November 13, 2012

EDUCATION

DID OBAMA WIN IN LANDSLIDE? BLUE STATE CREEP? 100 YEARS OF ELECTION MAPS WILL GIVE YOU SOME TRUE PERSPECTIVE

Everyone has a perspective on the 2012 election results and a theory about what Obama’s re-election means for both parties.  However, conservatives shouldn’t believe the dooms day assumption that the country has never seen such a liberal turn, and liberals shouldn’t buy the idea that Obama won in a landslide.   Both groups could gain some perspective.  One hundred years of voting history should do.
TheBlaze did some digging and found the county-by-county voting maps for every election since 1900.   We made a video of the results, end to end. The outcome is a fascinating display of our democratic past and gives necessary perspective for the countries unpredictable future.
Before you watch the video below, keep an eye out for some alarming and interesting trends like:

SWING STATE? HOW ABOUT SWING COUNTRY

How the country can change in just four years!  Below are the results of Herbert Hoover’s 1928 victory and the resulting shift to elect FDR just four years later


County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years


THE THIRD PARTY EFFECT

A third party has never won the presidency in modern American political history.  However, they did win 88 electoral votes and came in second place in the election of 1912.

County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

Ross Perot caused some havoc in the more recent elections of 1992.  He did not receive any electoral votes, but he did siphon off 20 million private votes.  (Pink and green signifying counties carried by third parties):
County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

 THE REAL MANDATE LANDSLIDE

With the last four elections won on the decisions of a handful of precious swing states, it is astonishing to think of the potential of a true American landslide presidential victory.  But it is possible, and actually quite common!
FDR had a few good ones (523 electoral college votes to 8):
County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

So did Reagan (525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13):
County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

But Nixon takes the cake in the geographic landslide category (520 electoral college votes to McGovern’s 17):
County By County Election Map of Last 100 Years

Perhaps the moral is what goes around comes around in the American political tradition.  Nothing is a given and trends come and go.  What is most important is that democracy works.
Watch 112 years of American elections take place in two minutes below:

County Maps courtesy of Minnesota Population Center.
National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011
www.nhgis.org
Combined election data from:
WD Burnham: Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892 - EE Robinson: The Presidential Vote: 1896 to 1932 - RM Scammon: America at the Polls (1920-1964) - RM Scammon: America at the Polls (1968-1984 ) - RM Scammon / A. McGillivray: America Votes No. 18, 1988 , No. 20, 1992 , No. 22, 1996 , No. 24, 2000,  Election results by county and figures Bureau of the Census for 1880, 1920, 1960 and 2000
Generously mapped by geoelections.free.fr
Map referencing by presidency.ucsb.edu & fec.gov/general/library.shtml

