America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Friday, June 9, 2023
Michelle Obama’s Exploitation of the Black Community
"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod,Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Michelle Obama’s Exploitation of the Black Community
As Obama operatives begin preparing for Michelle Obama to replace the faltering Joe Biden, they know have a problem on their hands: Michelle’s shameful history of exploiting the Black community. As I reveal in my film and accompanying book, Michelle Obama 2024: Her Real Life Story and Plan for Power, Michelle’s two most significant jobs in Chicago involved working on behalf of white liberal elites to deal with the problems that Black people were causing them.
Chicago liberals couldn’t hire a White person to make 20,000 Blacks homeless. Their answer was to hire Michelle Obama. She became Mayor Richard Daley’s assistant planning commissioner. Her job was to facilitate the destruction of the low-income all-Black Cabrini Green housing project and cede the choice downtown real estate to Democrat party donors developers like Tony Rezko. Nor could the White liberal elites at the University of Chicago Medical Center hire a White person to deny access to health care to Blacks. Only a Black person could fill that job. For a cool $300,000 a year, Michelle was prepared to do all the denying that was needed. Michelle headed up the “South Side Health Collaborative,” a scheme to prevent Blacks who showed up at the University of Chicago Medical Center emergency room from receiving medical care. Michelle made sure they were put into white vans and shipped to crappy neighborhood strip mall clinics on the South Side.
Only a Black person could credibly do either of these jobs while telling those turned away, “This is for your own good.” Why was Michelle Obama so callous toward the Black community in her professional career? The answer is simple: Michelle was never really a part of the Black community in Chicago. She was not even from the “South Side” of Chicago, as she claimed, but from South Shore, a middle class community on Lake Michigan. In fact, Michelle ran away from the Black community even as a child. Before moving to South Shore, Michelle’s parents, Marian and Fraser Robinson, lived in the middle-class Parkway Gardens project. Right down the street was the brand new Dulles Elementary School. The facilities were fine, but the students were not. Too many were “projects kids.” To avoid them, the Robinsons illegally sent Michelle to the mixed race Bryn Mawr Elementary School in South Shore. Two years later, the Robinsons moved there.
Michelle was also enrolled in the exclusive Mayfair Academy of Fine Arts from age 7 to 17 where she learned tap and jazz and performed in theatres all over Chicago. When it came time for high school, rather than go to the all-Black South Side High School only one block from her home, Michelle traveled an hour and a half away every day to attend the elite Whitney Young Magnet school. While at Whitney Young, Michelle traveled to Paris with her French class one summer. Meanwhile, Michelle’s brother Craig went to an expensive all-White private Catholic school, even though the Robinson family was not Catholic.
Michelle spoke openly on her Becoming book tour about living in fear in her South Shore home, afraid to go outside due to the hostility of the Black kids toward her. According to Michelle, they accused her of “acting white” and “talking white” -- which Michelle described as meaning “you think you are better than everyone else.” Michelle writes about a fistfight she got into with a girl who had repeatedly called her an “Oreo,” meaning you are Black on the outside but you are really White on the inside. This was a major insult, but for Michelle it rang true. Michelle has said her hero growing up was Mary Tyler Moore. She also watched the “Brady Bunch” every day after school. In fact, Barack Obama said Michelle’s family reminded him of the classic 50s White family in “Leave It to Beaver,” while Michelle reminded him of his White grandmother.
In addition to all this, Michelle grew up as a child of politics. Her father was a Democrat party precinct captain who enjoyed an easy political patronage job working for the Chicago Water Department. At Whitney Young, Michelle had befriended Santita Jackson, the daughter of Jesse Jackson. They were so close Michelle has said she all but grew up in the Jackson household when he was preparing to run for President. Among Michelle’s best friends when she returned to Chicago after Harvard Law School was none other than accused cop killer Bernardine Dohrn, the La Passionara of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group. The two bonded when both worked at the Sidley Austin Law firm and frequently dined together with their husbands, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers.
How is Michelle Obama handling her lifelong disconnect from the Black community today? For years, Michelle Obama has been trying desperately to establish a relationship with Black Americans for the sake of politics. To do so Michelle has been making a huge effort to pretend to be one of the ordinary Black folks that she spent her life either running away from as a child, or exploiting as a professional.
First, she has tried to rewrite the history of her childhood in her memoir, Becoming, with numerous phony stories of suffering from racial slights and being held back in life because of the color of her skin. Michelle likes to tell a story of witnessing “white flight” from her middle class neighborhood in South Shore. In fact, most Whites had left South Shore due to crime by 1965, six years before Michelle moved into the area at the age of six in 1971. The middle-class homes on Lake Michigan were attractive to middle class Blacks who snapped them up, so much that the prices rose when Whites moved out. Michelle also loves to tell a fake story of being racially profiled by her Whitney Young guidance counselor regarding her applying to Princeton University. In an interview with Gayle King, Michelle claimed that the counselor had said to her, “You’re Black applying to Princeton, maybe you’re stretching.” In my research I discovered that Michelle’s high school counselor was a churchgoing Black woman and assistant principal named Nan King. Michelle gets away with smearing this Black woman only because she passed away in 2005.
I am convinced Michelle Obama has positioned herself to run for President in 2024. Michelle is following the exact formula that Barack Obama did to become President. Michelle was the Keynote speaker at the 2020 Democrat Convention, just like Barack was in 2004 for John Kerry. Also, Barack Obama based his candidacy on his personal story, his book Dreams from My Father. Michelle wrote her own autobiography in 2018 called Becoming and went on a national book tour. Becoming is also a 90-minute movie on Netflix. Finally, Barack started in politics by running a voter registration organization called “Project Vote.” Michelle runs “When We All Vote,” which she has been using to position her 2024 candidacy.
Declared Republicans in the presidential race, especially Donald Trump, need to start dealing with Michelle Obama now. The best way to start is to pose these questions to her: “Michelle Obama, are you going to apologize to the Black Community in Chicago for what you did to them?” And, “Michelle, how much money did you make from White liberals denying access to health care to Black Chicago residents”?
These questions will certainly open up the discussion of how Michelle Obama exploited Chicago’s Black community. And if during a Presidential debate Michelle Obama turns to Donald Trump and says “you don’t know what it’s like growing up as a Black woman in America,” Donald Trump should respond, “well Michelle, neither do you!”
The United States is the best country human beings have ever devised. We are not perfect, but we are a nation that continues to redefine itself as required by the times. It is a work in progress that always seeks to correct its deficiencies.
