Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  February 25, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Like David Duke, Michelle Obama Put Color First!

Michelle essentially confessed in her thesis that she was a Blacks Firster: “Earlier in my college career, there is no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost.”

Peggy Noonan obviously is right and asking the right question: "[Y]ou really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?"

Michelle Obama probably learned recently from some smart person in the Obama campaign that it would be counterproductive for her to publicly admit that is exactly what it would mean to her, but the available suggests that she really would believe that the answer is yes and perhaps she'd say it anyway.

Michelle's "cool" (at least in public) husband Barack Obama, the rookie United States Senator running for president as the candidate of hope and change, is too smart to say things like "Now that I'm the frontrunner for my party's presidential nomination I am finally really proud of America for the first time in my life," but he picked Michelle to be his wife as well as Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. (a friend of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and a believer that Zionism includes an element of "white racism" and the attacks on September 11, 2001 resulted from violent American policies and proved, in his own inflamatory words, that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns") to be his pastor and a person's choices of intimates reveal plenty about that person.

David Duke says he's not a racist, but he is, of course. He's a white racist.

Wikipedia:"Duke is a self-styled 'white nationalist', but his critics commonly refer to him as a white supremacist. He says he does not think of himself as a racist, however, stating that he is a 'racial realist' and that he believes that 'all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage."

But the "racial realist" who put in writing the intention to "utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost," referring to a community identified by color, was NOT David Duke.

Perhaps Princeton University is hiding aspiring First Lady Michelle Obama’s senior thesis because it is embarrassed that an affirmative action honors graduate who moved on to Harvard Law School repeatedly misspelled the word occurrence, but I doubt it.

I think the reason is political, since (1) that thesis set forth Black-centric Michelle’s candid views on race and the threat to “Black culture” posed by integration; (2) if generally known, those views would prompt a significant number of non-Blacks who have been receptive to Michelle’s young and inexperienced half black-half white husband Barack’s hope-based presidential campaign to scrutinize the Obamas; and (3) that scrutiny would jeopardize, if not sink, the political correctness-backed “fairy tale” campaign of the Obamas.

Michelle (then Michelle LaVaughn Robinson), in her thesis titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” (1985): “[W]ith the increasing integration of Blacks into the mainstream society, many ‘integrated Blacks’ have lost touch with the Black culture in their attempts to become adjusted and comfortable in their new culture—the White culture. Some of these Blacks are no longer able to enjoy the qualities which make Black culture so unique or are unable to openly share their culture with other Blacks because they have become so far removed from these experiences and, in some instances, ashamed of them as a result of their integration.”

More Michelle: “In an individual’s lifetime, it is necessary that the individual focus his/her interests on benefiting a limited number of things at a time because it is impossible to help everyone and everything equally at the same time. Therefore, the individual must create a motivational hierarchy from which the individual can determine which social groups are most important to benefit. Some individuals may place the highest value on benefiting themselves or their families. Others may value their occupational fields most highly. Others may place God before everything else. In still other instances, one’s motivation to benefit either the U.S. society, the non-White races of the world or the human species as a whole could be most powerful.”

Who is Michelle motivated to benefit?

Michelle essentially confessed in her thesis that she was a Blacks Firster: “Earlier in my college career, there is no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost.”

If the Black community is "first and foremost," everyone else isn't and the playing field is not level.

Michelle apparently chose the subject of her senior thesis out of concern “whether or not [her] education at Princeton would affect [her] identification with the Black community” and was disappointed that her findings did not support her hoped-for conclusion: “that despite the high level of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the Black community.”

Those who want a colorblind society and abhor discrimination on the basis of color will be disappointed to learn that Michelle’s Princeton days made her feel MORE Black (although that may be more attributable to Michelle instead of White Princetonians).

Michelle’s recent public confession that she had never been really proud of America until she noticed that it was responding positively to her husband’s presidential campaign is consistent with the views she expressed in her senior thesis.

Michelle’s premise was “that there is a distinctive Black culture very different from White culture” as a result of Black culture’s music and language and “the struggles and a ‘consciousness’ shared by its people [that] may be attributed to the injustices and oppressions suffered by this race of people through this country’s history.”

