying some of Barack's message of "change" for America -- whites should watch out. This is the kind of change that will lead to more racial division and hatred, not less.
How do we know this? Because Michelle Obama has said so in her own words. As Snopes.com reports, in her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred'. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'. The 1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
"Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and 'integrationist' when describing the views of black people. Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race. 'By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.'
"Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.'
I guess that becoming First Lady of the United States is a peripheral job! And what kind of First Lady would Michele Obama be? The First Lady of all Americans? She writes:
'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.'
And, she gives what seems to be a "call to arms for affirmative action" policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
'Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.'
"Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another. The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration."
Obviously, Michele Obama isn't going to be president herself. But if she feels this way and sat with her husband for 20 years in a church that espouses many of these same views -- is it not possible (indeed probable) that the candidate himself might harbor such views as well?
At the crux of this, of course, is that Barack and Michelle Obama are not agents of change, trying to bring a new politics to Washington. They represent the same old liberal politics of the past, and echo the tired old divisive racial politics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and, yes, Louis Farrakhan. This is not change! This is just more of the same packaged in a nice eloquent suit.
Is this really what America in 2009 wants? More of the same old failed policies of the left?