Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

The facts of the Zimmerman case

July 20, 2013

Elizabeth Scalia, blogging as “The Anchoress”, made some sadly uninformed comments about the Zimmerman trial.  I wrote this, and decided to post here so I don’t have to write this up again.  All feedback of a factual nature, either positive or negative, is quite welcome:

I am very disappointed in you, Elizabeth. Because it appears you’ve decided to comment on the Zimmerman case without bothering to actually find out what happened in the Zimmerman case.

So let’s consider some facts you appear to have missed, and see if you can come to a more enlightened opinion:

1: A neighbor of Zimmerman’s was home alone with her infant, when someone tried to break in. 911 told her to grab a weapon and hide. She grabbed a screwdriver, and hid in her room with her baby. Someone jiggled the handle on her bedroom door, robbed her house, and escaped, all before the police arrived.

Zimmerman and his wife befriended the woman, helped her deal with her terror, and bought her a new deadbolt. Then Zimmerman started the Neighborhood Watch program for their area.

2: Relying on police reports about burglary suspects, Zimmerman made multiple calls to the police about teenaged boys engaging in suspicious behavior. The result of those calls was that a black male teenager who lived in the complex was caught with stolen goods from multiple houses in the neighborhood. In one little irony, the kid was convicted in Judge Nelson’s courtroom (and if you don’t know that Judge Nelson was the trier of this case, you’re not qualified to comment on the trial, and should be embarrassed in yourself if you have commented on it).

3: Trayvon Martin was suspended from school twice. Once because he was caught with stolen jewelry in his backpack, the second time (which was why he was in Sanford) because he was caught with a used marijuana pipe in his backpack. The school security officers followed their boss’s policy of rarely reporting criminals, in order to get their boss awards for “cutting the crime rate”. (This came out because of this case.) If they’d actually reported the crimes, instead of just suspending Martin, he probably would not have been in Sanford that night.

4: Trayvon Martin’s cell phone had, hidden in a password protected file, pictures of him with jewelry on his bed, texts about his street fighting, texts from his younger brother asking to be taught how to fight, texts about buying and selling guns, and pictures of naked underage females.

5: The toxicology report on Martin said that he had the active form of THC in hsi bloodstream the night he died.

In short, Trayvon Martin was a thug. He was a crook, and he was a drug user. If Zimmerman had not killed him, the only real question is “would Martin have killed someone else before he got himself killed?” Happily, that answer turns out to be no.

6: George Zimmerman called the cops to say he saw someone wandering around, looking into the windows of a house where he knew the person didn’t live, acting strange, almost as if he was drugged.

If you have a problem with him making that call, your problem is with the whole idea of the Neighborhood Watch, not with George Zimmerman. The behavior he reported SHOULD be reported, it doesn’t matter if the person doing it is white black old or young.

7: Zimmerman tried to keep this suspicious character in sight. Eventually the person disappeared from his view, even when he stopped his car and got out. The person on the other end of his non-emergency police call told Zimmerman they “don’t need him to do that” (try to follow on foot), so Zimmerman went back to his car.

None of the above facts are disputable. You could, I suppose, try to claim that Zimmerman lied in his call, and Martin wasn’t really looking into any windows. But you would have to make that claim with zero supporting evidence.

So, please, tell us where Zimmerman displayed “bad judgment” in any of the above.

8: Zimmerman says he walked around in the area around his car, trying to find a street sign so he could tell the police who were on their way exactly where he was. Neighbors who lived there testified during the trial that it was hard to see street signs in the area, and that the street name had recently changed. In any event, Zimmerman got off the phone with the police.

9: Four minutes after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman less than 20 yards from where Zimmerman’s car was parked. (Time information taken from phone records entered at the trial. Location taken from where Martin’s dead body was found.) If Martin had been trying to go home, he would have been there, safe and sound. If I understand Jeantel (the girl who was on the phone with Martin), Martin DID get to his dad’s girlfriend’s place, and then turned around and went back. In any event, given the amount of time Martin had to get home, the ONLY reason for him to run into Zimmerman at the place where he did was because he chose to seek out Zimmerman.

10: Martin confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman responded defensively (rather than going on the offense and saying “why are you looking into windows of other people’s homes?”). We got that from Jeantel’s testimony. Then she claimed the call ended.