November 9, 2012

November 9, 2012

Election 2012: The Final Victory of the Counter-Culture

By Michael Filozof
It is fitting that President Obama gave his victory speech from Chicago this week, for his re-election is the final and decisive victory by the left in the four-decade culture war that began with the hippie riots at the Democratic Party Convention there in 1968.
That year, Republican Richard Nixon won the presidency by championing "law and order" and pursuing an electoral strategy that appealed to patriotic and traditional values of the "Silent Majority."  In 1969, country legend Merle Haggard released the hit "Okie From Muskogee."  The song derided the counter-culture with the lyrics "We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee/We don't take no trips on LSD" and "We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy/Like the hippies out in San Francisco do."  Haggard followed with the hit "Fightin' Side of Me," which threatened the hippies with a punch in the nose: "When you're running down my country, man/You're walking on the fightin' side of me."
By 1972, George McGovern captured the Democratic Party's nomination for president, promising he would "crawl" to Hanoi to beg the Vietnamese for peace.  The candidate of "abortion, amnesty, and acid" lost 49 states to Nixon in one of the biggest presidential landslides in American history.
What a difference forty years has made.
Barack Obama easily won a second term by running the most openly left-wing campaign in American history.  Obama is an unreconstructed proponent of the most radical values of the sixties counter-culture.  He wrote in his autobiography that he used marijuana and cocaine in his youth and nearly shot heroin with a needle, and that he sought out Marxist professors in college.  He is a personal associate of the confessed Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers.  Any of these things would automatically deny him the most basic job in law enforcement and prevent him from obtaining government security clearance -- or even from serving on his own Secret Service security detail.  The voting public could not care less.  Indeed, in three states -- Washington, Colorado, and Oregon -- voters approved ballot initiatives legalizing the recreational use of marijuana.
In three other states, voters approved gay marriage, and in Wisconsin they elected an open lesbian to the U.S. Senate.  Not very long ago, the idea of two males in the U.S. Marine Corps French-kissing or engaging in anal sex would have provoked a violent reaction.  This week, the voters re-elected a commander-in-chief who does not know how to properly pronounce "corps" but who has rewritten the Uniform Code of Military Justice to endorse homosexuality.
While McGovern never managed to crawl to Hanoi to beg the Vietnamese for peace, Obama virtually crawled to Cairo to apologize for the United States, and then he withdrew American forces from Iraq without an agreement to maintain a military presence there.  The counter-culture has long been fond of the saying "It would be a great day if schools had all the money they need and the Air Force held a bake sale to buy a bomber."  Under Obama, that is nearly coming true: F-16 fighters and A-10 attack aircraft consist of 1970s technology, and CH-47 helicopters and B-52 bombers have been in service since the 1950s.  They are not being replaced.  Neither is the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, commissioned in 1961, which was retired last week.  But the Obama Defense Department did manage to name a ship after sixties icon Cesar Chavez, who was neither a war hero nor a brilliant naval officer, but rather a fruit-picker and labor activist.
McGovern wanted amnesty for Vietnam War protesters, but Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens.  He had already instituted a partial amnesty in violation of the immigration law he is sworn to uphold, and he will surely achieve a broader amnesty for illegals in his second term -- enabling them to compete with American workers in an era of 8% unemployment.
Cultural and patriotic conservatives must face the harsh reality of the 2012 election: the culture war is over, and they lost.  Badly.
The election was not decided on economic issues, as so many pundits have written.  In a time of economic paralysis and crippling debt, the voting public had a choice between a business executive who founded one of the nation's most successful capital investment firms and an unaccomplished dilettante who studied Marxism in college and promised "redistribution of wealth" -- and the public chose the latter.  That is an ideological choice, not an economic choice, and a public that has had forty years of indoctrination by the leftist educational establishment was only too happy to make it.
Obama's campaign was devoid of specificity and intellectual coherence.  It consisted of little more than the crudest class-warfare agitprop against "the rich," "millionaires and billionaires," and "fat cats."  Any of this would have been standard fare at an SDS rally on a college campus in the 1960s; the voters of 2012 swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.  Romney, whose fortune is estimated in the neighborhood of $250 million, was demonized for his wealth -- yet the president campaigned with Bruce Springsteen and was endorsed by Madonna, whose wealth is surely equivalent to or greater than Romney's but who, unlike Romney, is a vulgar sexual and cultural revolutionary.
Obama's campaign prominently featured Bill Clinton, who, after defeating war hero and distinguished public servant George H.W. Bush in 1992, thought that the Oval Office was just a dandy place to have a young girl get on her knees and pleasure him orally.  (One can only imagine how the left would have attacked Romney if he had ever done to an intern at Bain Capital what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky.)  Twenty years ago, Clinton had to at least try to hide his true counter-cultural sentiments by denying that he'd inhaled when he smoked dope and telling he public he thought abortion should be safe, legal, and "rare."
Today, such deception is no longer necessary.  Obama wrote in his autobiography that he "enthusiastically" used drugs, and the public shrugged it off.  He campaigned on a platform of using taxpayer dollars to fund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, and scored a forty-point advantage with single women.  (No one seemed to make notice of the fact that, had abortion been legal in 1960 when his mother became pregnant with him at age 18, she probably would not have been "punished with a baby" named Barack.)
Romney lost not because he was incompetent or evil, or because he would have made a poor chief executive, or because he was an out-of-touch plutocrat.  He lost because he is unhip.  Obama derided him as a man of the 1950s -- and it worked.  In 2012, a man who raised five kids, never drank, never smoked, has been married to the same woman for 40 years, had a steady job, and goes to church on Sunday is as much of a freak and an oddity as a long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie with love beads was back in 1968.
The voting public today comprises the tattooed, the pierced, the gay, the promiscuous, the unpatriotic, the unchurched, stoners, those who bear 40% of the nation's offspring out of wedlock, and those who have had some 40 million-plus abortions since 1973.
Obama is their man, and they voted accordingly.  And they will vote for similar candidates in the future.  The unfortunate truth for the conservative movement is that the counter-culture has become the mainstream; it is the "new normal."


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/election_2012_the_final_victory_of_the_counterculture.html#ixzz2BmccANXX