In the 1950s we were plagued with an evil known as McCarthyism. The allegation of McCarthyism was that communists were infiltrating the federal government. Thousands of American citizens lost their jobs or went to prison because someone called them “pinko.” The victims of McCarthyism were people on the left. Eventually the country regained its sanity and kicked McCarthyism in the pants.
Today we are faced with a comparable plague called woke. To be woke is to accept that America is a racist country suffering from white supremacy and systemic racism. This time, the victims are on the right—conservatives, Republicans, and white people. Calling someone a racist is the equivalent of calling them a pinko. You could lose your ability to earn a living.
The majority of Americans do not bow down to the woke monster. “The actual number of the woke remains small,” said Scott McConnell in The American Conservative, “perhaps six percent of the population, according to Pew surveys of American political attitudes.” Their influence should not be underestimated.
Woke ideology accuses all whites of oppressing everyone else. Hating white people has become an epidemic. Whites are demonized, marginalized, stereotyped, denigrated, and suppressed by government, media, academia, Hollywood, and corporate America. Many gullible whites enable this exclusionary mindset. Before it can stop, the disease must be diagnosed and called out for what it is—racism.
Most people are not aware of how pervasive the war on whites has become. When we think of discrimination, we think of whites discriminating against blacks. The tables have turned. Now whites have become the victims of discriminatory actions and policies. A racial inquisition against whites is underway based on the erroneous notion, supported by the president, that the number one threat to America is ingrained intolerance by white people.
Whites are not given credit for their contributions to society. Instead they are defamed and subjected to abuse. No one wants to discuss it out loud. It is imperative that we have voices speaking out against this injustice. That is why I wrote The War on Whites: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.
Anti-white training programs are all the rage in government agencies and corporate boardrooms. White employees are told to “undo their whiteness.” Our children are being taught that they should feel guilty about their skin color if it happens to be white. A noted college professor said, “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet.” When aimed at blacks and Hispanics, this sort of behavior is considered disrespectful and mean-spirited. When whites are in the crosshairs, no one objects.
The country has gone wild over diversity, a euphemism for having fewer whites around. The basis for diversity policy is that certain groups are encouraged to identify themselves as victims of white people. “If you’re white,” said Jeff Davidson at Townhall, “the Left has decided that you are an impediment to diversity.” The Democratic Party is using the mantra of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) to create division, hatred, and exclusion. The most successful accomplishment of the Democrats is what author Mark Levin calls the “balkanization” of society. The Left’s objective, Levin says, is to “collapse the existing society” by dividing the people against themselves.
Instead of making everyone feel they are American, the Obama presidency played into the “divide and conquer” strategy. Obama’s destructive vision is coming into full bloom under Biden/Harris. Joe Biden is attempting to replace our belief in equality with a policy of equity, in which skin color determines everything. The right kind of skin color is black or brown. White is the wrong color. This violates the morality of most Americans, Bret Stephens wrote in the New York Times, by redefining the word equity—which in common English means the quality of being fair and impartial—to mean something closer to the opposite. “It is insulting,” he said, “to everyone who still believes we should be judged by the content of our character.”
In The War on Whites, I defend white Americans by promoting the excellent value system they created: respect for the individual, freedom of speech, the rule of law, meritocracy, the work ethic, equality of opportunity, taking personal responsibility, the importance of education. I am lauding the achievements of white people, especially white men, throughout our history. With the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, whites made it possible for blacks and other minorities to become full partners in the American Dream. No one forced them to do this. They acted willingly, unilaterally, because it was the right thing to do. What are they getting in return? Contempt, hatred, and intolerance.
Discrimination against whites is just as bad as discrimination against blacks or anyone else. It is time to declare that white Americans are victimized by racism and entitled to the same protection as any other group.
Reader Interactions
Writer/essayist/educator/poet David Solway discusses Doctor Jill’s doctoral thesis and Michelle’s Princeton senior thesis.
A couple of interesting bits to consider fromDavid Solway:
1. Obama's administration persecuted Dinesh D'Souza, who made fun of the wooky's senior thesis, as did Christopher Hitchens, but we can't be critical of a self-serving, preachy, oppressed black female, can we. Wouldn't you love to know her LSAT score since she was admitted to Harvard Law and rotated through a couple of make work jobs before losing her membership in the Bar.
C'mon Mr. Solway, do you think the wookie doesn't have access to excellent ghost writers, just like a commie and former weatherman named Bill Ayers, who was shown by Jack Cashill to be the ghost for Obama's fabulous fake autobiographical Dreams from My Father.
Here's Professor Solway's takedown of first lady "academic" papers.
Warning, a Democrat party that could get Biden elected can certainly put Moochelle in the White House for another 8 years of racialist, socialist, anti-American destruction. Being the first "consort" would be right in Obama's wheelhouse. Travel the world in Air Force One and meet with his allies in the commie and jihadi world.
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
What shocked even the old timers in my hometown was that Mayor Hugh Addonizio, the man who gave me my Eagle Scout Award, would accept kickbacks in cash right across his desk. They were troubled less by his criminality -- that was expected in Newark -- than by his lack of subtlety. Addonizio paid for his indiscretion with a lengthy prison sentence.
So it is with the current college admissions scandal. People have been scamming their ways into prestige universities for decades, maybe centuries, but in the past they have had the good sense not to put the cash on the table. It seems that in this scandal a few of the bribers and their brokers may well pay for their indiscretion with prison sentences as well.
The media pretend to be shocked. In an editorial on the scandal, the New YorkTimes singled out Harvard University for its “special admissions preferences and back doors for certain applicants.” This is the same New York Times, however, that published an entirely uncritical article three years prior headlined, “Malia Obama Rebels, Sort of, by Choosing Harvard.”
Malia is the fourth member of the Obama family to attend that august university, none of whom, save perhaps for Grandpa Obama, deserved to be there.
Let’s start with Obama Sr., the only member of the extended family to attend college before the affirmative action/diversity era. Obama arrived at Harvard in the early 1960s with the goal of getting a Ph.D. in economics. According to biographer Sally Jacobs, Obama “struggled” with his studies but managed to get a Masters degree.
Alas, the university booted him on moral grounds before he could get his doctorate. An inveterate playboy despite his two ongoing marriages, Obama had an affair with a high-school girl. Denied his Ph.D., says Jacobs, “He goes on to claim the title, nonetheless. He's Dr. Obama. The older he gets, the more he claims it.” As will be seen, intellectual fraud runs in the family.
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.” She did not write well either. Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," as “dense and turgid.”
The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.” Hitchens exaggerated only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:
The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law. I have been told by those on the inside that there are ways of recognizing affirmative-action admissions. Still, one almost feels sorry for Michelle. She was in so far over her head it is no wonder she projected her angst onto the white people around her. “Regardless of the circumstances underwhich [sic] I interact with whites at Princeton,” she wrote in the opening of her thesis, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Barack was the smarter and better educated half of the couple. That said, had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia.