11: Zimmerman was struck in the nose, his nose was damaged, and bleeding. The back of his head was damaged from being struck into a concrete sidewalk. The defense’s forensic expert testified that the damage done to Zimmerman was potentially life threatening, that the police should have sent Zimmerman to the ER, and that if Zimmerman had died from his injuries, the police would have been sued, and lost. The prosecution’s witness, John Good, testified that he heard the screaming, went outside, saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning Zimmerman down, and striking down at Zimmerman (he could not testify that he heard the blows hit). Good told Martin to stop. When he didn’t, Good said he was calling 911. Martin’s attack continued.

12: The witness who claimed that Zimmerman was on top said she was sure that the bigger person was on top, and since the only images she’d seen of Martin were the pictures from when Martin was 12, she assumed Zimmerman was bigger. This was false, as the defense demonstrated when they had Zimmerman stand next to a life sized cutout of Martin.

13: Martin was killed by a single shot to the chest. His shirt was in contact with the gun, but the gun was shot from two inches away from Martin’s chest (as determined by the powder burns on Martin’s chest). The hole in the shirt and the hole in Martin’s chest lined up to show that Martin was leaning forward when he was shot.

In short: Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman, punched him in the face, tackled him to the ground, and spent 40 seconds beating on him, inflicting potentially deadly damage on him, and giving no indication that he was going to stop until he had killed, or at least crippled, Zimmerman. Zimmerman then got his gun out, and shot his attacker, killing him.

There can be no “duty to retreat” when you’re pinned to the ground. Every state in the nation allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself when you can’t retreat, and are in reasonable fear of death. Zimmerman could not retreat, and was in reasonable fear of death.If you still think Florida has “some laws that should probably be reviewed” because of this case, it’s because you are taking the utterly fringe position that self defense should never be allowed.

I hope you will take some time to get yourself actually informed on this issue before saying anything more. And I hope you will offer George Zimmerman the apology he so richly deserves after your ill-informed and utterly unjustified hostile comments about him.

Obama Reneged when Negotiating w/ Boehner, WaPo

March 19, 2012

The Washington Post has a very revealing article about the failed debt negotiations last year:

Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own Democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner — already facing long odds — to sell it to his party. Eventually, the president tried to put the original framework back in play, but by then it was too late. The moment of making history had passed.

In other words, they had a deal, then Obama tried to unilaterally change it in his favor, and killed the whole process by his bad faith.  What a shock.

News intimidation attempt by Obama Lawyer

October 27, 2008

I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that Obama has thugs working for him as lawyers.

The Polestra University newspaper had the bad taste to break news about out of state Obama campaign workers violating the law by voting for Obama in Ohio instead of (or in addition to?) voting for him in their home states, and, even worse, to follow up on the story. What does the Obama Campaign do? They send a lawyer after the student journalists.

From: Rosenberg, Thomas
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Subject: At least in today’s blog you spelled my last name right
To: tiffany

In other words, I am going to read what you write and watch what you say. Hopefully you will be fair and impartial as you told me you would be.

Thomas L. Rosenberg
Roetzel & Andress, LPA

Columbus, OH 43215

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this guy is a jerk, and he needs to be stomped.  An apology isn’t enough.  Fired by the Obama campaign would be a nice start, if such thuggishness weren’t already established as SOP for the campaign.

Hot Air has a nice collection of links to articles about the thuggishness of the Obama Campaign.

The true, proper, punishment for this is for Obama to lose.

Obama Finance Fraud, II

October 27, 2008

Ok, so National Journal has done an article about the way Obama is raising money via the Internet, It’s too bad there’s not contact information for the author, Neil Munro, because he including this howler in the article

Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “We review our contributions to ensure that the information donors provide is complete and verifiable. We would only accept a contribution from a pre-paid credit card if the donor provides complete and verifiable information, consistent with FEC guidelines.”

Now, let’s consider what the Chicago Tribune said about Obama’s September 2008 Fundraising

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe did not detail the contributions, beyond saying that the campaign had added 632,000 new donors to its rolls and that the average donation for the month was less than $100.

632,000 new donors, which is to say more than 20,000 new donors a day. How many of those donors do you think the Obama campaign “checked out”?

