The latest Breitbart videos: Obama and Derrick Bell
Breitbart’s Big Government has the promised video from Obama’s law school past. In it, Obama introduces—with approval—Harvard law professor Derrick Bell, and gives him a hug. In addition, another black professor at Harvard, Charles Ogletree, alludes to the fact that this tape was purposely kept quiet during the 2008 campaign.
The release of the video is meant to show a couple of things. The first is that Obama not only was “palling around” with radicals, but supporting their views. The second is that certain facts about Obama were suppressed during the 2008 campaign. And the third is that the media selectively edits things (they left out the hug, for example) to make them seem more favorable to Obama.
Taking all that into account, so far the video only pretty much tells us what we already knew. Now, Breitbart was famous for letting out only a little information at a time and saving the biggest guns for last, so perhaps there’s more. But if not, this seems pretty much a dud in terms of public perception.
There’s no question that Professor Bell was very radical and saw almost everything through the prism of racism and resultant grievance. But he was also a trailblazing guy, the first black law professor at Harvard. Obama was a trailblazer, too—the first black president of the Law Review, and as such he almost had to say a few nice words about Bell.
I’m not saying Obama’s words weren’t sincere—I think they were. But this sort of thing hasn’t exactly been a secret, nor does it have a whole lot of meaning that changes anything now. For example, Obama’s closer (and more recent) relationship to Reverend Wright is much more important, and it didn’t stop Obama from being elected. Nor is it news that the left and the press has tried to suppress and minimize Obama’s radical connections.
Plus, the video is twenty years old. Even if Obama’s views haven’t really changed, he could always say they have, in his defense. We all know that, in general, people tend to become less radical than in their student days (although Obama was a slightly older student than most), and Obama could plead that’s what happened in his case.
The only videos that would mean something at this point would be if Obama were caught saying very racist things about whites (and I’m not even sure that would matter), or saying something like, “My plan is to pretend to be a moderate, run for president, and then pull the country into the socialist far-leftist camp. Ha ha, suckers!” Short of that, I think it will most likely all be a big yawn. We already knew about Ayers, Wright, the socialist connections, Alinsky, and now we also know about Bell. Although it does all add up to a leftist, racially directed young manhood, at this point it’s pretty much “so what?” If people didn’t respond before, why would they now?
[NOTE: However, Wiki has now corrected the “dubious” designation on this excerpt (which was still standing last night at around 10:26 PM):
Students held vigils and protests in solidarity with Bell with the support of some faculty. One of these students was future U.S. president Barack Obama, who spoke at a protest at Harvard Law School on behalf of Bell.[dubious ”“ discuss] Critics, including some faculty members, called Bell’s methods counterproductive, and Harvard administration officials insisted they had already made enormous advances in hiring. The story of his protest is detailed in his book Confronting Authority.]
Videos are supposed to be a lot more effective in making a point than words. Thus, when Breitbart announced he had VIDEOs(!) of Obama in his college days, the natural supposition was that we would have some undeniable, visceral proof of the president’s radicalism that the media and public could not ignore.
The problem is, while we have video, it consists of (a) words, (b) a hug, and (c) a lot of normal-looking white people listening to the words and watching the hug in apparent agreement with the sentiments being expressed. So while it’s a VIDEO(!), there’s nothing viscerally unsettling in the viewing of it. It’s only when you add the explanation that Derrick Bell was a radical hater of white people and (it seems) Jews that the point is made.
Not that we get to choose, but a much more effective video of this type would have shown Obama hugging Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (preferably with the two former terrorists forming a “Barack sandwich”). At least then you could simply show the video and not have to depend on a couple of 17-year olds from Breitbart.com to explain what it means.
Two points:
1. The vetting isn’t for us who already know these things. It is for those who don’t pay that much attention to politics and get their info from the mainstream media. Hopefully, the clamor and the hype and the continued production will inform and educate precisely those moderates and independents upon whose votes, we all agree, the nation’s future rests. If the effort persuades only one in ten moderates, it may be the amount between success and defeat. Further, after three years of ruling by race/class division, moderates are more receptive to learn why Obama did not rule as he campaigned.
2. The vetting must be answered by the MM and vetting keeps the focus on Obama where it belongs. It’s a strategic action and acts like bombing the beaches before you invade. Keeps their heads down. Hopefully, this video is just the beginning and even though not a smoking gun will influence some key voters.