In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.
Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have been as useful to him as affirmative action.
In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.
As for Malia, whose grades and scores are as much a state secret as her father’s, the old man damns with the faint praise of “capable” and “conscientious.” But hell, Bill’s daughter Chelsea got into Stanford and George’s daughter Barbara got into Yale, so this particular path to the back door was well worn.
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
Harvard virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got in on race
Imagine being a talented black or Latino applicant who got into Harvard University. Now there's news that 45% of the blacks and Latinos have been found to have been admitted on race over merit, according to a new Justice department brief, which credibly argues that Harvard engaged in illegal "race-balancing."
Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed the brief in a federal lawsuit filed by Students For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process violates federal law.
Every employer is going to be looking at your diploma and wondering if you were part of the 45%.
Which is a pretty nasty burden to throw onto the talented 55% who got in on merit alone. Everywhere they go, they'll be suspected of not being Harvard material but for the color of their skin. Make a mistake at work? It's because of the Harvard affirmative-action advantage. What an ugly thing to have to worry about for the rest of your life, solely because you are black or Latino. It's the typically lefty good intentions and virtue-signaling that in the real world does blacks and Latinos absolutely no favors.
The school considers applicants’ race at virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class. And its inclusion of race in the analysis frequently makes a dispositive difference. The district court found that Harvard’s use of race was “determinative” for “approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” ADD84. Moreover, Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s racial composition with that of the previous year.
The DoJ brief argued that the funnily consistent number of admissions among minorities proved there was some intense "racial balancing" going on, which it notes, is explicitly unconstitutional in a university that takes massive federal funding:
These numbers speak for themselves. The minimal variation, including in the percentages of underrepresented minorities that Harvard seeks to benefit, over a multi-year period is much narrower than the 6.6-percentage-point range in underrepresented minorities the Supreme Court sustained in Grutter.
Asian-Americans, of course, were the ones knocked out on the old subjective 'personality' factor, with Harvard apparently claiming most have bad ones:
Second, Harvard’s process imposes a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer scores for Asian Americans. Harvard did not prove that the personal rating is race-neutral.
The DoJ brief notes that the personality rating is a big one in determining who gets admitted - applicants who got 1's and 2's, the highest ratings, were 80% of the incoming class:
With the personal rating excluded, both experts’ models show Harvard’s program inflicts a statistically significant penalty against Asian-American applicants.
So what is there to unpack here?
Minorities are getting shortchanged on the values of their diplomas, now that news is out that their admission, unlike those of the others, was disproportionately based on race over other more qualified applicants. That's the impact of Harvard's white leadership looking to virtue-signal at the top instead of confront failing black schools and poor cultural outcomes in Great Society-poisoned black and brown cultures.
We see a lot of the effects of this affirmative-action shortchanging in lower-tier schools, which often feature huge dropout rates of minority students who as admitted minorities, cannot keep up with the other kids in the classes.
We don't see that pattern at Harvard - the 2019 statistics show that 99.04% of black students, or, 103 out of 104 graduate (presumably within the 6-year time period noted), and 98.68% of Hispanics -- 150 out of 152 -- do the same. Whites, by contrast, have a 97.6%, or 733/751 rate, and Asians have a 97.73%, or 733/751 rate. Students of mixed race have a 96.19%, or 101 out of 105 graduation rate.
All pretty hunky dory, but it's still possible this may be manipulated to keep the virtue-signal going.
The DoJ charges that racial bean-counting is continuous at Harvard. It's also noteworthy that the school has a gargantuan "diversity" staff -- which needs to somehow keep busy. Might it be that these students are expressly guided to be graduates over other students? That's one possibility.
Another way the graduation rate can be manipulated is through grade inflation and gut majors. Are these ultra-high black and Latino graduation rates the result of the students taking easy majors? Such as a major that ends in '-studies'? Well, to take one benchmark, about half the student section of Harvard's African-American Studies department, based on appearances, is African or African-American, or about 13 out of 27 students. That would be about 10% of the black student body, a rather disproportionate enrollment.
The Harvard physics department, by contrast, doesn't feature faces of its students as the African-American Studies department does. The site features a gigantic eight-person committee on 'diversion and inclusivity' though, but no student facebook listings, quite unlike the African-American Studies page. A jaunt to the Harvard 'Women in Physics' section, though, features 22 female faces, nearly all students, it appears, and none apparently African-American or Latina, in the two pictoral line-up photos showing 22 faces and 25 faces. They all appear to be white, South Asian, or East Asian. Since I couldn't find any information about what black and Latino students are majoring in, the photos serve as a suggestion, particularly since the physics page has a 'diversity and inclusion' link that the African American Studies section does not, suggesting the school thinks someone might notice.
But something probably even more significant was brought up by Henry Louis Gates of all people: It's not the ghetto kids getting into Harvard under the checkbox of 'black' - it's the rich and upper middle class black kids -- and the children of African or Caribbean immigrants, who have a significant work ethic and sense of excellence, probably putting a lot of them in the 55%.
The race-balancing going on at Harvard seems to be primarily a subsidy to the rich black and Latino kids who enroll when admitted, as this academic sums up.
University of Illinois professor Walter Benn Michaels put the question most bluntly when he said, “When students and faculty activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over what skin color the rich kids have.”
And that does seem to be going on with the Harvard race-balancing, using the richer kids. That is supported by the fact that only 76% of blacks admitted to Harvard actually go to the school. Harvard itself attributes that to the appeal of historically black colleges such as Howard University and full scholarships offered by other ivy league schools. The Journal of Black Higher Education thinks it's black kids going to high-grade selective state schools, which serve their needs better. The admissions committee, it seems, is throwing things at black kids that a lot of them might not really want. Some may see themselves as more successful at Howard University, or U.C. Santa Barbara, and meet more people in the same boat as themselves.
Meanwhile, over at Harvard, a combination of gut majors, grade inflation, and admitting the rich kids with the requisite background to at least minimally sudceed at Harvard seems to be what keeps the Asian-American kid with poor immigrant parents from the Flushing or Jackson Heights neighborhoods in Queens from getting in - which is fundamentally discriminatory, and a nasty surprise to their American dreams. All because of those supposed bad personalities.