Let’s assume the average donation was $100 a month (the campaign claims less, but we’ll bump it a bit to make them look better). In that case, 1,500,000 people donated to the campaign last month. So they have 600,000 new donors, and 900,000 repeat donors. How many of those donations, do you think, got checked out?

Then there’s this

Campaign funding experts say that real-world difficulties present a significant barrier to anyone trying to make surreptitious direct donations. For example, National Journal‘s $25 donation would have to be quadrupled to $100, and then repeated 10,000 times, to deliver $1 million to the Obama campaign, which has collected more than $600 million from at least 3.1 million donors.

Well, the Obama campaign is refusing to report any donations less than $200 (following the letter of the law). So, you start by make $150 donations. You make one in the morning, and one at night. That’s $9,000 you’ve donated to the campaign in September, almost 4 times the legal limit, for a comparatively trivial effort.

You want to give more than that? Hire a kid to make donations for you. Or use a computer program to make the donations for you. You know, one that emits random strings of letters for the name. Or, even one that’s more sophisticated, andgrabs random real names and addresses and uses those to donate. Although, in that case, you probably want to make sure the random number generator is good. Otherwise you might end up donating $174,800 in the name of the same person.

Finally, there’s the sub headline for the article

Reports Of Irregularities In Donations Under $200 Raise Questions Of Who Bears The Burden Of Filtering Out Improper Money

Well, if you simply publicly release all the names, WE The People will check it out for you.

But, if you don’t turn off the standard anti-fraud protections, you can let your credit card company do most of the work. In fact, they’re charge you less if you do it that way.

Mocking the “Coastal Elite”

September 10, 2008

My last post was about a great comment on Megan McArdle’s post on “Coastal Elite Privilege.

I mentioned that she got a large number of comments from clueless “liberals” that prove her point. I’m going to make fun of this one, by a twit who calls himself “rush”.

BUT — that’s no excuse for them to continually vote against their interests. The politics of the coastal states is in line with the needs of working people in this country.

Um, no. “The politics of the coastal states” is in line with the desires of the coastal states residents. You have chosen to “give” the “working people in this country” things that you think they should want, and that you have decided should be more valuable to them than what you’re demanding from them.

They disagree. If they didn’t disagree, they wouldn’t be voting Republican. So, who’s the idiot? Them, for disagreeing with you? Or you, for being unwilling to change your offer to one they’d be willing to accept?

I understand their pain and can relate to it. Elitism in any form is bad and we need to unite as a nation.

Blah, blah, blah. Whine, bullshit, pile of crap. If you actually understood their pain, you wouldn’t go out of your way to inflict it.

But we can’t constantly back down from what we believe.

They (the “Kansas” / “flyover country” voters), can and should back down from what they believe, because they’re just dumb hicks who don’t understand the world around them. We coastal elites, with our superior understanding of the world, OTOH, we can’t back down.

Sorry, but gun control and abortion rights are important issues.

and therefore you dumb hicks need to give up your opinions on them and accept ours.

Not because we are elitists but because we see street violence and teenage mothers struggling around us. That’s a fact.

Two thoughts here. First: Wow, you’ve got all that gun control and abortion, yet still you have “street violence and teenage mothers.” Could it possibly be that gun control and abortion aren’t the answer? Naw. You can’t actually think about the issues, that’s a violation of your religion.

Gee, could it possibly be that Federalism would allow you to ban guns in your areas, while leaving our guns alone? Yes, it might have. Too bad you guys decided that the way to advance your unpopular agenda was to use left-wing “Justices” to override and rewrite the Constitution, and destroy that whole Federalism thing.

Second: Notice how the “elitists” “see” these things that the rest of us are just too blind to see, or too stupid to understand. Isn’t it kind of them to share their “wisdom” with us?

I am soooooo irritated this morning. The cynical politics of the right and how it might work again. I don’t have an answer to it. The pig lipstick comment taken out of context.

Self-parodying statement by Oprah

September 5, 2008

The following is posted at the Oprah “Community”

Posted on Sep 5, 2008 10:46 AM
“The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.” – Oprah Winfrey, September 5, 2008

Which is to say, you won’t have her on while the campaign is going on.

So, let’s see, what did Drudge say:

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America — but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

“Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explains. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”

So, exactly how is what Drudge said “categorically untrue”? Is it that they’re all in ideological lock-step, and none of them want Palin on? Is it that they’re not split: the staff all want her on, it’s just Oprah who’s opposed?

Or is Oprah just lying?

As they say: I report, you deride.

The press that has obsessively examined Obama’s life

September 5, 2008

Wow, Politico really is a pathetic joke, isn’t it? Ben Smith & Carrie Budoff Brown wrote the following drivel Thursday:

As Sarah Palin transforms herself from obscure Alaska governor to
the Republican Party’s newest rising star and most effective attack dog, Barack Obama’s campaign will largely sit back, watch her rise and hope she falls.

The Obama campaign has no silver bullet to use against the Palin. Instead, Obama has decided to largely avoid directly engaging her and will instead keep his focus largely on John McCain [wow, you mean they’re going to focus on their actually opponent?] and on linking the Republican ticket to President George W. Bush. [Ah, yes, nothing says “desperation” like trying to link a sitting Senator to a term-limited President he’s repeatedly fought with. So much for actually trying to attack their opponent] The Obama campaign will leave Palin to navigate the same cycle of celebrity that Obama has weathered, and the same peril that her nascent image will be defined by questions and contradictions from her Alaska past.

Obama also avoided directly engaging Palin and her criticism. [Hard to counter criticism that’s all true, after all. Oh, well, I guess we won’t ever get to find out what a “community organizer actually is.] “John McCain’s running for president; I’m running against John McCain and as far as I can tell, I don’t get a sense that Gov. Palin has ideas that are different from John McCain’s,” [Oh, if only that were true] he told reporters in York, Pa., Thursday. “That speech she delivered was on behalf of John McCain and the essential question of this campaign is who’s got a better plan, a better agenda to move this country forward and fundamentally change it from the economic and foreign policy failures that we’ve seen over the last eight years.” [Yep, must reverse the defeat of the Taliban, and of Saddam. Must overturn victory in Iraq.]

Obama also suggested that he’d be relying on the same press that has obsessively examined his life to pick apart Palin’s. “You know the notion that any questions about her work in Alaska is somehow not relevant to her potentially being vice president of the United States doesn’t make too much sense to me,” he said. “I think she’s got a compelling story, but I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated, which means that their records are under scrutiny. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what, four days so far?”

Democratic strategists said a week of media obsession would bring out negative elements of Palin’s record, her conservative positions on social issues, and stories contradicting some of her reformist claims.

Democrats also noted Thursday that as Palin continues to attack Obama, she opens herself to harder coverage and more direct criticism.

Hey, obsessively examining Obama’s life”? All that ground-breaking coverage you’ve been doing of Obama and the Annenberg Challenge?  The coverage of how Obama’s destroyed his entire paper trail?  That’s nothing compared to all the digging the MSM has done on Obama.

Now, if only I could remember exactly what it was that the MSM has dug up about him.

As for that “harsher coverage and more direct criticism”.  As compared to, you know, accusing her of faking pregnancy to cover up her 17 year old daughter giving birth, or making up stories about her being a Buchanan / Nazi supporter (repeated later on in the article, despite the fact it’s been utterly debunked), or a member of the AIP.

No, now they’re going to get serious.  They’re going to report on the time in the first grade when she cheated at Tiddlywinks.

Bring it on.

The most damning commentary I’ve seen about Obama

August 23, 2008

Wow, Michael Barone has just eviscerated Senator Barack Obama.  He talks about Chicago politics, and about how in order to “get into” Chicago politics you have to know somebody.  To put it in the Chicago vernacular, to “be somebody” you have to be “somebody somebody sent”.

How did this outsider from Hawaii and Columbia and Harvard become somebody somebody sent? His wife, Michelle Robinson Obama, had some connections: Her father was (I believe) a Democratic precinct committeeman, she baby-sat for Jesse Jackson’s children, and she worked as a staffer for the current Mayor Daley. Obama made connections on the all-black South Side by joining the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church. But was Obama’s critical connection to le tout Chicago William Ayers? That’s the conclusion you are led to by Steve Diamond’s blog.

William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who was quoted in the new York Times on September 11, 2001

I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.

It would be one thing to suck up to a guy who used to be a terrorist, and now rejected that behavior and repented of it.  It’s quite another to pal around with someone who believes that terrorism is acceptable behavior.