November 8, 2012


Catholic vote results show need for teaching the faith

By Michelle Bauman


A woman holds a sign encouraging people to vote. Credit: Airman 1st Class Nathan Lipscomb-USAF.
Divisions in the Catholic vote for president show the continued importance of “educating Catholics about our own faith,” said analyst Joshua Mercer, co-founder of CatholicVote.org.
“If something’s really important, you don’t just say it once,” he said in a Nov. 7 interview with EWTN News. Rather, he explained, the Church must be creative, working to find as many venues as possible to continue spreading its message on life, marriage and religious liberty.
While more extensive information will be available in the coming months, initial data from the Nov. 6 presidential election indicates that Catholics maintained their standing as a bellwether group that indicates trends among the general electorate.
National exit polls show that Governor Mitt Romney held a significant lead among Protestants, especially Evangelicals, while those with no religious affiliation strongly favored President Barack Obama, according to a report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
When it came to Catholics, the analysis determined they were more divided.
Overall, national exit polls indicated that Catholics voted for Obama over Romney by a 50 to 48 percent margin, identical to Obama’s victory in the national popular vote.
The report found that white Catholics “swung strongly in the Republican direction relative to 2008.” Almost six in ten white Catholics voted for Romney, up from 52 percent who cast ballots for McCain in 2008.
Among Hispanic Catholics, however, 75 percent voted for Obama, with just 21 percent voting for Romney.
Differences in Church attendance also revealed patterns in voting behavior. Among voters of all faith backgrounds, those who attended religious services at least once per week preferred Romney by a 20 point margin.
Those who never attend religious services strongly favored Obama, while those attending a few times per month or per year supported Obama over Romney by a 55 to 43 percent margin.
Mercer said that these distinctions among Catholics are significant in understanding their voting behavior and reaching out with the message of the Church on critical issues.
While Catholics make up a large portion of the electorate – about one in four voters – they do not vote as a unified group, he recalled.
But Mercer said it is possible to identify at least three distinct subgroups of Catholics, each with their own voting behaviors.
While those who attended religious services regularly favored Romney, it is difficult from initial exit poll data to tell what impact issues such as religious liberty played in their vote.
The U.S. bishops have spoken out recently about threats to religious liberty, including a federal contraception mandate issued by the Obama administration that requires many religious institutions to offer insurance coverage of contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs in violation of their beliefs.
A Pew survey shortly before the election showed that about one-third of Catholics who attend religious services at least monthly remembered hearing about religious liberty from the pulpit.
Mercer observed that it is possible that more than one-third of Catholics were present when religious liberty was discussed at Mass, but that they did not remember it because the issue was not consistently presented as an urgent matter.
The bishops have been unified in presenting a strong and clear message about the importance of religious liberty and the threat posed by the mandate, he said, and that message must continue to be proclaimed, so that the average person in the pew realizes that this “truly must be important.”
A second group of Catholic voters is comprised of those who are “cultural Catholics,” Mercer said. These individuals do not attend Mass regularly but still identify as Catholics. Although they have a basically “secular mindset,” they participate in the “rich culture” of the Church.
Among these Catholics, the faithful should see an “opportunity to evangelize” by reaching out through their shared culture and seek to deepen their understanding and appreciation of the Church, he said.
Another subgroup that is distinct in its voting behavior is the Latino Catholic population, said Mercer. Although most Hispanic Catholics are strongly pro-life and pro-marriage, this voting group heavily favored Obama, often differing from the Republican Party on immigration.
Reaching out to these Latino Catholics will require “a sustained effort,” Mercer said, explaining that teaching about the importance of pro-life and pro-marriage voting cannot be done simply through pamphlets handed out in the month before an election.
Rather, he said, there is a need to “invite our brothers and sisters who are Latino into the pro-life and pro-family movement and listen to them.”
We must recognize that this means committing to “long-term grassroots work” and investing in Hispanic communities, Mercer stressed.
If Latinos become more integrated into those movements, Mercer believes it will strengthen the pro-life and pro-marriage causes and allow different Catholic groups to learn from one another.
“It’s going to require building relationships,” he said.


Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6504#ixzz2BgUFD4oJ

Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards

Shakiena Williams with daughter Jahira in the 44th Ward: "I like what [Obama] talked about . . . the middle class, the economy, and schools."
RON TARVER / Staff Photographer
Shakiena Williams with daughter Jahira in the 44th Ward: "I like what [Obama] talked about . . . the middle class, the economy, and schools."
MORE COVERAGE
  • How the Philly region picked the president
  • After this election, is Pa. true blue?
  • A look at Philly's presidential vote
  • Payback for Phila.'s big turnout for Obama?
  • GALLERY: Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards
    Some Philadelphia neighborhoods outdid themselves in Tuesday's presidential election.
    In a city where President Obama received more than 85 percent of the votes, in some places he received almost every one. In 13 Philadelphia wards, Obama received 99 percent of the vote or more.
    Those wards, many with large African American populations, also swung heavily for Obama over John McCain in 2008. But the difficult economy seemed destined to dampen that enthusiasm four years later.
    Not to worry. Ward leaders and voters said they were just as motivated this time.
    "In this election, you had to point out to the people what was at stake. And in many cases, they felt that the Romney doctrine was not going to favor the working man," said Edgar "Sonny" Campbell.
    Campbell is leader of West Philadelphia's Fourth Ward, where Obama received 9,955 votes. Romney? Just 55. That's five fewer than McCain in 2008.
    Campbell acknowledged that the odds are stacked in his favor in Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber GOP voters by nearly 7-1.
    "You are looking at black neighborhoods where you have 1,000 voters in a division and maybe seven Republicans," he said. "We are shocked if Romney got any votes."
    Even so, Randall Miller, a history professor at St. Joseph's University, said politicians almost never get 99 percent of the votes anywhere except, perhaps, the towns where they were born.
    He said the Democratic voter turnout effort deserved credit for the president's success.
    "Ninety-nine percent is extraordinary, and it shows discipline as much as anything else," he said.
    Philadelphia's numbers were tilted so far in favor of Obama that one incredulous Republican revived the specter of voter fraud.
    House Speaker Sam Smith, musing over "staggering" turnout in some city precincts and reacting to wrong information that "90 percent of the precincts in Philadelphia County turned out over 90 percent of voters," called the ability to get such numbers "questionable."
    Smith's math does not add up. Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures.
    State Sen. Vincent Hughes (D. Phila.) responded swiftly. He said Philadelphians came out to vote because they were tired of the "hard-right" Republican agenda.
    "If they believe there was a corruption of the process, then go to court and challenge it. Show the people of Pennsylvania," Hughes said. "Beyond that, shut up."
    Nor was Philadelphia the only place in the region with such high numbers for Obama. Five Delaware County towns topped 90 percent, led by Yeadon at 96.3. Following were Chester City (94.8), Darby Borough (93.5), Chester Township (92.3), and Colwyn (90.3).
    On Wednesday, Mayor Nutter, who doubles as leader of the city's 52d Ward, said voters of all races were offended by attacks on Obama and acted to defend the president.
    "I think ultimately a lot of folks . . . wanted to express themselves in a very direct fashion and came out in droves yesterday to support someone who actually deserved to be reelected," Nutter said.
    Nearly 96 percent of voters in his ward pushed the button for Obama.
    In Campbell's ward and in the nearby 44th, people said that they believed Obama had done a good job and that they had little confidence in Romney.
    Tim Bee, 51, of the 44th Ward, voted for Obama and would have not been happy with a loss. Sitting next to Bee, James Tharrington, a 46-year-old Community College of Philadelphia student from the Fourth Ward, praised the president for recognizing that the country is a "melting pot."
    Standing a few feet away was Janean McGee, a 22-year-old supermarket supervisor, wearing an Obama/Biden pin. McGee, who voted for Obama in 2008 and Tuesday, said she opposed Romney because of his stance on abortion and other women's issues.
    "There's more than a 'binder full of women' out there," she said, referring to Romney's remark during the second presidential debate about his efforts as governor of Massachusetts to hire women.
    The presidential race was not even the subject of much discussion in her West Philadelphia neighborhood because "everyone said straight Obama."
    When McGee mentioned Romney's name, a passerby jeered, tossing profanities in her direction.
    Shakiena Williams, a 35-year-old mother of two, said it was unfair to blame Obama for the country's problems.
    "It's all been a mess from before he was elected," Williams said of Obama, for whom she voted in 2008 and again in 2012. "I like what he talked about . . . the middle class, the economy, and schools."
    Holding her 2-year-old daughter, Jahira, by the hand, Williams said she thought the community was less enthusiastic this time around.
    "Everyone was so dependent on [Obama] for hope and change, it doesn't happen just like that," she said.
    Barbara Martinez said she, too, went to the polls Tuesday because she believed Obama deserved a second term.
    "I think he needs more time to get the job done," Martinez said. An 84-year-old who has voted for the Democratic candidate in every election, Martinez called Romney "more of a businessman than a politician."
    Matt Wolfe said that as the Republican ward leader in the 27th Ward, also in West Philadelphia, he does his best to turn out GOP voters and rarely tries to convert the diehard Democrats who live near him.
    "We tried to get all our Republican voters out to the polls," said Wolfe. In his ward, 13.5 percent of voters cast ballots for Romney.
    He said he could not even count on his own committeemen to vote for the Republican. Committeeman are elected party officials who report to the ward leaders.
    "I had one division with two [GOP] committeemen in it and only one vote for Romney," he said. He declined to identify the committeemen.

    November 6, 2012

    POLITICS

    A DETAILED LOOK AT OBAMA’S RADICAL COLLEGE PAST…AND WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BARACK

    ​​Editor’s note: We will be discussing this story during today’s live BlazeCast at 1pm ET along with some of the other major news of the day.  An archived version of that discussion will post here immediately afterward:

    This is a contribution by freelance writer Charles C. Johnson.
    Princeton, 1984.
    Michelle Obama attends and promotes a “Black Solidarity” event for guest lecturer Manning Marable, who was, according to Cornel West, probably “the best known black Marxist in the country.” The event is the work of the Third World Center (TWC), a campus group whose board membership is exclusively reserved for minorities.
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    A classmate of Michelle’s identified her to TheBlaze as the second person on the left. Article/photograph taken from The Daily Princetonian – Vol. CVIII, No. 107 November 6, 1984
    –
    Michelle Obama (Robinson at the time) was one of those 19 board members and a leader of the organization. She helped to dispense what was, in today’s dollars, a $30,000 budget. Of the 19 elected positions on the board, there were two reserved spots for each of the five ethnic groups TWC purported to represent: Asian, Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Native American.
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    Copy of TWC constitution showing board member requirements. (The Princeton Archives)
    The board also had representatives from the various minority organizations on campus, including Accion Puertorriquena y Amigos, the Asian-American Students Association, the Black Graduate Caucus, and the Chicano Caucus, among others. She also fundraised for the TWC by participating in its African-themed fashion show and fundraisers (see picture here).  It was a controversial and racially-charged organization. And in looking at the group’s racial focus before and during Michelle’s tenure, we get a glimpse of her priorities while at Princeton.
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    Daily Princetonian article showing Michelle as a board member.
    “White Students on This Campus Are Racist”
    If ever there was an example of the TWC governing board’s obsession with race, an editorial from October 21, 1981 is it. The members took great offense to an op-ed titled “Rebuilding Race Relations,” calling the article “racist, offensive, and inaccurate” for daring to question the group’s true commitment and to present a thesis on race relations counter to its own.
    “The word RE-building implies that race relations once existed and, for some mysterious reasons, fell apart … ,” the board wrote in a scathing letter to the editor. “We, on the other hand, believe that race relations have ​never​ been and still are not at a satisfactory level. We are not RE-building. We cannot RE-build something that never existed in the first place.”
    “Don’t hide behind excuses such as a lack of effort [to integrate with the Princeton campus] on our part,” the revealing letter added.“The bottom line is that white students on this campus are racist, but they may not realize it.” [Emphasis added]
    Princeton itself, however, was concerned about the self-segregation by black students and proposed reforms to counter it, including no longer permitting black students to all room together in one dorm and integrating black freshmen into the general student body.  The TWC strenuously opposed all of these reforms, arguing that integration of non-white students would harm the “support system” available to them, especially blacks. (Julie Newton, “TWC criticizes CURL plan: Minority strife would worsen,” The Daily Princetonian, October 21, 1981).
    While Michelle was not a part of the board in 1981, as a board member of the Third World Center starting on April 7, 1983 she joined in a different racially-charged statement reproaching the college for not doing enough to hire “Latino administrators.” In a letter a few weeks later, the TWC attacked Princeton’s administration for not replacing Hector Delgado, a minority dean of students.
    “This search needs to produce another experienced individual who is of minority background, preferably Latino, and who will be responsive to the concerns of Third World Center as well as the student body at large,” the TWC’s governing board wrote.
    Others on campus took notice of the group’s calls and expressed concern.
    For example, Fred Foote — the editor of Prospect magazine, a conservative monthly publication — criticized the TWC and Delgado for their obsessive focus on race.
    “[Delgado’s] penchant for drawing campus issues along racial lines—a penchant shared by the TWC and The Daily Princetonian—is the chief cause of racial strife on campus,” he wrote.

