Globetrotting, Ivy League-educated, Marchesa gown-wearing first lady Michelle Obama’s commencement address at Tuskegee University on Saturday described the trials and tribulations she believes she has faced as the first black first lady in American history.
The intense media scrutiny, occasional critical and disparaging remarks — it’s all too much and she said it has led to sleepless nights either in the White House or in posh, five-star hotels where she and her retinue stay, according to The Hill.
“You might remember the on-stage celebratory fist bump between me and my husband after a primary win that was referred to as a ‘terrorist fist jab,’” she told graduates of the private, historically black science- and engineering-heavy school in Alabama.
“And over the years, folks have used plenty of interesting words to describe me. One said I exhibited ‘a little bit of uppity-ism,’” Obama said. “Another noted that I was one of my husband’s ‘cronies of color.’ Cable news once charmingly referred to me as ‘Obama’s Baby Mama.’”
The international jetsetter, a graduate of both Princeton University and Harvard Law School, also complained that she feels she endured a set of expectations during her husband Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign that was different than the expectations for other would-be presidential wives.
Along with President Obama and the couple’s two children (and occasionally her mother), Michelle Obama has made sure to spend plenty of taxpayer dollars on an impressive run of sweet luxury vacations.
As of July 2014, the Obama family had already spent a whopping $44,351,777.12 in taxpayer funds on vacations. That dollar amount is obviously substantially higher now.
Category Archives: Racism?
We decent Americans are bombarded with lies, libeled, and subjected to petty (and, increasingly, not so petty) tyrannies by government flunkies. At every turn, liberals and their suck-ups in the media and academia seek to delegitimize our interests, concerns, and opinions. They want us to submit, to take the easy way out, to just go along. Our fate, they decree, is cultural and political dhimmitude.
Well, it’s time to draw a red line and, unlike President Feckless and the Wimptones, to enforce it.
Conservatives, it’s time to say, “No.”
No, liberals, you can’t just lie about us anymore without us pushing back. The days of surrender in the face of your slander are over.
No, liberals, you are the racists. Your party created the Klan. Your party created and enforced Jim Crow. Those weren’t Republicans beating black skulls in Selma – they were Democrats. Bull Connor was a union-loving populist and a delegate to a Democrat National Convention. You liberals elected a KKK member as your Senate Majority Leader and then made him your President Pro Tempore, and you did it in this century.
I repeat, in this century.
Your Democrat party relies on racial divisions, lies, and hatred. Quick, which party would fold tomorrow if racial hatred suddenly evaporated – the party that seeks to limit government and to empower every individual to create his own success, or the party that seeks to grow government to more lavishly hand out scraps to buy votes?
No, liberals, you are the sexists, the ones offering up as your nominee a corrupt, accomplishment-free punchline who got where she is solely by being hitched to a successful man. Anyone else without her plumbing but with her track record of failure would be lucky to be consigned to the Martin O’Malley tier of primary candidate asterisks. If there really was a glass ceiling, a bar exam-flunking, ethically bankrupt hack like Hillary would need a ladder to reach it if she wasn’t already standing on Bill’s shoulders.
You don’t merely tolerate sexism – you reward it. Your demigod Teddy Kennedy didn’t just treat women like trash. He killed one by leaving her to drown alone in the wet, cold dark while he slinked away to his team of Democrat sycophants to sober up and hatch the lies that helped him avoid justice. And you don’t care. You made him a liberal icon.
I did notice, however, this portion:
“I hate everything about this country. Like, I hate fat white Americans… All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms… Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma — that’s really America.”
You then fantasized about eventually leaving this country:
“As long as I have my money, I’m getting the f*** out of here and I’m gonna leave y’all to your own devices.”
Finally you spoke a bit about the reparations you deserve, and said it’s unnatural for you to be American or Christian:
“Black people need reparations for building this country, and we deserve way more f***ing credit and respect… When you rip a people from their land, from their customs, from their culture — there’s still a piece of me that knows I’m not supposed to be speaking English, I’m not supposed to be worshiping Jesus Christ…All this s**t is unnatural to me.”
When students are compelled to have “White Privilege 101” classes, we have every right to ask: Why, and for whose benefit?
If you’ve been white lately, you have likely been confronted with the idea that to be a good person, you must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.
It isn’t that you are doing, or even quite thinking, anything racist. Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something. But be careful about asking just what that something is, because that will mean you “just don’t get it.”
I assume, for example, that the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children.
So let’s start this stage of our “dialogue on race” with a simple question: When our mandated diversity director says, “This is messy work, but these conversations are necessary,” we have every right, as moral persons, to ask: Why, and for whose benefit?
A Starbucks exec deleted his Twitter account after backlash over the company’s ‘race together’ campaign
Starbucks is in hot water after launching a campaign that encourages baristas to talk about race relations with customers.
Critics have been lashing out at the company on social media, saying Starbucks is trying to capitalize on racial tension in the US.
Following the backlash, Starbucks’ senior vice president of communications, Corey duBrowa, deleted his Twitter account, which only added to critics’ outrage.
Makes me glad I don’t bow to the green mermaid.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has launched a new initiative that will encourage the company’s baristas to talk to patrons about America’s racial issues.
To trigger the conversations, in the next week baristas will be encouraged to write the phrase “Race Together” on customers cups, which is intended to “facilitate a conversation between you and our customers,” according to Schultz.
“If a customer asks you what this is, try to engage in a discussion that we have problems in this country in regards to race. And we believe that we are better than this, and we believe our country is better than this,” Schultz said in a video shown to Starbucks employees, according to USA Today.
