Michelle Obama's Inner Demons

It has often been said that “history is the best teacher.” It has also been said that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.” The following is a syndicated column I wrote in August 2008. Hillary isn’t running for president, but Michelle Obama is the First Lady. After reading what turned out to be a prescient piece I ask you: “Considering what we have seen from this woman, would we have been worse off if people had given heed to my words?”

With that thought in mind, and considering how she has comported herself in their first term, is this the kind of woman you want back in the White House? Has her behavior since they were elected done anything to alter what I wrote back then? Is she a first lady of whom America can be proud of? The following column was a warning of what was to come, we now have suffered four years under her and her husband. After reading the following, will we learn from history or will we be doomed to relive it? If she comported herself as she has the first four years, does the following suggest she will behave better, with no concern that they will have to run for reelection?

MICHELLE OBAMA’S INNER DEMONS (WND.com; 4/8/08)
Hillary Clinton is a lot of things to the public. She is a polarizing figure, who at her very best, plays “foot loose and fancy free” with the truth.

She has been caught in no few fabrications and outright lies. She invented a story of dodging sniper fire while visiting Bosnia. She claimed her daughter, Chelsea, was at the World Trade Towers at the time of their bombing, when in fact she was miles away asleep in bed. And most recently, Deborah Sontag of the New York Times unmasked the real truth of her latest stump speech pursuant to “an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.” (See: “Ohio Hospital Contests Story Clinton Tells,” New York Times, April 5, 2008.)

The Hillary campaign may claim her “whoppers” as misspeaking, but as my grandmother used to say, “Calling a [lie] something else – doesn’t make it less of a [lie].” Hillary’s shortcomings, lies, failings and skullduggery over the years, dating back to Arkansas and before, are legion. Her time as first lady was an exercise in deception, rage and dishonest political maneuverings. Said accounts will stay with her like a cheap perfume for the rest of her political existence.

All of those things said, is Michelle Obama any better? While she isn’t running for office, if her husband secures the Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to prevail this November, she will own the White House. And anyone who thinks differently is, in a word, not thinking at all.

Barack Hussein Obama, originally known as Barry Sotero, claims two mentors and two people of greatest influence in his life – the race-baiting, hate-filled Jeremiah Wright and his race-conscious, bitter wife.

She is bitter because, as a race-based affirmative action diversity student at Princeton University, she felt misplaced among the other students – the majority of whom came from a higher socio-economic stratum than she. As Steve Sailer wrote, “For predictable reasons, being admitted into one of the Big Four super colleges and given lots of financial aid didn’t instill in her a feeling of gratitude … instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and racial paranoia.” (“Michelle Obama’s Chip on her Shoulder,” VDare.com, Feb. 19, 2008.)

She views life and America through a prism of segregative bias based on her own inner demons. She castigates universities as being designed to cater socially and academically to white students. In reality, schools are to cater to educating the student, but thanks to the very vehicle she used to attend Princeton and Harvard, education is overshadowed by racial diversity. Her Princeton thesis concluded with her excoriating other black alumni because they identified with inclusive American culture more than they valued the color of their skin.

Sailer also points out that Ms. Obama will never forgive white America for helping her attend Princeton and Harvard vis-à-vis race-based affirmative action diversity programs and financial aid, because in her mind, what she viewed as a white system helping her meant her self-identified white system was “exercising superiority” over her. (See: “Michelle Obama Perpetually Sore About Her Test Scores,” VDare.com, Feb. 22, 2008.) Albeit convoluted reasoning on her part to be sure, the way to correct those feelings of inadequacy is to end racial diversity and implement need-based programs available to all who are qualified. But instead, she advocates for more race-based affirmative action programs.

Ms. Obama was even resentful of her brother – who was athletic and, although he displayed poor study habits in comparison to her, was recognized as being smarter than she. She is bitter and resentful because she perceives others, whites and family alike, to have it easier than she. And most importantly, when it comes to whites, she blames it on race.

So I ask you, given the choice of a proven prevaricator or an angry harridan with a racist chip on her shoulder the size of Rhode Island, who would you rather have in the White House? Hillary is a lot of things, most of which are driven by her political obsessions, but Ms. Obama is driven by anger, resentment and blind racial entitlement.

If Hillary is justifiably viewed as having influenced her husband’s administration, what influence can we rightly believe this woman would have on her husband’s? And while you are pondering that question, factor in as well that Obama has the highest liberal rating in Congress. Their combination of unparalleled liberalism and bigoted extreme Afro-centric liberationist bias would be more divisive for America than a John Kerry-Al Gore White House.

Whether the next president is a woman, a black person or an ego-centric wannabe potentate who barely graduated from the Naval Academy, we must demand that his or her goals be for all Americans, not for an America slanted on a racial paradigm.