The DoJ fundamentally shows how kids of all races are getting shortchanged by Harvard's racial bean counting, which far from serving kids, serves as a sop to the whites who run these programs -- to virtue-signal to other whites. It's nonsense. Racialism by any other name is still racism. The black and Latino kids get shortchanged, and so do the Asians. The case shows that Harvard needs to scrap that whole thing and move to race-blind admissions more than anything else, or else go without federal funding. Better still, they might just start speaking out on why ordinary African-Americans are condemned to such bad union-run schools that keep them from out of the competition at Harvard as richer kids with the same skin color glide right in.
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.” JACK CASHILL
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (THREE GAMER LAWYERS) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Writer/essayist/educator/poet David Solway discusses Doctor Jill’s doctoral thesis and Michelle’s Princeton senior thesis.
A couple of interesting bits to consider from David Solway:
1. Obama's administration persecuted Dinesh D'Souza, who made fun of the wooky's senior thesis, as did Christopher Hitchens, but we can't be critical of a self-serving, preachy, oppressed black female, can we. Wouldn't you love to know her LSAT score since she was admitted to Harvard Law and rotated through a couple of make work jobs before losing her membership in the Bar.
C'mon Mr. Solway, do you think the wookie doesn't have access to excellent ghost writers, just like a commie and former weatherman named Bill Ayers, who was shown by Jack Cashill to be the ghost for Obama's fabulous fake autobiographical Dreams from My Father.
Here's Professor Solway's takedown of first lady "academic" papers.
Warning, a Democrat party that could get Biden elected can certainly put Moochelle in the White House for another 8 years of racialist, socialist, anti-American destruction. Being the first "consort" would be right in Obama's wheelhouse. Travel the world in Air Force One and meet with his allies in the commie and jihadi world.
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
In 1985, Michelle Obama presented her senior thesis in the sociology department of Princeton University. Although Michelle drew no such conclusion, the thesis is a stunning indictment of affirmative action. Those who benefited from it, Michelle most notably, may never recover from its sting.
Her thesis reads like a cry for help. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me," she writes, "I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as I really don't belong."
She didn't. Michelle should never have been admitted to Princeton. Thanks to the "numerous opportunities" presented by affirmative action, however, Princeton is where she found herself. "Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren't good enough for an Ivy League school," writes biographer Christopher Andersen, "Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway." Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, "Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well."
She did not write well, either. She even typed badly. Mundy charitably describes the thesis as "dense and turgid." The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, "To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be 'read' at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language."
Hitchens exaggerates only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:
The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
The design of the thesis is a disaster, but the idea behind it is not a bad one. Michelle wanted to gauge the attitudes of black Princeton alumni on a range of variables. She sent her survey to 400 alumni; 89 responded, 60 percent of whom were male, 80 percent of whom were between the ages of 25 and 34.
The survey is a stark exercise in black and white. Michelle never uses the phrase "African-American." It had apparently not yet entered the lexicon. Nor does she retreat to phrases like "people of color" or "minority groups." In her world, there are only black people and white people.
White people intimidate her, as they appear to do to many of the alumni. Although most of the survey results are either impossible to decipher or irrelevant, one set of data is worth attention. The alumni were asked whether they felt comfortable around whites.
On the question of social comfort, 17 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 6 percent while at Princeton, and 2 percent post-Princeton.
On the question of intellectual comfort, 24 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 8 percent while at Princeton, and 8 percent post-Princeton. As Michelle notes, black students were forced "to compete intellectually with whites." For those like herself who didn't test well, the competition had to deliver a body blow to the old self-esteem.
"Blacks may be more comfortable with Whites," Michelle hypothesizes, "as a result of a greater amount of exposure to whites in an academic setting while at Princeton." This was standard academic cant then. It still is today. In fact, the exact opposite happened. On the question of general comfort, 13 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 4 percent while at Princeton, and only 1 percent post-Princeton. Michelle had stumbled upon a seriously inconvenient truth.
Michelle was not among the one percent. As a senior at Princeton, for instance, she imagines herself going forward "on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant." In a sense, she never let herself.
Having learned little from her Princeton experience, Michelle applied to Harvard Law and was admitted for the same reason her husband would later be — not the content of her character, but the color of her skin. The obvious gap between her writing and that of her highly talented colleagues marked her as an affirmative action admission, and the profs finessed her through.
One almost feels sorry for her. She had to have been as anxious as Bart Simpson at Genius School, but Bart at least knew he was in over his head, and he understood why: he had cheated on his I.Q. test. "It doesn't take a Bart Simpson to figure out that something's wrong," he tells the principal and demands out.
If there is a "white privilege," Bart nailed it: when "something's wrong," he has to look within. He can't blame the white man for his problems.
@jackcashill's forthcoming book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is available for pre-order at https://amzn.to/2VHOnS8.
What shocked even the old timers in my hometown was that Mayor Hugh Addonizio, the man who gave me my Eagle Scout Award, would accept kickbacks in cash right across his desk. They were troubled less by his criminality -- that was expected in Newark -- than by his lack of subtlety. Addonizio paid for his indiscretion with a lengthy prison sentence.
So it is with the current college admissions scandal. People have been scamming their ways into prestige universities for decades, maybe centuries, but in the past they have had the good sense not to put the cash on the table. It seems that in this scandal a few of the bribers and their brokers may well pay for their indiscretion with prison sentences as well.
The media pretend to be shocked. In an editorial on the scandal, the New YorkTimes singled out Harvard University for its “special admissions preferences and back doors for certain applicants.” This is the same New York Times, however, that published an entirely uncritical article three years prior headlined, “Malia Obama Rebels, Sort of, by Choosing Harvard.”
Malia is the fourth member of the Obama family to attend that august university, none of whom, save perhaps for Grandpa Obama, deserved to be there.
Let’s start with Obama Sr., the only member of the extended family to attend college before the affirmative action/diversity era. Obama arrived at Harvard in the early 1960s with the goal of getting a Ph.D. in economics. According to biographer Sally Jacobs, Obama “struggled” with his studies but managed to get a Masters degree.
Alas, the university booted him on moral grounds before he could get his doctorate. An inveterate playboy despite his two ongoing marriages, Obama had an affair with a high-school girl. Denied his Ph.D., says Jacobs, “He goes on to claim the title, nonetheless. He's Dr. Obama. The older he gets, the more he claims it.” As will be seen, intellectual fraud runs in the family.
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.” She did not write well either. Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," as “dense and turgid.”
The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language.” Hitchens exaggerated only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:
The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law. I have been told by those on the inside that there are ways of recognizing affirmative-action admissions. Still, one almost feels sorry for Michelle. She was in so far over her head it is no wonder she projected her angst onto the white people around her. “Regardless of the circumstances underwhich [sic] I interact with whites at Princeton,” she wrote in the opening of her thesis, “it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Barack was the smarter and better educated half of the couple. That said, had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia.
In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.
Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have been as useful to him as affirmative action.
In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host, Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.
As for Malia, whose grades and scores are as much a state secret as her father’s, the old man damns with the faint praise of “capable” and “conscientious.” But hell, Bill’s daughter Chelsea got into Stanford and George’s daughter Barbara got into Yale, so this particular path to the back door was well worn.
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
Harvard virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got in on race
Imagine being a talented black or Latino applicant who got into Harvard University. Now there's news that 45% of the blacks and Latinos have been found to have been admitted on race over merit, according to a new Justice department brief, which credibly argues that Harvard engaged in illegal "race-balancing."
Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed the brief in a federal lawsuit filed by Students For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process violates federal law.
Every employer is going to be looking at your diploma and wondering if you were part of the 45%.
Which is a pretty nasty burden to throw onto the talented 55% who got in on merit alone. Everywhere they go, they'll be suspected of not being Harvard material but for the color of their skin. Make a mistake at work? It's because of the Harvard affirmative-action advantage. What an ugly thing to have to worry about for the rest of your life, solely because you are black or Latino. It's the typically lefty good intentions and virtue-signaling that in the real world does blacks and Latinos absolutely no favors.
The school considers applicants’ race at virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class. And its inclusion of race in the analysis frequently makes a dispositive difference. The district court found that Harvard’s use of race was “determinative” for “approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” ADD84. Moreover, Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s racial composition with that of the previous year.
The DoJ brief argued that the funnily consistent number of admissions among minorities proved there was some intense "racial balancing" going on, which it notes, is explicitly unconstitutional in a university that takes massive federal funding:
These numbers speak for themselves. The minimal variation, including in the percentages of underrepresented minorities that Harvard seeks to benefit, over a multi-year period is much narrower than the 6.6-percentage-point range in underrepresented minorities the Supreme Court sustained in Grutter.
Asian-Americans, of course, were the ones knocked out on the old subjective 'personality' factor, with Harvard apparently claiming most have bad ones:
Second, Harvard’s process imposes a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer scores for Asian Americans. Harvard did not prove that the personal rating is race-neutral.
The DoJ brief notes that the personality rating is a big one in determining who gets admitted - applicants who got 1's and 2's, the highest ratings, were 80% of the incoming class:
With the personal rating excluded, both experts’ models show Harvard’s program inflicts a statistically significant penalty against Asian-American applicants.
So what is there to unpack here?
Minorities are getting shortchanged on the values of their diplomas, now that news is out that their admission, unlike those of the others, was disproportionately based on race over other more qualified applicants. That's the impact of Harvard's white leadership looking to virtue-signal at the top instead of confront failing black schools and poor cultural outcomes in Great Society-poisoned black and brown cultures.
We see a lot of the effects of this affirmative-action shortchanging in lower-tier schools, which often feature huge dropout rates of minority students who as admitted minorities, cannot keep up with the other kids in the classes.
We don't see that pattern at Harvard - the 2019 statistics show that 99.04% of black students, or, 103 out of 104 graduate (presumably within the 6-year time period noted), and 98.68% of Hispanics -- 150 out of 152 -- do the same. Whites, by contrast, have a 97.6%, or 733/751 rate, and Asians have a 97.73%, or 733/751 rate. Students of mixed race have a 96.19%, or 101 out of 105 graduation rate.
All pretty hunky dory, but it's still possible this may be manipulated to keep the virtue-signal going.
The DoJ charges that racial bean-counting is continuous at Harvard. It's also noteworthy that the school has a gargantuan "diversity" staff -- which needs to somehow keep busy. Might it be that these students are expressly guided to be graduates over other students? That's one possibility.
Another way the graduation rate can be manipulated is through grade inflation and gut majors. Are these ultra-high black and Latino graduation rates the result of the students taking easy majors? Such as a major that ends in '-studies'? Well, to take one benchmark, about half the student section of Harvard's African-American Studies department, based on appearances, is African or African-American, or about 13 out of 27 students. That would be about 10% of the black student body, a rather disproportionate enrollment.
The Harvard physics department, by contrast, doesn't feature faces of its students as the African-American Studies department does. The site features a gigantic eight-person committee on 'diversion and inclusivity' though, but no student facebook listings, quite unlike the African-American Studies page. A jaunt to the Harvard 'Women in Physics' section, though, features 22 female faces, nearly all students, it appears, and none apparently African-American or Latina, in the two pictoral line-up photos showing 22 faces and 25 faces. They all appear to be white, South Asian, or East Asian. Since I couldn't find any information about what black and Latino students are majoring in, the photos serve as a suggestion, particularly since the physics page has a 'diversity and inclusion' link that the African American Studies section does not, suggesting the school thinks someone might notice.
But something probably even more significant was brought up by Henry Louis Gates of all people: It's not the ghetto kids getting into Harvard under the checkbox of 'black' - it's the rich and upper middle class black kids -- and the children of African or Caribbean immigrants, who have a significant work ethic and sense of excellence, probably putting a lot of them in the 55%.
The race-balancing going on at Harvard seems to be primarily a subsidy to the rich black and Latino kids who enroll when admitted, as this academic sums up.
University of Illinois professor Walter Benn Michaels put the question most bluntly when he said, “When students and faculty activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over what skin color the rich kids have.”
And that does seem to be going on with the Harvard race-balancing, using the richer kids. That is supported by the fact that only 76% of blacks admitted to Harvard actually go to the school. Harvard itself attributes that to the appeal of historically black colleges such as Howard University and full scholarships offered by other ivy league schools. The Journal of Black Higher Education thinks it's black kids going to high-grade selective state schools, which serve their needs better. The admissions committee, it seems, is throwing things at black kids that a lot of them might not really want. Some may see themselves as more successful at Howard University, or U.C. Santa Barbara, and meet more people in the same boat as themselves.
Meanwhile, over at Harvard, a combination of gut majors, grade inflation, and admitting the rich kids with the requisite background to at least minimally sudceed at Harvard seems to be what keeps the Asian-American kid with poor immigrant parents from the Flushing or Jackson Heights neighborhoods in Queens from getting in - which is fundamentally discriminatory, and a nasty surprise to their American dreams. All because of those supposed bad personalities.
The DoJ fundamentally shows how kids of all races are getting shortchanged by Harvard's racial bean counting, which far from serving kids, serves as a sop to the whites who run these programs -- to virtue-signal to other whites. It's nonsense. Racialism by any other name is still racism. The black and Latino kids get shortchanged, and so do the Asians. The case shows that Harvard needs to scrap that whole thing and move to race-blind admissions more than anything else, or else go without federal funding. Better still, they might just start speaking out on why ordinary African-Americans are condemned to such bad union-run schools that keep them from out of the competition at Harvard as richer kids with the same skin color glide right in.