The campaign is being bolstered by an 8-page supplement that will be published Friday by the coffeemaker in USA Today. The supplement will include “conversation starters,” such as the statement “In the past year, I have been to the home of someone of a different race ___ times.”
The campaign is said to be inspired by the controversy emanating from the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner last year, both of them black men killed by white police officers. What the initiative hopes to accomplish in the long run is unclear, though the company will be offering more information during its annual meeting on Wednesday.
Let’s call it what it is. The brain-trust which is Starbucks wants to make money off the promotion of racism…
John McWhorter casts a skeptical eye here on the “white privilege” fad, and rightly so.
My take: It is, for starters, a divisive phrase, much more likely to hurt race relations than help them, as it lumps together all white people – many of whom cannot be considered “privileged” by any reasonable standard – and points an accusatory finger at them, asserting, “You don’t deserve what you have.” It is, at bottom, just another way of complaining about stereotyping, even though all racial groups – indeed, all groups, period – face stereotyping, some negative and some positive, and there’s nothing new or remarkable about it. It overstates the extent to which stereotyping occurs and the consequences it has. And, finally, playing this particular race card suggests that racial disparities — and, indeed, racial stereotyping — are due solely to racism simpliciter, and have nothing to do with culture and, in particular, cultural dysfunctions. It is, in other words, the “conversation on race” that we have come to expect from the left: All whites must accept blame for all disparities of any kind, and any suggestion that some non-whites have failed to act responsibly is blaming the victim.
The Washington Post reports, “ESPN 980 began developing a morning program built around [Jason] Reid and Chris Paul, a veteran radio and TV personality . . . The idea: a local sports-talk show hosted by two white personalities and aimed at white men . . . ”
Just kidding! Of course, the show was to be hosted by “two African American personalities” and was to be “aimed at African American men.” That’s fine, whereas the former would have been illegal and racist.
Don’t let your jaw drop too far, this fundamental change is not just happening in college application processes. This exact same methodology is also being applied to Credit Scores for home mortgages and car loans.
Complaints about bias in college admissions have persisted since at least the 1920s, when a Harvard University president tried to cap the number of Jewish students. In November, a group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a suit against Harvard University for admissions policies that allegedly discriminate against Asian Americans. The group cited the 2004 Princeton study and other sources that offer statistics about Asian Americans’ test performance.
At the University of Texas at Austin, an affirmative action policy that allows admissions committees to consider the race of prospective applicants has been argued all the way to the Supreme Court. (The policies were upheld by a lower court, but that court’s decision was voided by the Supreme Court. Another court upheld the policies and another appeal is pending.)
Those who defend “holistic” admissions policies insist that considering a broader range of variables ensures that all applicants are judged fairly. And the Princeton study Lee refers to has been widely criticized by academics who argue that it relies too heavily on grades and test scores to draw conclusions about racial bias and that the data the study uses are too old to be relevant.
This happened to me yesterday. A young person interested in journalism asked me for advice about becoming a columnist. We sat down to talk things through. How did one pitch a subject to a commissioning editor? What process did I go through to think of a topic to write about? Who else other than The Times did I write for? The Jewish Chronicle, I told him. But that was much less frequent and at £X per column did not amount to a substantial proportion of my income though – I added quickly (imagining his circumstances) – I should not be so blasé.
And this is what he then said. “It’s not surprising is it? I mean, they’re notoriously tight-fisted.” Eh? What was that? “They”? He might as well have produced a platypus from his trousers. So, astonished and hoping I might have misinterpreted him but fearing that I had not, I checked. “Who is tight-fisted?” And he replied, in a mildly baffled voice, “Jews. They’re known to be stingy and miserly with money.” If my face registered my feelings it must have been quite a sight. “Are you serious?” I asked. “It’s what everyone says,” he protested. “It’s well known.” Not trusting myself to any further conversation and needing to calm down I sent him away. Later he returned to apologise. He had not meant, he told me, to be in any way offensive. He was very sorry if he had been. And I could tell he had almost no idea of why I had reacted as I did. For him the sentiment that Jews were money-grubbing misers was not just commonplace, it appeared that he had never even heard it contradicted. Perhaps in his part of the country (rural East Anglia, I discovered) it was what everyone thought. But you might have expected a three year degree course at a new university to produce at least one challenge to this medieval stereotype.
He was not Jewish himself, but was he joking in some kind of installation-art offensive way? In our previous discussion there was no hint of a smile or a laugh, he had shown no inclination to be witty. If anything he was over-earnest.
I have little doubt that his prejudice was held out of naivete not malice. By way of evidence for this, it seemed not to have occurred to him that someone writing for the Jewish Chronicle and possessing a name like mine might actually be, in some sense or relationship, a bit Jewish. I don’t think that even if he had thought black people were, say, animalistic, he would have sat down with a black writer and talked about “them” having smaller brains. (There is, of course, a comedy in this since I may be one of the better known “Jewish” writers in Britain, making his choice of insultee an improbably bad one, as the fact of this column demonstrates.)
I hated him for a few minutes, and couldn’t bear the thought of exchanging another word with him, but then the “why” supplanted the “what”. And I thought about what it meant. The first observation I would make is that for him, and possibly his generation, the idea of giving offence is more important than holding a terrible idea. Thinking and saying a dreadful and damaging thing about Jews (or whoever) was less of a crime than making me feel offended by expressing it to me. ”I don’t care about being offended,” I told him, when he apologised. “I care about you being a racist”.
The second observation is the obvious one. Is that what they really think? I can’t get the moment and shock out of my head. After everything that has happened and that day – the day – that the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz was actually on the TV screens behind us, a young Briton tells me about our racial shortcomings.