Michelle: “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my “Blackness” than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.“

Michelle described Princeton as "infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities" and concluded from her Princeton “experiences” that it was “apparent” that her chosen path “will likely lead to [her] further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow [her] to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”

Obviously Michelle was wrong and perhaps her "I'm finally proud of America" comment is her way of acknowledging it.

But, in her thesis, Michelle frankly revealed, “[t]his realization [that was doomed to the periphery] has…made [her] goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable.”

The basic conclusions of Michelle’s thesis: “the more respondent[s] became sep/plur [separationist/pluralist], the more respondents became motivated to benefit the Black community, and held more positive attitudes towards the Black lower class in general. The more respondents became int/assim [integrationist/assimilationist], the more they became comfortable with Whites, the less motivated they became to benefit the Black community, and the less positive their attitudes became towards the Black lower class in general.”

Michelle’s word choices reflect her own agenda and values. For example, Michelle wrote about “the relationship between change in ideologies and guilt of betraying the Black lower class” and that “it is evident that respondents who become sep/plur [separationist/pluralist], felt more guilt of betrayal and those who became more int/assim [integrationist/assimilationist], felt less guilt.”

Michelle believed that separationists were “realistic” and integrationists were “ignorant.”

Michelle: “My speculation…is…that a separationist is more likely to have a realistic impression of the plight of the Black lower class because of the likelihood that a separationist is more closely associated with the Black lower class than are integrationist[s]. 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 [sic] of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

Michelle found that “the more respondents began spending time with Whites, the more they became attached to and interested in the White community.” posted the thesis and links to it in an article by Jeffrey Ressner titled “Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide” and dated February 22, 2008.

A Barack Obama ad is at the top of the home page, a copy of the thesis was provided to by the Obama campaign and, unsurprisingly (to me, at least), the article is Obama-friendly.

For example, the article (1) simply accepts Michelle’s heroic depiction of herself as “a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain ‘on the periphery,’” (2) treated Princeton’s decision to hide the thesis simply as the result of “school librarians having been pestered so much for access” and (3) treated the Obama campaign’s decision to provide a copy as an example of “transparency” and not a tactic to blunt the impact after commentator Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online posted, "A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis ... is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why," and blogger-pastor Louis Lapides wondered, "Why a restricted thesis? Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?"

Rather than being seen as hiding the thesis, the Obama campaign provided it to a website that would treat it gently.

Mr. Ressner:

“The Obama campaign…quickly responded to a request for the thesis by Politico. The thesis offers several fascinating insights into the mind of Michelle Obama, who has been a passionate advocate of her husband's presidential aspirations and who has made several controversial statements, including this week's remark, ‘For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.’ That comment has fueled debate on countless blogs, radio talk shows and cable news for days on end, causing her to explain the statement in greater detail.

”The 1985 thesis provides a trove of Michelle Obama's thoughts as a young woman, with many of the paper's statements describing the student's world as seen through a race-based prism.”

It certainly does!

Michelle stated in her thesis that (1) to “Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, [she] will always be Black first…” and (2) she will “utilize all of [her] present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.”

If those “Whites at Princeton” really saw Michelle as one who always would “be Black first,” it seems that she gave them that impression.

Mr. Ressner also reported: ”Perhaps one of the most germane subjects approached in the thesis is a section in which she conveyed views about political relations between black and white communities. She quotes the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter Wallace, who discussed ‘integration of black official(s) into various aspects of politics’ and notes ‘problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people,’ as opposed to creating ‘two separate social structures.”

But Mr. Ressner did not mention this part of Michelle’s thesis: “{Black Power advocate] Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s (1967) developed definitions of separationism in their discussion of Black Power…guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study.”

Michelle, no melting pot advocate, was clear: for her, the Black Community is “first and foremost.”

That means that, for Michelle, it’s second-class citizenship for non-Blacks.

Not an acceptable attitude for America’s First Lady.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to,,, and and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2008 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2024 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved