"I will use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black]community first and foremost. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites…it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first. There is a distinctive Black culture different from White culture. [A] Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White."

Are these the long-awaited excerpts from Michelle Obama’s “whitey” rant? No, these gems of racial “tolerance” come from her Princeton thesis. As the Obama campaign unleashes its Orcs to stifle dissent and cover-up Michelle’s greatest hits, we believe an analysis of Michelle Obama’s public statements and writings offer plenty of material to understand her views on race, with or without the audio tape.

Like archaeologists uncovering artifacts to decipher a culture, we view Michelle’s extant words as a crystallization of a worldview which can be examined to understand her views on race in America. Michelle Obama wrote the quotes above in her Princeton thesis on race and in it acknowledges that that she is influenced by and utilizes the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.

Stokely Carmichael guided Michelle Obama’s thesis on race? This is very important. Carmichael was not a mainstream academic source in his times. He was not the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of the 1960s, writing scholarly, brilliant works on black America. In fact, Carmichael, the Honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panther Party, espoused a violent black separatist philosophy which was diametrically opposed to Dr. King’s and the Civil Rights Movement’s struggle for integration and equality.

In his 1966 article entitled What We Want, in the New York Review of Books, Stokely Carmichael wrote, “about plots to ‘get Whitey‘” saying that “Black people don’t want to ‘get whitey,’” and in a 1969 article entitled Toward Black Liberation, Carmichael talks about racial incidents as “Git Whitey” “sensationalism.”

Consider for a moment that Michelle Obama built her thesis on the philosophy of a man who believed that “Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks.”

Next consider her statement that she will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.” [Emphasis added]

Lastly, remember that the Obamas spent 20 years as active students of Jeremiah Wright’s odious racist rants. Think about that in mathematical terms. If they attended church for two hours weekly, that’s 2,000 hours of Jeremiah Wright, or one full year of working at a job 40 hours a week. That’s a lot of “United States of KKK-A.” The Obamas were, until recently, members of a church which describes itself in explicitly racial language:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.

In other words, the Obamas were active participants in a black separatist church, a church which explicitly emphasized skin color over salvation, heritage over faith, one group of people instead of the universality of spiritual needs.The ideology espoused from this church may sound innocuous to Obama’s supporters. But it’s an important question, in a diverse nation of 300 million. Do we want a couple in the White House whose stated influences include Stokely Carmichael and Jeremiah Wright instead of Martin Luther King? Or someone who said:

"For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."

Really, Michelle? Is it because Barack is so wonderful that only now you’re proud of your country or is there another reason you’re proud for the first time? Please tell us the reason. Or as Christopher Hitchens asks about Obama:

"If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner."

In character assassination such as this post quotes are commonly  taken out of context and/or misstated. Your assertions are absurd at best and libelous at worse.

I like to think of Michelle having sex with Hillary.  Its possible it has already happened, but if not, it will in exactly this matter:

A modified 69 that includes mouth to anus contact.  

The Black Panthers call this a "black bottom cupcake".  

As a Whitey, the Black Panthers call me the Snow Leopard.  Its honorary, but well deserved.

frontal lobes are regenerating.

Let's start with "guided."  Yes, literary liscense is allowed, and I'm sure you wanted a snappy "headline" to attract attention.  "Guided" makes it seem as if Carmichael was her thesis adviser, as in he guided and advised her for the duration of her Senior year in which she wrote her reseach essay.  How about "inspired" or "influenced" or even "intellectually prefigured"?  It's doubtful MO knew SC from a bullethole in the wall, and if memory serves, Stokley was still in exile somewhere in MO's academic year 1984-85. Before he returned to the USA and became a Reagan Republican, that is.  So...

About 18 months ago Mrs. Clinton's Senior thesis likewise came to light, and she was condemned at the time for taking inspiation from that tired old would-be rebel Saul Alinsky.  At that time i wrote it was the purest desperate BS to make an issue of that, just as it is pure BS to make an issue out of MO's Princeton thesis.  Why it's been removed from public access is beyond me, but nowhere is it stated or implied that this is the wish of MO.  

