Another great e-mail from Goon Vilerat. This time, he did all the work. I am just reposting it.

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It’s an amazing time to be alive in America . We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand, we won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern, and it’s time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

This has no substance. It’s just a scare paragraph trying to establish a tone in the mail. His point is “OH MY GOD HE’S JUST SOOOOOOOOOO LIBERAL!!!” I ask why? Why is he liberal? Which of his policies that he supports don’t you support? Name them specifically and weigh the value of them. The term “Liberal” is meaningless. Walter mondale, George McGovern, and Michael Dukakis are not Barack Obama. But I digress… The next paragraph says B.O. promised all of these things but this is a lie. Yep the author is lying to scare you! Imagine that. I will link why he’s a liar because knowledge is POWER.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
“Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.”

He wants to repeal the highest end of the bush tax cuts. You make less than 250k/yr? Your taxes will stay cut like they are now. I guess the super wealthy will have to buy one of the smaller Mercedes this summer.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Building a 21st Century Military

On the last one “A liberal domestic agenda” what does that even mean????

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.”

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Haha oh wow. Are you serious? This guy gets paid to write this stuff? Well lets dissect this shall we?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Just read it. spend the time to read it.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world.

No it’s not.

And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.

And moved jobs out of our country contributing to one of the weakest job markets in our lifetime.

Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.”

No he doesn’t. He wants to remove the bush tax CUTS that were given to the rich. Semantics!

How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes.

What? He never said this.

How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes.

No he didn’t say this either. What the hell?

Prescription drugs? Raise taxes.

He did not!

Free college? Raise taxes.

My god this author is just making this up!

Socialize medicine? Raise taxes.

Haha my god who is this clown? Why do people believe anything he’s saying?

His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Not at all. One shred of proof in this email would do wonders but I guess you can’t prove bald faced lies.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!”

It’s wrong to believe in god ?

but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” Christianity.

I assume he’s talking about taking away the rights of a woman to chose and the right for gays to marry. It’s a womans body and two gay guys getting married affects me in no way. Let them get their gay on. I simply don’t care.

He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it, unconstitutional.

That’s because it’s currently unconstitutional.

He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.

Wait what? That’s a straw man argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.

He refused to vote against a ban on somebodies rights? what ever happened to the republican party that was all about individual rights? It’s bad to take away your guns because it would go against your constitutional rights but it’s ok to take away a gay’s right to marry … because you don’t like it? Hypocrisy!

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

He never said this. Please quote one instance. Just one would suffice.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

Wrong again! Proof! Any… any? Is there a shred of proof in this entire article? I’m at a loss to find one, can you? Maybe we can pretend like this is the “where’s waldo” Where’s Waldo of politics! Find the statement backed up by fact in this hack piece! (Joke’s on you, waldo unfortunately does not exist in this one).

It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn’t you think

Remember–God is good, and is in time, on time–every time.

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal….the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

Ha! of MUSLIM descent! What is this lunacy in this article? This is some fire and brimstone garbage right here! This man has anger issues.

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet…do it!

did you know that the easiest way to make a lie into the “truth” is to repeat it so much that people start to believe it?

If you think I am crazy..I ‘ m sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the “unknown” candidate .. .

Yeah you are a complete loon.

Every single thing in this article is a horrible horrible hateful lie. The only thing they got right is that Obama is pro gay marriage.

Want in on a little secret?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican.”

Woops! Tactical error!

How about abortion? Surely that evil Obama who supports a womans right to chose is the devil we all thought he is!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

Oh dear.

Welp. I guess the only things that the article got right (Obama supports gay marriage and Womans right to chose) Mccain supports too! So… now what?

I want to know who started this one. I really do. My desire to beat them silly with a bunch of arugula is overwhelming.

This very special e-mail forward is about Michelle’s thesis. Which means I had to read Michelle’s thesis. All 64 pages of it. What’s it about? Well, she attended Princeton with a major in sociology and a minor in African-American studies. So it’s about African-American sociology. Which is a topic of great interest to a lot of people. But not me.

But Goon Vilerat passed it on, quite some time ago, and I’ve been derelict in answering it, because I really, really find college theses a boring read.

The original e-mail was in HTML format, and filled with pictures, none of which I am recreating here, because I have a life. Not including the GIANT COLORED FONT or images detracts nothing from the crazy, though.

We’re going to go through the original e-mail, then the debunking, line by precious line. I HAD TO READ THE WHOLE THESIS, YOU CAN SIT THROUGH THIS POST.

This was passed on to me. I didn’t write it but it is good reading. You can read it then make up your own mind. Send it on if you want but no comments back to me…I know who I am voting for and it is not Obama.

MICHELE OBAMA’S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred”. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist”. The 1985 thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to “Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first…” However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “If those “Whites at Princeton” really saw Michelle as one who always would “be Black first,” it seems that she gave them that impression”.

Most alarming is Michele Obama’s use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” when describing the views of black people.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a “separationist” view of race “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.”

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “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.”

Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: “There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. ”

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she’s first lady that will elevate black over white in America?

The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration. “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming. Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree 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. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama’s thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama’s intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Now maybe she’s changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America. Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn’t.

Alright. Got that? Ready?

This was passed on to me. I didn’t write it but it is good reading.

In light of this opinion, I am concerned as to what you would consider bad reading.

You can read it then make up your own mind. Send it on if you want but no comments back to me…I know who I am voting for and it is not Obama.