    A Culture of Racial Focus
    The TWC’s racialism extended beyond who could become an officer in the group . Although the TWC served a number of roles on campus and was a hangout spot for minorities, its focus was mostly political. Its various constitutions make this clear. To quote the 1983 version:
    The term ‘Third World’ implies[,] for us, those nations who have fallen victim to the oppression and exploitation of the world economic order. This includes the peoples of color of the United States, as they too have been victims of a brutal and racist economic structure which exploited and still exploits the labor of such groups as Asians, Blacks, and Chicanos, and invaded and still occupies the homelands of such groups as the Puerto Ricans, American Indians, and native Hawaiian people. We therefore find it necessary to reeducate ourselves to the various forms of exploitation and oppression. We must strive to understand more than just the basics of human rights. We must seek to understand the historical roots and contemporary ramifications of racism if Third World people are to liberate themselves from the economic and social chains they find themselves in.
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    An early copy of the TWC’s constitution. (The Princeton Archives)
    It adds in another version:
    “The Center is not only a social facility, it has become a place of educational and cultural activity in conjunction with its political purpose. Because the term Third World is inherently political, it is necessary that we be active in political work and in educating ourselves to the various forms of exploitation and oppression. We must strive to understand more than just the basics of human rights. We must look for the underlying conditions faced by our peoples and seek alternative modes of economic and political structures so that Third World peoples and their nations will no longer be agents and pawns of the two superpowers (the United States and Russia.)”
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    Another copy of the constitution and the preamble. (The Princeton Archives) 
    The Center also opposed the “ruling class values and culture that characterizes Princeton University.”
    In November 1984, TWC’s board demanded that non-white students should have the right to bar whites from their meetings on campus. They also demanded minorities-only meetings with the deans. (John Hurley, “Black students, university debate closed meeting policy,” The Daily Princetonian, November 29, 1984). The ban was frankly unnecessary, since whites were made to feel unwelcome at the meetings if they were invited at all, but the TWC continued to press for it, arguing, too, that blacks ought to be able to bar whites from attending events aimed at discussion of “sensitive” racial issues.
    “The administration, by denying us these [blacks-only] meetings, is saying that we don’t have specific needs that have to be addressed this way,” David Jackson, ’87, a fellow TWC member, told the Daily Princetonian after the university officials finally rejected its proposal to hold racially limited meetings.
    But despite the radical and racialist character of the TWC, Michelle Robinson was an active participant and may have been attracted by that very radicalism.
    “The Third World Center was our life,” Angela Acree, her best friend at Princeton, told The Boston Globe in June 2008. “We hung out there, we partied there, we studied there [in Liberation Hall].”
    “Not a day went by that I did not see Michelle at the Center,” Czerni Brasuelle, TWC’s director at the time, told the Daily Princetonian in its November 5, 2008 issue.
    Brasuelle, director of the Third World Center from 1981 to 1983 and a friend and mentor to Michelle during and after Princeton, was herself no stranger to controversy. According to a Daily Princetonian columnist, she described the campus climate as “racist” and worried about “a lack of understanding of Third World [non-white] people.” (Barton Gellman, “Rebuilding Race Relations,” Daily Princetonian, October 16, 1981). In May 1983, Brasuelle joined calls for a minority dean, writing that “[Princeton] cannot afford to ignore our commitment to Affirmative Action with token representation of Latinos on the administrative level.” Michelle’s mentor left Princeton for a position as vice president of academic affairs at Kentucky State University at the end of 1983.
    In April 1983, the Third World Center held an emergency meeting where it approved a draft statement, prepared jointly with the student government’s race relations committee, calling for racial preferences and set-asides in the hiring of administrators.
    “There should be someone representing Third World views in the administration,” explained Raghu Murthy ,’85, who sat on the board with Michelle. (Daily Princetonian, May 6, 1983). The TWC wanted one of its board members to be given a vote and a voice in the administrative hiring process. (Daily Princetonian, September 20, 1983). Ultimately, Dean of Students Eugene Lowe caved, agreeing he would “make an effort to identify some candidates who are of Latino background.” (Daily Princetonian,  September 20, 1983.)
    For the TWC, this departure set off alarm bells because it meant someone more moderate might be appointed to run the Center. TWC members demanded that they be given representation on its board. Michelle Robinson joined a statement saying that students associated with the center be given a role in picking its director and was quoted in the Daily Princetonian as demanding that the dean place more TWC members on the search committee.