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny includeDavid Axelrod,Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”
Black Lives Matter Founder Mentored by Ex-Domestic Terrorist Who Worked with Bill Ayers
The co-founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, Patrisse Cullors, was the protégé of a communist-supporting domestic terrorist for over a decade, spending years training in political organizing and absorbing the radical Marxist-Leninist ideology which shaped her worldview.
Eric Mann, who mentored Cullors for over a decade in community organizing, was a member of radical-left militant groups: Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings and police stations in the 1960s and 1970s.
In a newly resurfaced video from 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors reveals that she and her fellow BLM founders are “trained Marxists.”
In the video, Cullors is interviewed by Jared Ball of the Real News Network and discusses the direction of the BLM movement.
“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said. “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”
In previous interviews in 2018, while promoting her then-new book titled, “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir,” Cullors describes her introduction to and affinity for Marxist ideology.
In an interview with Democracy Now!, Cullors describes how she became a trained organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, calling it her “first political home” and the center’s director, Eric Mann, her personal mentor.
She told The Politic that it was there that she was trained from her youth and grew as a leader.
The Labor/Community Strategy Center describes it’s philosophy as “an urban experiment,” utilizing grassroots organizing to “focus on Black and Latino communities with deep historical ties to the long history of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, pro-communist resistance to the U.S. empire.”
The center teaches and studies the history of the “Indigenous rebellions against the initial European genocidal invasions,” the “Great Slave Haitian Revolution of the 1790s,” and the “Great Slave Rebellions that won the U.S. civil war for the racist north.”
The center also expresses its appreciation for the work of the U.S. Communist Party, “especially Black communists,” as well as its support for “the great work of the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, Young Lords, Brown Berets, and the great revolutionary rainbow experiments of the 1970s,” while flaunting its roots in the new communist movement.
Speaking with ACLU’s At Liberty weekly podcast, Cullors described the center as her “foundation,” claiming it was there that she developed the skills which helped her found the Black Lives Matter movement, after having been recruited by its director, Eric Mann.
Mann, an avowed communist revolutionary, was the New England coordinator for Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968. The following year, a more radical wing splintered from the SDS, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, calling for violent “direct action” over civil disobedience.
The splintered faction became known as the Weather Underground, with the stated goal of overthrowing the U.S. government. As a result, the FBI classified the organization as a domestic terrorist group in 1969.
Mann led a group of fellow Weathermen who launched their own violent direct action at the Harvard University Center for International Affairs.
In an article titled: “Band Invades, Violently Disrupts Center for International Affairs,” the Harvard Crimson reported that a band of 20 to 30 activists invaded the Center for International Affairs, “roughing up” several staff members and employees before fleeing.
Several slogans, including “Pig,” “Fuck U.S. Imperialism,” and “Imperialists Screw All Women,” were sprayed on the building’s walls. Rocks thrown by the group broke several windows and a telephone was damaged to prevent police from being notified.
Undergraduates who saw the group leaving the building and chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh; NLF is going to win,” said they recognized some of them as members of Weathermen, a militant spin-off of the older New Left Caucus of SDS.
Mann was later charged with five counts of assault and battery, disturbing the peace, damaging property, defacing a building, and disturbing a public assembly, for which he spent 18 months in prison.
At the 2010 United States Social Forum in Detroit, under the slogan “Another World Is Possible. Another U.S. Is Necessary,” the Labor/Community Strategy Center sponsored a session titled: “Transformative Organizing Theory: Conscious Organizers Seek to Build Anti-racist, Anti-imperialist Politics Rooted in Working Class Communities of Color.” In it, Cullors––rising to prominence––was chosen by Mann to be a panelist along with him.
There, Cullors spoke about growing up as a working class, queer, Black woman, in a single-parent household, with a father who was in and out of prison.
Cullors stated that “positionality in this country is supposed to devastate us” and had done so somewhat successfully, while stressing the need to “fight this thing.”
Both Cullors and Mann strongly endorsed Bernie Sanders. Cullors was a primary speaker at a Sanders campaign event the day before Super Tuesday, which Mann attended.
Cullors, viewing Biden as far too moderate, pushed for the latter to end his campaign, accusing him of having an “old guard mentality” and coming from an “old establishment.”
Now with Biden leading as the Democratic presidential nominee, Cullors and Mann are finding a sympathetic ear for their radical agenda.
As Breitbart news reported, a group of 50 leading national progressive groups representing millions of active members across the country, are pressuring Biden to adopt the radical platform of the Movement for Black Lives which was co-written by BLM.
The group is calling for Biden to immediately incorporate their radical policies, including putting forward a transformative and comprehensive policing and criminal justice reform laid out by the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL).
Citing his “moral responsibility in this moment” to make amends for past harms he had caused, the groups demanded that Biden make commitments such as advance reparations and defund police, prisons, and weaponry in order to fully fund healthcare, housing, education, and environmental justice.
“We ask that you revise your platform to ensure that the federal government permanently ends and ceases any further appropriation of funding to local law enforcement in any form and redirect those and additional resources towards much needed community-led and community-controlled public safety efforts,” the letter reads.
This past week several people called my attention to a post by Scott Johnson on his influential PowerLine blog that addressed the literary relationship between Barack Obama and his radical friend, Bill Ayers.
In the post Johnson spoke of his high regard for David Garrow’s “staggeringly researched” 2017 Obama biography, Rising Star. “Without resolving all mysteries,” Johnson writes, “[Garrow’s] scholarship belies the notion that [Dreams from My Father] was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers or other such collaborator.”
Johnson emailed Garrow to follow up on the authorship question, and Garrow responded, “I don’t recall exactly where the Bill Ayers [stuff] got started, but it, like the Frank-Davis-as-father notion, is just beyond loony, ’cause Dreams is already *in galleys* when Barack and Bill first get to know each other.”
I do know where the Ayers stuff got started because I started it with a major assist from American Thinkeron these pages on October 9, 2008. I never said Ayers wrote Dreams, but I presented overwhelming literary forensic evidence that Ayers, a skilled writer and editor, helped Obama shape Dreams.
I did not advance this theory casually. I understood then what Obama biographer David Remnick would later affirm, namely that my theory, “if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of [Obama’s] candidacy.”
My research on this topic, aided by several helpful literary detectives, culminated in my 2011 book, published by Simon & Schuster, Deconstructing Obama. I think I can safely assume Garrow has never read it. I would invite those curious about the evidence to read the book or even to read the preliminary article cited above.