But more to the point  -- this is something she wrote in the full flush of youth half a lifetime ago.  What a person wrote in 1985 as a 22-year old college undergraduate is of some biographical interest, but ask ourself - do you, can you  stand by every single word you wrote and uttered as a 22-year old?  I doubt it, and you ain't no public personality.  Xrist, I look back on things I've written here just a few months ago and shake my head wondering WTF was i thinking?   I think the most sensible course would be to realize that people change, the words and beliefs of  MO in 1985 are not necessarily the words and beliefs of MO in 2008.  However easily they might be used as a stick to beat her with [figuratiely speaking, of course].


These 3 pararaphs carry a heavy load in your analysis:


"In his 1966 article entitled What We Want, in the New York Review of Books, Stokely Carmichael wrote, “about plots to ‘get Whitey‘” saying that “Black people don’t want to ‘get whitey,’” and in a 1969 article entitled Toward Black Liberation, Carmichael talks about racial incidents as “Git Whitey” “sensationalism.”

Consider for a moment that Michelle Obama built her thesis on the philosophy of a man who believed that “Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks.”

Next consider her statement that she will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.” [Emphasis added]"



Well, I can't put as negative a construction on this as you do.  Xrist, every tedious immigrant group in this country has followed this "closing ranks" strategy in this country.  The Irish in 5 Points in NYC in the 1840s did it, the Italians and the Jews in the early 20th century did it, Latinos and some East Asians  this very second are doing it. African American voices as different as Booker T Washington, Marcus arvey and Malcolm X have at one time espoused some variant of it.  So, what's the real complaint?  Are you feeling excluded?  Are you feeling role reversed because you're the outsider an they're the insiders under this stategy?  Just don't like the tone of voice?  Nothing in the analysis necessarily ought to be read in a way that this is recommended as a permanaent condition.  In fact, given how well it's worked for other groups in the past, and how often it's beeen resorted to, I think it's profoundly conservative.


Then of course, there's Michelle Obama's real sin : "I will use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black]community first and foremost."  Oh, no shit, Sherlock? Stop The Effing Presses!  Notify Homeland Security!  She identifies with the community from which she hails.  Remarkable.  Lemme ask you pointblank: you could read "Chutzpah" by Allan Dershowitz, subsitute "the Jewish community" for "the black community" and you have not lost a beat.  Conceptually, no difference whatsoever.  Except that MO is a hell of a easier target to hit that is Dershowitz.  And that miserable prick Deshowitz always bites back and nevers fails to draw substantial amounts of blood.  Yet, no cries of anguish  about seperatism or even, God forbid, ethnic chauvanism there?  Hmm. Or just substitute the name of nay prominent ethnic political mobilizer you wish.  Christ, you can make this work with Joseph Kennedy and "the Irish community."

You are on much firmer ground when you pummel them for their association with Rev Wright, but even there it's not quite the "A Ha! Moment" you fancy it to be.  I'll let you in on a secret -- these beliefs of Rev Wright are widespread in the A-A community.  I gaurantee you that even stalwarts like  Colin Powell and Bill Cosby and Gov David Patterson and Dick Parsons  know plenty of guys who give voice to these types of sentiments. And firmly believe in them to boot. So to me, there's nothing odd about the Obama's belonging to that Church for 17 years, with all the Afrocentric nonsense and pride-instilling and cultural recovery and all the  rest of that toxic mumbo-jumbo Tower of Psychobabble that was spouted from Rev Wright's pulpit. Just as if you were a fish, you'd never be aware of water until you weret aken out of it.

You might want to do some more reading into the works Henry Louis Gates. If you can stand the jargon. [i recommend "Loose Canons" -- brief and accesible and very little jargon, intended as it was for a mass/popular audience. He is far, far from the mainsteam academic you imagine him to be.
But he does have the saving grace of not using the word "whitey" hen any of them are around.  and of course, no claptrap about weapons and self-defense againstthe pigs.

I am probably more exhausted with tedious ethnic blowhards, and the consequent farago of multiculti/PC/diversity BS and the rhetorical toxins with which they've infected the public squar. The shameless arrogance of some of these ethnic blowhards, and the sheer annoyance factor they contribute, is truly stupendous, beyond measure and I really blame no Euro-majority type for total and lifelong disgust with all of them and all of their rhetoric. But fair is fair, my good friend.

Let me just say : Scotch Verdict -- Case Not Proved [IMHO].













-- Modified on 7/21/2008 6:26:42 PM