    “We Saw a Need to Address Issues of Race Relations on a Continuing Basis…”
    As a member of the Princeton student government’s standing committee on race relations, Michelle signed another provocative statement, recounting the history of the TWC and offering insight into its focus.
    “We saw a need to address issues of race relations on a continuing basis … .We saw the need to realize that situations, issues, and problems involving race relations occur everyday.” She even helped to “organize a rally to raise the question of [minority] representation in the Dean of Students Office,” according to the statement.
    The TWC bemoaned the “institutional racism” on campus and pushed for more minority students. A frequent participant in TWC events was assistant dean Delgado, who claimed that Princeton was excluding minorities from admissions or hiring on campus, presumably because of its racism.
    “Sometimes the institution gives criteria which exclude certain people,” Delgado told the Daily Princetonian in December 1982 at one of the numerous TWC forums on racism. “There are only five black tenured faculty, no Chicanos, no Puerto Ricans.” (Michelle Robinson would go on to make a similar argument as a student at Harvard Law School and in her thesis.)
    Unfortunately the calls for more diversity did not extend to diversity of thought within the black Princeton community. Blacks who disagreed with the race-baiting consensus and need for agitation among the campus’s minority activists were often made to feel like “sellouts” by the TWC members, who sought to enforce a racial orthodoxy.
    Crystal Nix Hines ’85, who became the first black editor of the Daily Princetonian, had a run-in with Michelle that reflects the activists’ mentality. As she would recall to the New York Times in 2008, Michelle wanted her not to run an article that characterized a black politician in a negative way.
    “You need to make sure that a story like that doesn’t run again,” the former editor remembered her saying. (Hines could not be reached for comment, but the likely story was this profile of Harold Washington, the controversial first black mayor of Chicago and a role model to both Michelle and Barack Obama.)
    Crystal wrote about her experience at Princeton in a January 7, 1983 op-ed. She mentioned a “series of run-ins with the type of student who implied that my involvement with white-dominated organizations,” and her friendships with whites, were tantamount to “selling-out.” Crystal became involved in the Third World Center and the Organization of Black Unity, both environments in which Princeton’s alleged racism was stressed.
    “They prepared me for racism from students, professors, and from the institutions itself. Above all, they urged me to be a part of the black community[,] which they said would be sensitive to my needs and aware of the problems I would face as a black student at a predominately [sic] white institution.”
    Robin Givhan,’86, described TWC as follows:
    “I always felt like the Third World Center was, for a lot of black students, really, the center of their social world,” says Givhan. “There were definitely black students who joined clubs, who were very much part of the wider social world, but there were some [who] really, I felt at the time, really sort of relied on the Third World Center as this kind of security blanket. And my feeling was always that I kind of needed or wanted to pop into the Third World Center as a way of saying, yeah, I’m black, I know that, I’m aware of that, but I never wanted or was interested in that being the center of things for me. If I’d wanted that experience, I would have gone to Howard or Spellman.” (“Michelle: A Biography,” Mundy, 85-86)
    Givhan remembers getting the impression from one Third World Center speaker that “if you didn’t believe what I believe, or operate the way I operate, you’re denying that you’re black. I came back to my dorm room and was in tears, relating my experience to my roommate, who was Chinese American.” (Mundy, 86)