That Garrow does not know the source of a theory he dismisses offhand as “beyond loony” is, unfortunately, altogether typical of establishment political writers. His airy dismissal, in fact, reinforces the theme of my forthcoming book Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency.
In the book, I use the phrase “samizdat” -- Russian for underground press -- to describe the loose coalition of conservative blogs, online publications, talk radio shows, and legal monitors such as Judicial Watch that challenged the Left -- and, occasionally, the “responsible” right -- for control of the Obama narrative.
For eight-plus years, the samizdat broke virtually every major unflattering story about Obama and his presidency, some of which the major media grudgingly confirmed, some of which they continue to suppress. In the book I tell how the individuals in question managed to break these stories out. In every case, as you might imagine, the samizdat journalists were met with condescension, if not outright contempt, from the major media.
Obama’s biographers were among the more contemptuous. Curiously, the four major biographers are all named David -- Mendell, Remnick, Maraniss, and Garrow. The last three are Pulitzer Prize winners. To his credit, Garrow was the only one of the four who refused to prop up what Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
The story Obama told about his happy multicultural family at the conventions was pure fiction. According to Garrow, Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, and Barack Obama Sr. “never chose to live together at any time following the onset of Ann’s pregnancy.” Garrow quotes approvingly one unnamed scholar to the effect that Obama Sr. was no more than “a sperm donor in his son’s life.” All of this was common knowledge in the samizdat as early as 2008, but it came as news to many of Garrow’s readers in 2017.
Like his fellow Davids, however, Garrow has no use for information gleaned from the samizdat, especially information I introduced. On the subject of the Obama poem “Pop,” for instance, Garrow notes, “Most commentators presumed that Obama had written about his grandfather, Stan Dunham, not Frank Marshall Davis.”
This much was true, but “hostile critics,” Garrow continues, insisted the poem was about Obama’s bi-sexual Communist mentor, Davis. The “hostile critics” Garrow cites in the footnotes are historian Paul Kengor and me.
Instead of giving me credit for being the first to decode “Pop,” Garrow describes me in the footnote as “someone who is cited with the greatest reluctance.” What I did to deserve this slight is left unsaid, especially since Garrow knows I nailed the identity of “Pop” two years before anyone in the mainstream media did, including the other Davids.
As to Bill Ayers’s involvement in the writing of Dreams, Garrow does not even deign to dismiss the possibility. He has a discovery of his own, namely that outside literary help came from a law school buddy of Obama’s named Rob Fisher. This is an important find if for no other reason than it undercuts Obama’s 2008 boast to a crowd of schoolteachers, "I've written two books. I actually wrote them myself."
An established economist before starting law school, Fisher became good friends with Obama at Harvard. There, they co-authored a manuscript that perhaps prophetically was never finished. One completed chapter dealt with the always sexy topic of plant closings.
“The quest is to develop guidelines,” they wrote, “on how politically progressive movements can use the market mechanism to promote social goals.” Garrow quotes the unfinished manuscript extensively. Its style is wonkish and ungainly throughout.
Sentences like the following suggest that one author wrote as awkwardly as the other: “While Yuppies can afford the expensive frivolities provided by The Sharper Image, others receive insufficient nutrition to allow their minds to develop properly.”
I do not question Fisher’s involvement. Obama needed all the help he could get. What I do question is Fisher’s ability to provide the poetry, the rage, the postmodern rhetoric, and the Homeric structure that inspired Oona King of the London Times to overpraise Dreams as“a beautifully written personal memoir steeped in honesty.”
Garrow seems to dismiss my thesis for no more substantial reason than his belief that Dreams was already in galley form when “Barack and Bill first get to know each other.” Garrow traces the first meeting of these two gentlemen to a breakfast some time in early 1995. He bases this timing on the suspiciously well-remembered account of a common friend who claims to have introduced them.
Garrow, however, has a problem with chronology. He writes that Obama took six weeks off from his law firm job “in late spring 1994” to finish Dreams. He needed time to complete the book’s third section, the one on Africa. Garrow claims Obama worked largely from letters he sent in 1988 while in Kenya and retrieved from his girlfriend at the time, Sheila Jager.
David Maraniss told a different story in his 2012 bio. According to Maraniss’s source, Crown editor Henry Ferris, Obama made an additional trip to Kenya for further research. Obama confirmed this trip when interviewed by Marannis. Garrow makes no mention of this mysterious trip, which would have taken place in 1994. No one else does either. Like much in his life, Obama appears to have made it up.
A more likely possibility is that Obama lied to Ferris about the trip. Instead of going to Kenya, Obama may have contented himself with going to the local library and pillaging the memoirs oflongtime Kenya resident Kuki Gallmann.
This is the theory proposed by tireless researcher Shawn Glasco. He was intrigued by the many words and phrases in Dreams that also appeared in Gallmann’s book, African Nights, which was published in 1994. These include Baobab [a tree], bhang [cannabis], boma [an enclosure], samosa [a fried snack], shamba [a farm field], liana [a vine], tilapia [a fish], kanga [a sheet of fabric], shuka [decorative sashes], and many, many more.
Based on Garrow’s imprecise timeline, Obama flew to New York to hand the completed book off to Ferris no later than early June 1994. In other words, he spent six weeks to finish the last third of the 400-page book between “late spring” 1994 and early June 1994, which is, in fact, late spring.
In his 2009 book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen offers a much more credible account of how Obama managed to finish a project that hung over his head ever since he finished law school.
According to Andersen’s two sources in Chicago’s Hyde Park, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborated, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.” Andersen’s six-page account makes sense, logically and chronologically, but Garrow fully ignores it.
Andersen is a best-selling, mainstream author. He even appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the book. Said Chris Matthews at the end of the interview, “You‘re amazing, successful guy. You have a winning streak here.” Matthews likely did not read the book. Garrow did read it and cites the book in the footnotes but, oddly, not on the subject of authorship.
Garrow nonetheless offers some valuable insights into the Ayers-Obama relationship, insights that I believe strengthen my thesis. Once Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career in 1995, Garrow writes, “Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill and Bernardine [Dohrn] but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona Khalidi and Carole Travis."
According to Garrow, the three couples attended "almost nightly dinners” together up until the time Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. This information, of course, makes complete hash out of Obama’s infamous claim during a 2008 debate that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”
Khalidi, a radical Palestinian, begins his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary muse. “First, chronologically and in other ways,” writes Khalidi, “comes Bill Ayers.” Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship. He elaborates, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.” Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed help from the skilled neighborhood editor and writer who obviously could and would provide it.
There is nothing “loony” about Bill Ayers helping a good friend finish his book. That is what Ayers did. He was grooming Obama for higher office and was savvy enough to keep his writing relationship with Obama under wraps. Being a friend of a terrorist, Ayers knew, would not exactly help Obama’s career.