Would you associate with a former gang thug, someone who beat up people, torched houses and businesses, but who now recognized that what he did was wrong?  Who regretted what he’d done, and tried to make up for it?

I would be willing to associate with such a person, and would not reject out of hand someone else who associated with such a person.

Would you associate with a “former” gang thug, who was no longer big, strong, and tough enough to beat up other people, but who fondly looked back on memories of his criminal behavior, gloried in his crimes, and had no regrets?

If you had two candidates running for DA, Sheriff, or Chief of Police, and one of them used that “former” gang thug as a fund-raiser, and valued supporter, while the other avoided all such people, would you vote for the one who hangs out with the thug?

So, will you vote for President a man who counts an unrepentant terrorist among his most important supporters?  Shall the Global War on Terror be led by a man who clearly doesn’t think that terrorism is all that wrong?  (Because if Barack Obama thought terrorism was wrong, he never would have associated with William Ayers.

If you don’t believe in a “war” on terror, if you believe it’s simply a “law enforcement problem”, will you vote to elect as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, a man who associates with known, unrepentant, terrorists?  A man who’s only able to run for the office in the first place because of support of a known terrorist?

What an ass

August 22, 2008

Gateway Pundit caught Obama being a typical left-wing jerk:

Democrat Barack Obama scolded Russia again on Wednesday for invading another country’s sovereign territory while adding a new twist: the United States, he said, should set a better example on that front, too.

The Illinois senator’s opposition to the Iraq war, which his comment clearly referenced, is well known. But this was the first time the Democratic presidential candidate has made a comparison between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russia’s recent military activity in Georgia.

“We’ve got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies,” Obama told a crowd of supporters in Virginia. “They can’t charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point.”

Gosh, yes, there’s no difference between deposing a murderous dictator, and invading a democratic country because you want to destroy it.

Obama: The gift that keeps on giving

July 9, 2008

This is going to be an amusing campaign season. Obama’s latest example of foot in mouth disease: Don’t worry about immigrants learning English, worry about making sure your kids learn Spanish.
I wonder how long it will take him to apologize for ignoring the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indian immigrant communities?

Hmm, it appears I can’t embed YouTube video here. Oh well, the video is here. Besides, the comments are amusing, too.

How not to defend yourself

July 5, 2008

So, the Boston Globe has an article on Obama that basically says he’s a slum lord enabler. Obama has decided to “respond” with the following

RHETORIC: Antoin “Tony” Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama’s early political campaigns…
Obama Said Rezko “Wasn’t My Largest Fundraiser But He Was A Significant Fundraiser.”

Um, no. Give us numbers, and names. How much did Rezko raise for Obama? How many other fundraisers raised more, who were they, and how much did they raise?

Obama has all that information. If he’s not willing to give it to clear himself, then he doesn’t get cleared.

RHETORIC: Rezko was “a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005.”
Politifact Ruled That The Claim That Obama Needed Rezko To Purchase His Home Was “False.”

Nice try, but no. Obama and his wife bought their house from someone who just happened to also be selling a large chunk of land adjacent to the lot of the house they bought. This was during the housing boom. Obama and his wife got a nice discount on the asking price of the house. The same day, Rezko bought the strip of land, for the asking price.

Can we prove that it was all part of a deal to help Obama? No.

Do I believe that it wasn’t part of such a deal? No. And I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, either.

RHETORIC: Obama translated that belief into legislative action as a state senator. In 2001, Obama and a Republican colleague, William Peterson, sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his taxable income by 50 cents.

Um, so what? Yes, it was “bipartisan”. That would be the whole “Obama and a Republican colleague” part of the report. And it’s nice that “housing advocates” supported it. But so what? The question is: who did it help? The answer is: not the poor people they claimed it was going to help. They now live in crappy slums, provided to them by Obama’s supporters. If you can’t challenge that, then nothing else you say matters.

Why “Affirmative Action” is a bad idea

July 3, 2008

There are many reasons why “Affirmative Action” is a bad idea.