    TWC’s Role in Bringing Radicals to Campus
    In cooperation with the Organization of Black Unity, to which Michelle also belonged, the TWC brought a number of terrorists and radicals to campus. We don’t know which of these events she attended, but it was probably more than a few, especially after she became a TWC board member. According to the heavily favorable “Michelle: A Biography”, she “spent much of her free time at the center, where, among other events, she attended seminars that featured the last surviving Scottsboro boy—a member of nine black Southerners who were falsely accused of raping two white women in the 1930s—and another featuring Rosa Parks.” (Mundy, 114).
    These are just a few of such events hosted or promoted by the TWC while Michelle was a student:
    • In November 1981, Hassan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s deputy observer to the U.N., came to campus. At this remarkable event, sponsors TWC and OBU  segregated the audience along racial lines and had students serving as security guards and searching bags.  (Jay Appelbaum, “Students decry ‘security’ at PLO speech,” Daily Princetonian, November 30, 1981).
    • In February 1982, the Center sponsored David Johnson, a representative of El Salvador’s Democratic Revolutionary Front (FDR), the political wing of the terrorist group FMLN. (Stona J. Fitch, “Salvadoran opponent speaks. Demands end to U.S. military, economic aid,” Daily Princetonian, February 26, 1982). That very day the TWC created a task force intended to “draw attention to the link between U.S. policy in El Salvador and other forms of oppression.” (Meryl Kessler, “TWC forms task force to oppose U.S. intervention in El Salvador,” Daily Princetonian, February 26, 1982). Members also signed a petition that opposed the Reagan administration’s involvement in El Salvador and, in particular, the military aid to its pro-American, anti-Communist government. (Tom McLaughlin, “TWC members petition against Reagan,” Daily Princetonian, February 23, 1982)
    • The following month, TWC sponsored a trip for 20 Princeton students Puerto Rico in order “to examine student movements, Puerto Rican nationalism, family structure, the role of women, and the U.S. military activities on the island of Vieques.” (The island off Puerto Rico — and the military’s presence on it — were a cause celebre among the political left. After years of agitating, the Navy’s extensive live-fire exercises on the island were ended due to political pressures.)
    •  In April, the Daily Princetonian reported, the Organization of Black Unity sent two representatives to Yale for a weekend symposium on the problems of black Ivy League students. Kwame Toure, a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael, a member of the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party and a leader of the Black Panthers in the 1960s, gave a presentation emphasizing “the need for the organization of the black masses and the active participation required from black students,” said Janette Payne, ’84, who attended the conference.
    • In late April 1982, the TWC and the campus’s Minority Recruitment Office hosted the April Hosting Cultural Show, at which William T. Murphy, a member of the Organization of Black Unity’s board, launched into an attack on white people by quoting Malcolm X, the subject of his senior thesis that year. One student, Paul Russo ’85, walked out and wrote a letter titled “Fostering Hate” to the campus paper. Murphy refused to apologize and attacked Russo in a letter of his own, accusing him of being an oppressor and blind to the racism on campus. (William T. Murphy ’82, “The past and present reality of Malcolm X,” Daily Princetonian, May 3, 1982).
    • Michelle also likely participated in Black Solidarity Day the following semester, where black students en masse absented themselves from class to dramatize what they considered blacks’ largely ignored contributions to society. Protestors carried signs saying “The struggle continues” and “Liberation through unity and struggle.” (Crystal Nix, “Procession symbolizes ‘continuing struggle,’ Daily Princetonian, November 2, 1982).
    • On April 15, the TWC hosted Michael Manley, the former prime minister of Jamaica. Manley, a committed socialist who dubiously denied that he was a Marxist, headed the pro-Castro National Liberation Party and later in 1983 opposed Reagan’s removal of the Marxist thug Maurice Bishop from power in neighboring Grenada.
    • In April 27-28, 1983, the TWC hosted a symposium praising the work and life of Clemente Soto Velez, another Puerto Rican nationalist and poet.  In 1936, Soto Vélez was arrested by United States authorities and charged with conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government. He served a six-year prison term. Soto Velez then returned to Puerto Rico, only to be arrested once more for violating the conditions of his release. In 1942, after another two years in prison, he was released but forbidden to return to Puerto Rico. (“Clemente Soto Velez, Puerto Rican Poet, 89,” New York Times, April 17, 1993).
    • In September 1983, the TWC hosted Princeton’s president, William G. Bowen. Although Michelle has habitually made her alma mater seem racist in her writings and public statements, Bowen was actually the architect of Princeton’s racial preferences and an outspoken advocate of them. He even went on to co-author a book, “The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions,” about them with President Derek Bok of Harvard. Seeking minority applicants would be the “responsibility of everyone in the admissions office,” Bowen told the TWC. To attack Bowen, president of Princeton from 1972-1988, and his allegedly racist Princeton, was to attack a straw man. Both his successor and his predecessor were just as enthusiastic about preferences.
    • In November, Michelle likely attended a Black Solidarity Day (BSD) event. The photograph appears to include her, at right. Black Solidarity Day, founded in 1969 during the height of the black power movement, tries to highlight what would happen if blacks absented themselves from American life. Celebrated the day before Election Day, BSD reminds blacks of their political power.
    • Four days later, it played host to the pro-Castro writer and ethnographer Miguel Barnet in Liberation Hall. He criticized the American media for its coverage of El Salvador, where the Marxist FMLN continued to fight the country’s legitimate government. “If there are guerillas in El Salvador, it is because the people want justice,” he told the TWC.
    • On April 20, the TWC held a conference on “being black.”
    • In September 1984, Arcadio Diaz-Quinones, a Puerto Rican nationalist, specialist in “post-colonial” studies, and Latin American studies professor, became interim director of the Third World Center. (Later in the decade, he helped an illegal immigrant, Harold Fernandez, conceal his status at Princeton and eventually help him secure financial aid, as revealed in Fernandez’s memoirs.) (Joseph Berger, “An Undocumented Princetonian,” The New York Times, January 3, 2010).
    • In November of that year, Malcolm X biographer Manning Marable spoke to TWC’s annual Black Solidarity event. He encouraged the audience to vote for Reagan’s opponent Walter Mondale, who “[i]n the context of black solidarity” was both “a lesser evil” and “a choice against Reagan, Reaganism, and racism.” Marable also sided with the Marxist Nicaraguan dictatorship, encouraging black Americans to express solidarity with “the righteous movements of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the New Jewel Movement in Grenada, the guerillas of El Salvador, and especially, our brothers and sisters in South Africa.” (D.E. Williams, Daily Princetonian, November 6, 1984)
    Other guests during Michelle’s time at Princeton included the anti-Friedmanite, anti-Hayekian economist Albert Hirschmann (February 16, 1983), the Chilean left-wing activist-turned-poet and playwright Ariel Dorfman, and Jamaican development economist George Beckford, who blamed Caribbean poverty on neocolonialism. Also invited and came was Paulo Freire, the founder of Marxist pedagogic theory. (“Freire’s main idea is that the central contradiction of every society is between the ‘oppressors’ and the ‘oppressed’ and that revolution should resolve their conflict,”writes education reformer Sol Stern.)
    Professor Diaz-Quinones, the interim director of the TWC in 1983 noted “the growing consciousness of Third World countries and the relationship minority students felt to certain threads in their history.” Blacks and other non-white students, then, weren’t American in any larger sense, the thinking went, because of America’s institutional racism. The TWC provided programs that “link the ‘historical legacy of racism on both sides.’” Recalling its own legacy on its tenth anniversary, Center representatives wrote:
    In the spring of 1971, many of the issues facing Third World people at Princeton and across the country were similar to those we face today. The country was in recession, and a Republican administration was attacking the social and political gains of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements.” (A Luta Continua: A History of the Third World Center at Princeton, 1971-1981).

