Staff Reports
Now that Michelle Obama’s name is swirling around as a potential replacement for Joe Biden at the Democratic nominating convention, it’s high time the truth about her is revealed. There has been a treasure trove of research conducted on her, and it’s time to delve into her college thesis.
Baldwin: If Michelle Obama's Running, These 2 Damning Sentences from Her College Thesis Should Be Read by Everyone https://t.co/ERPyFYtYiS
— Michael R. Caputo (@MichaelRCaputo) January 26, 2024
In her thesis, she makes an outrageous claim that America was built upon “crime and hatred,” and that white people in America are “ineradicably racist.” But let’s face it, history is far more intricate than that.
Most Americans were vehemently against slavery, which is why a civil war had to be fought to eradicate this evil institution. And let’s not forget, if it weren’t for the Democratic Party, which Michelle Obama is a proud member of, racist laws would have been extinguished much earlier. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. On the other hand, the Republican Party was established specifically to combat these injustices. It seems Michelle is blissfully unaware of this crucial fact.
What’s truly disturbing is her persistent use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” in her thesis when referring to the perspectives of black people. And it’s clear from her thesis that she identifies as a separationist. In other words, if you, as a minority, strive to succeed within society at large, Michelle labels you as a sellout. Talk about divisive.
Take a look at her own words:
“By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”
This kind of discourse sounds absolutely far-fetched. Even the most radical black individuals of today don’t subscribe to such ideas.
Furthermore, she states that the path she took by attending Princeton would likely lead her towards “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” Essentially, she’s claiming that if black people integrate into broader American society, they will never truly be accepted. But that’s utter nonsense, and it makes her sound quite unintelligent. Let’s not forget, she gained admission into Princeton through affirmative action, and she’s unlikely to ever disclose her SAT scores.
It’s hard to fathom how she can genuinely argue that blacks should segregate themselves from society. How does that aid in progress? She never provides an answer.
Any ordinary person who reads this thesis will undeniably conclude that she aligns herself as a separationist.
This type of thinking is reminiscent of Louis Farrakhan’s insane ideology, which asserts that all white people are “blue-eyed devils.” This strain of anti-white ideology is also well entrenched in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racially divisive church, which both the Robinsons and the Obamas frequented. Of course, the Obamas had to conceal their true beliefs when they entered the political arena because it’s impossible to attain power in America without the support of millions of oblivious white voters.