In the first place, it encourages racism1. AA involves the government / schools / employers actively and aggressively judging people, and rewarding or punishing people, based on the color of their skin. Their “race”. This leads to two responses: The possibly petty and childish one is “If they can do it, so can I.” But the hard, cold, rational one is “any time I see a ‘minority’ in a position where AA might have aided them in getting that position, I must wonder whether they got the position because they deserved it, or because of the color of their skin.”

Is this fair to the ones who actually earned their positions? No. But neither is AA fair to those who lost out to a less qualified “minority”. And, fair or not, it is the rational response to those policies.

Secondly, it creates a sense of dependency, and inferiority, among its “beneficiaries”. Let’s say you are a black male whose tests scores, grades, and activities are good enough to get you into NC State, or maybe even UNC. You could go to those schools, and compete with your classmates on a fairly equal level. Which means you can go there, and take real classes, and have an education that qualifies you to get a real job when you graduate, on your own merits. However, you’re black. So Brown and Princeton also accepted you, and offered you scholarships so that it would be possible for you to go there. So you decide to go to Princeton.

There’s only one problem: you didn’t get in there because you earned it, because you were qualified to go there, you got in there because you were black. So now you’re at Princeton, and most of your classmates are brighter, and better students, than you. You take a Math class, or a Biology class, or a Chemistry class, and you’re in the bottom 10%. Which is to say “you don’t pass the class.” Not because you’re an idiot, but because you went to the wrong school. Because you only got in because you were black, but the professor isn’t, and can’t, giving you bonuses for the color of your skin.

So you switch majors. You take African Studies, and Sociology, and English, and other classes where the grading is entirely subjective. Because those professors can, and for the most part will, judge you based on the color of your skin, and give you the passing grades you couldn’t earn on your own.

What do you think that does to somebody? Remember, he’s not stupid. How many lies is he going to have to tell himself to justify his decisions? And what’s he going to do when he graduates? He didn’t get a worthwhile education, he got an “Affirmative Action” “education”. How’s he going to get a real job once he graduates? Other than from an AA employer? And how much is that AA employer going to trust him?

Congratulations, you’ve just created a screwed up person with a screwed up life. Which brings us to this article by Dinesh D’Souza: Michelle Obama’s Inferiority Complex

Consider the case of Michelle Obama. She was raised in a two-parent, middle-class family. She applied to one of America’s top universities, Princeton, and was admitted. Of this experience, Michelle says on the stump, “All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there has been people telling me what I couldn’t do. When I applied to Princeton, they said: you can’t go there, your test scores aren’t high enough.”

Which is all very moving, except that her test scores weren’t high enough. Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America’s most elite institutions.

Michelle notes that she graduated with honors in her major. Again, the problem is that her undergraduate thesis is on the web. You might expect that she wrote about Shakespeare’s sonnets or the political evolution of W.E.B. Du Bois. Well, no. Essentially Michelle Obama wrote about the problems of being a black woman at an Ivy League university.

Here is a typical passage: “By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

Alas, the grammar is all wrong here. More than once, the tenses are garbled. People are ignorant “of” the plight of the lower class, not ignorant “to” their plight. And “desparation” should be spelled “desperation.” To wreak so much havoc on the English language in one sentence, without conveying anything of substance, is perhaps deserving of a prize. Is this what her professors were thinking when they granted her honors? Whatever the Obamorons say, let’s remember that that these are not mere typos; they reflect an estranged relationship to the English language. Moreover they appear not in an off-the-cuff transcript but in a thesis that is supposed to reflect the culmination of one’s college career.

I am willing to believe that Barak Obama is not a flaming left-wing nutcase.  Unfortunately, I not willing to believe the same of his wife.  She got caught in the Affirmative Action trap, and the one thing she’s just not willing to believe is that it’s her own damn fault.  It’s racist America’s fault.

And, after all, she is right.  It is the fault of the racists who thought up, pushed, and still support that racist montrosity called Affirmative Action.

1For the purpose of this blog, racism is defined as “judging people based on the color of their skin / their ethnic background / etc.” rather than on the basis of their individual merits. I realize that “public intellectual” racists have attempted to re-define the term to some sort of BS about power, etc. But that is just BS. When your definition of “racism” boils down to “all whites are racist” or “only whites can be racist” or “people of color can’t be racist” then 1: You are a racist. 2: You are a liar. 3: You are an idiot if you think anyone else is dumb enough to buy your song and dance.