    “Black Drama”: Making Race a Class
    The Center also pushed for “institutional changes” to combat the alleged racism on campus. (The Daily Princetonian, October 6, 1982, p. 3). According to a document obtained through the Princeton archives, the TWC sought to implement ethnic studies programs and get more minority faculty and students on campus.  Among their recommendations was the creation of the Afro-American Studies Program, which was quickly established and which Michelle joined. Her thesis advisor, Howard Taylor, was the program’s director. According to course descriptions taken from the Princeton archives, the push was successful:
    AAS 306: The Black Woman: This course seeks to go beyond the broad analysis that has characterized the study of the black woman. Students critically evaluate the historical background and status of the black woman in African society and her transition into slavery; and the many roles the black woman plays in contemporary society. The course looks at the basic institutions that impinge on the black woman’s life, and an attempt is made to determine how successful she has been in maintaining her identity.
    AAS 201: Introduction to the Afro-American Experience: The course deals with a phase of black history which ends where the courses of this type begin. It is not an exploration into slave colonial history; but rather, an expose of the barrenness of earlier concentrations on the African primitive and the black slave. The course seeks to promote a new vision of the African ancestor, and, as such, focuses on the core and genius of African civilizations, rather than emphasizing the African as victim of the European imperalist [sic]  enterprise. The course format extends the historical framework within which to view the African-American experience, and is intended to revise the conception of African and African-American achievement and potential.
    A January 1987 course guide provides further evidence:
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    January 1987 course guide shows the extent of the African-American studies program at Princeton. (The Princeton archives)
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    January 1987 course guide shows the extent of the African-American studies program at Princeton. (The Princeton archives)
    For the first time ever, the college even offered a course on Swahili through the Third World Center as evidence of its diversified curriculum.

    The Radical Fliers and “Oppression”
    In case there was any doubt about the group’s radical focus, a flier from the time makes it clear it was all about “struggle”:
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    A flier for a TWC event that put’s the focus on “struggle.” (TheBlaze)
    Another document from the center confirms that Michelle had to have known of the group’s radical focus, too:
    Michelle Obamas Radical Past Involvement in Third World Center at Princeton
    “Oppression breeds resistance,” a document from the TWC states. (The Princeton archives)
    “Oppression breeds resistance,” the document titled “A CALL TO ALL THIRD WORLD STUDENTS TO STRUGGLE AGAINST ATTACKS ON THE THIRD WORLD CENTER,” states. “The history of the peoples of the Third World, who have suffered U.S. Imperialism, and of the oppressed nationalities within the United States — Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Asians, and Native Americans — has been a history of oppression and resistance. This is true for the Third World Community, which in this instance includes students from the oppressed nationalities in the U.S., on Princeton University’s campus.”
    Michelle would later write her senior thesis, which attracted national attention in 2008, on that same kind of “oppression.” The 60-page thesis tends to discredit the claim that race-based admissions policies or separate groups actually foster diversity and integration at all. The future First Lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black Princeton alumni. Although the response rate was underwhelming, the responses of the 89 black alumni who returned the questionnaire gave reason for concern. The alums were asked whether they felt “much more comfortable with Blacks,” “much more comfortable with Whites,” or “about equally comfortable with Blacks and Whites,” in various contexts, during three periods in their lives—pre-Princeton, Princeton, and post-Princeton.
    Far from encouraging racial tolerance, the number of black alumni who said they felt “much more comfortable with Blacks” went up sharply during their Princeton years, in comparison with their pre-college lives, in categories like “Intellectual Comfort” (26% vs. 37%) and “Social Comfort” (64% vs. 73%).
    Michelle herself stated, “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before.”