Jack Cashill’s most recent book, a political thriller called “The Hunt” co-authored with Mike McMullen, is available wherever you buy books. For a signed collector’s edition, see www.TheHuntBook.com.
Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation
“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod,Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.
BARACK OBAMA: Was he America’s first closet Communist president?
Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control. Our press chooses not to report them.
Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
The Democrats are now officially the party of Jew-hatred. This is largely due to the disastrous presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. PAMELA GELLER
Abunimah’s piece -- and Obama’s numerous anti-Semitic associations -- got little attention. Throughout his life Barack Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others. PAMELA GELLER
THE OBOMBS AND HARVARD
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
THE OBAMA MARXIST-MUSLIM BANKSTER-FUNDED THIRD TERM for life:
"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod,Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan
COUNT THE GAMER LAWYERS SOROS OPERATES THROUGH!
THESE ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE IN AMERICA!
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Here's What We Know About Alex Soros, Progressive Scion Taking Over His Father's Political Empire
The Democratic megadonor George Soros has ceded control of his political empire to his son, Alexander Soros.
The succession plan was revealed Sunday, in a Wall Street Journalprofile of the 37-year-old Soros scion. All eyes are now on Alex Soros as he prepares to take his father's place atop the country’s most powerful progressive political operation.
Here's what we know about the younger Soros.
He's ‘More Political’ Than His Pops
The younger Soros says he is "more political" than his 92-year-old father, the Democratic Party’s biggest donor.
Alex Soros has given tens of millions of dollars to Democrats over the years. He contributed $5.25 million to the Senate Majority PAC in 2016 and 2018. He contributed $721,300 to the Biden Victory Fund in 2020 and $350,000 to Hillary Clinton’s victory fund in 2016. Soros has given millions more to the DNC and other Democratic committees.
Alex Soros has not contributed as much to other political advocacy groups as his father has over the years. George Soros, through his Democracy PAC and Democracy PAC II, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to traditional political committees, as well as to advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, and American Bridge. Both Soroses have contributed this election cycle to moderate Democratic senator Jon Tester (Mont.), considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in 2024.
The elder Soros has also funded a network of left-wing prosecutors whose soft-on-crime policies have been blamed for surging crime and low police morale. In 2018, Alex Soros contributed $100,000 to help elect Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison, a progressive Democrat who faced allegations of domestic abuse and blamed police for damage sustained during the George Floyd riots.
His Money Opens Democratic Doors
Alex Soros’s extensive campaign giving appears to open doors for him to many senior Democratic lawmakers.
The younger Soros huddled with Vice President Kamala Harris last week and declared he was "Ridin’ with Biden" in a recent photo with President Biden. He has rubbed shoulders with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and former President Barack Obama, according to his social media feeds.
He Spends A Lot of Time At the Biden White House
Alex Soros also appears to have open access to the White House, having visited at least 17 times during Biden’s tenure, according to visitor logs.
Most of those meetings have been with Biden’s political and domestic policy advisers, but Soros has had five meetings with Jon Finer, the principal deputy national security adviser.
The Washington Free Beaconreported that Soros met with Finer on the same day that Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva visited the White House. According to the Wall Street Journal, Soros met the left-wing Brazilian leader to advocate on behalf of the Open Society Foundations, his father’s philanthropy.
He Runs His Father's Left-Wing Nonprofit
Alex Soros took over in December as chairman of the board of Open Society Foundations, which pours hundreds of millions of dollars annually into progressive causes in the United States and around the world.
Alex Soros told the Journal he plans to use Open Society’s $25 billion war chest to fund the expansion of abortion and voting rights across the country.
He Lacks Dad's Business Savvy
Alex Soros does not appear to have his father’s business acumen, raising questions about the long term viability of his political empire. George Soros has amassed a fortune of around $7 billion, largely through his Soros Fund Management hedge fund.
Jonathan Soros, Alex’s older half-brother, was initially seen as the heir apparent to his father’s business and political empire, but the pair had a falling out over management style.
Alex Soros is an adviser to an apparel supply chain fund, Tau Management, funded by his father. Tau invests in apparel and textile factories in Asia in order to build "agile, sustainable manufacturing partners" to major apparel brands. The fund requires its partners to have a "strong and sincere commitment to [Equity, Sustainability, Governance]."
He Just Wants to Party
Before his ascent to the top of his father’s political empire, Alex Soros was better known for his semi-playboy lifestyle. According to the New York Post, Soros hosted celebrities at a $72 million Hamptons estate he rented in 2016, and has often been spotted hanging out with NBA players and supermodels.
Soros reportedly hired New York City club promoter Adam Spoont to recruit models to attend Soros’s house parties. Spoont’s success landed him an invitation to an Alex Soros fundraiser, where he was able to meet President Obama, according to Page Six.
His Father Has Been Accused of Domestic Abuse
George Soros on the beach / Splash News
The elder Soros's ex-girlfriend, Brazilian model Adriana Ferreyr, says Alex's dad once slapped and choked her while they were in bed. Ferreyr later sued George Soros for $50 million.
He pissed off Taylor Swift
Alex Soros led a consortium of investors who bought rights to Swift’s unreleased music for $330 million, drawing the ire of the pop superstar.
"It looks to me like Scooter Braun and his financial backers, 23 Capital, Alex Soros, and the Soros family and The Carlyle Group, have seen the latest balance sheets and realized that paying $330 million for my music wasn't exactly a wise choice and they need money," Swift said in 2020. "In my opinion, just another case of shameless greed in the time of Coronavirus. So tasteless, but very transparent."
Michelle spoke openly on her Becoming book tour about living in fear in her South Shore home, afraid to go outside due to the hostility of the Black kids toward her. According to Michelle, they accused her of “acting white” and “talking white” -- which Michelle described as meaning “you think you are better than everyone else.” Michelle writes about a fistfight she got into with a girl who had repeatedly called her an “Oreo,” meaning you are Black on the outside but you are really White on the inside. This was a major insult, but for Michelle it rang true. Michelle has said her hero growing up was Mary Tyler Moore. She also watched the “Brady Bunch” every day after school. In fact, Barack Obama said Michelle’s family reminded him of the classic 50s White family in “Leave It to Beaver,” while Michelle reminded him of his White grandmother.
I do know where the Ayers stuff got started because I started it with a major assist from American Thinker on these pages on October 9, 2008. I never said Ayers wrote Dreams, but I presented overwhelming literary forensic evidence that Ayers, a skilled writer and editor, helped Obama shape Dreams.
No comments:
Post a Comment