I love this tactic. “Make up your own mind, but if you disagree with me, don’t tell me. LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

MICHELE OBAMA’S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED

Dun dun dun!

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred”. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist”.

No where in the 64 page paper, which is available online do the words “crime and hatred” or “ineradicably racist” appear. This is a lie pulled straight out of someone’s whole cloth.

The 1985 thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

This is actually true. It was 1985, and, being unmarried until the 1990’s, she had no other name under which to write.

Let us take a moment here for a history lesson. From the Association of Black Princeton Alumni:

Princeton was a segregated University until 1947, and the color line was not broken by choice; the Navy, in 1945, sent four African-American officer candidates there as part of the V-12 training program. Two years later, one of them received a bachelor’s degree, and Princeton began admitting blacks on its own, but in small numbers.

Hilzoy brings to our attention the fact that Princeton didn’t really start going after blacks until the 1960’s. And they didn’t admit women until 1969. As an African-American Studies major, Michelle wrote her thesis about the African-American student experience, but she could just as easily have written about the female student’s experience.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to “Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first…” However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “If those “Whites at Princeton” really saw Michelle as one who always would “be Black first,” it seems that she gave them that impression”.

She does say this, in the introduction, by means of explaining what drove her to this specific thesis subject. Further, her feelings about being part of the 10% black student population at Princeton in the early 1980’s is backed up by this article in the Atlantic Journal-Constitution:

Catherine Donnelly shopped at Kmart, settled into her dorm room and soaked up the Gothic stone buildings where, over the next four years, she would grow into her own woman.

But her first day at Princeton held a surprise, too. And Donnelly knew it would mean confronting the past.

She walked into the historic Nassau Inn that evening and delivered the news to her mother, Alice Brown. “I was horrified,” recalled Brown, who had driven her daughter up from New Orleans. Brown stormed down to the campus housing office and demanded Donnelly be moved to another room.

The reason: One of her roommates was black.

“I told them we weren’t used to living with black people — Catherine is from the South,” Brown said. “They probably thought I was crazy.”

That black roommate? Michelle.

Most alarming is Michele Obama’s use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” when describing the views of black people.

Oh my God! You mean, words in specific fields have specific meanings! Alarming!

Starting on page 6 and running through page 9, Michelle outlines the sociological concepts of seperationism/pluralism and integrationism/assimilation, relying on van den Berghe, Billingsley, Carmichael, and Hamilton. To wit, much as immigrate communities flourished separately before integrating in to this Grand Melting Pot we call America, a discussion on a sociological level is also to be had regarding the Black community.

Also, nice mispelling of Michelle.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a “separationist” view of race

You can not infer her views or opinions from the survey of other students. The paper is very dull because it is all scientific methodology.

“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 is a hypothesis, not a part of her personal feelings — at least, not a part of her personal feelings that you can gleam by reading the thesis.

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “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.”

A quote that only works when taken out of context. Did I mention I read the whole paper? Again from the introduction, pages 2 -3:

Earlier in my college career, there was 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. 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. [ed: See above] Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.

These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my 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. This realization has presently made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable.[emphasis mine]

Rather than turn her back on the Black community she was raised in, she intends to use her education and resources to benefit them. How… completely not noble?

Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.

Michelle. Two l’s. I know I am nitpicking, but it’s really hard to take anything seriously when the author can’t even get the name of the person he’s attacking correct.

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America,

Pretty much everyone did in 1985.

but she elevates black over white in her world.

Another unfounded accusation.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: “There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. ”

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she’s first lady that will elevate black over white in America?

First off, I promise you that the idea of being first lady never entered the mind of 1985 Michelle Robinson. Secondly, all the quote says is “As a member of community X, I am obligated to benefit community X.” In this equation, substitute X for any of the following: female, Jewish, Polish, German, Catholic, Italian.

The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration. “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”

Ha! This quote is completely mangled from what appears in Obama’s actual text (page 12 - 13), and furthermore, this “quote” fails to acknowledge that she’s summarizing an essay from Dr. Carolyn Dejoie entitled “Low Morale in Higher Education: Blacked in Predominately White Universities.” And even if we take the line at face value, all it really does it call on universities to do more to help nonwhite students cope with their minority status on campus. IN 1985.

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming. Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that not all of the respondents were in African-American studies.

But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree 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. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

Horrified, indeed. What’s the next line say?

I now believe it is incorrect to assume that just because a Black individual does not enjoy or choose to participate in the culture of his people, that that individual is not interested in benefiting that group of people. The inability to identify with one aspect of the Black culture does not necessarily cause apathy towards Blacks in general.

Context = bitch

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Yes, this is what’s called “a random sampling.” They randomly selected 400 names from a list of 1,200, and received 89 responses, for a response rate of 89%. That’s how polling works.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

Also, she might see boy people and girl people. Young people and old people. You’re an idiot.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama’s thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism.

Also, the time-based prism of 1985.

This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

You’re still an idiot.

Michelle Obama’s intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Oh, I see. She’s not just racist, she’s elitist.

Now maybe she’s changed,

It is 23 years later, after all.

but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America.

If we take everything out of context and flat out lie about what she said, sure. But she didn’t write this tripe, some idiot with an anonymous e-mail account did. It sure sounds like said idiot has an ax to grind.

And you don’t have to take my word for it. Take Politico’s, or Snopes’, or Salon’s.