Curtis, I agree totally with your take on this.If this kind of focus continues,some undecideds just might wake up.Especially those who voted to prove they are not racist.If it seems that Obama was and is,all bets are off.For now, we have stopped talking about Fluker and are focusing on the questionable ties of Obama.That’s a good thing.
“If people didn’t respond before, why would they now?”
Because the incumbent has a three-year record in office that is in keeping with his student socialist persona. If this isn’t enough to elicit a negative response then there’s nothing to do but write off the country as in the throes of somnolence from which there may be no known remedy less than a thunderous social and financial ‘crash’.
If it walks like a socialist, and squawks like a socialist, and socializes like a socialist, and grabs one seventh of the economy (healthcare) like a socialist — it’s a socialist. Res (exsecutiva) loquitur ipsa.
Breitbart.com has indicated there is more to come. And I agree, I was not impressed. Probably for the reason Curtis stated: I already know he’s a radical.
The problem with the video is that outside of academia, the general populace have no idea who Bell is, and what he represents. It’s too hard for regular folks to connect the dots. Now, a video of BHO addressing the CPUSA convention, that might do the trick, but unless soemthing like that is out there, I’m not holding my breath.
. . .and here is a link to the video (via HotAir.com) of Joel Pollak verbally duking it out with Soledad Obrien.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/08/video-cnn-beclowns-itself-painting-breitbart-editor-in-chief-as-racist/
One point to note here. Like the point I made in a earlier topic, that Palin/Gingrich/breitbart grapple with the left by going on offense, this video is worth watching just to watch Pollak refuse to let Obrien get away with mis-defining terms. He refuses to allow her to move on to her favored topic and holds her feet the fire. Good for Pollak! This is precisely what we need to see more of.
Also note Ed Morrissey’s (and Joel Pollak’s) clarification of Breitbart’s point; it’s not that Obama still believes this way (maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t), it’s that this video was kept out of circulation by Ogletree and the media precisely so as not to interfere with Obama’s election in 2008 (just like the LA Times is still sitting on the Rashid Khalidi tape). Just think of the MSM as Obama’s offensive line—and come to think of it, they ARE pretty offensive.
so your finding out his “Social Justice” is Exactly like Father Coughlin and the germans… and that he is just fine with black NATIONAL SOCIALISM… could be why its so much a copy of stuff we are ignorant of in the past…
naw… cant be that…
the eugencis, the race games, the fasist control, the devaluing currency, the paying back other nations for their helping him, and so on and so on…
the eugenics area which we are not allowed to think is eugenics is now talking about AFTER BIRTH abortions…
and so SANGERS work continues while we are not allowed to call a pickle a pickle, but have to pretend its a cucumber, and not sour
One further note about the MSM. As we all know at this site, their hypocrisy and duplicity is astounding. Dan Rather rushes to judgement with forged data “indicting” George W. Bush, but the same media sits on real data about Obama so as not to interfere with his election.
Since I mentioned Dan Rather, let me be a little tangential. I don’t think the depth of Rather’s duplicity was ever really given the press it was due. I grew up in the same generation as he did. We all knew that there was only 1 typewriter that could type superscript “th” (the IBM Executive model, some say there was one other but I don’t know of ).
Rather was in possession of documents with superscript “th”s which were clearly NOT the product of an IBM Executive typewriter. The point: He KNEW these documents were forgeries—he grew up in a profession where they could not be anything else, and yet in spite of this empirical knowledge, his hatred of Bush drove him to overlook the obvious facts and publicize the documents anyway. Yes I say “hatred” because his rush to judgement wasn’t just an oversight, it wasn’t just a mistake made in trying to get the story out early, it was a total denial of evidence that he had ample knowledge of.
My point here is to magnify the Breitbart doctrine. This media bias is not just mistake upon mistake perpetuated by well intentioned people, it verges on being subject to indictment under RICO standards. Just watch Soledad Obrien in the video as she tries to weasel on to her point (her point being that this is a meaningless video and Breitbart’s people are idiots for calling it a bombshell). This is where Pollak truly shines.
Artfldgr: my point is that this sort of thing about Obama was known even before the election.
There is more to this than just that video. One of these professors was associated with the production of the video/movie Cosmic Slop Space Traders. Bell himself is quoted as saying that whites would “trade” black americans to space aliens for gold. A clear reference to this movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGkc2tqtp7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQT–ZtTSCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcDXlQmz2lM
The premise is that aliens approach the US and offer to solve all its domestic problems if the nation will trade them all black americans whose skin is darker than a certain color. It is amazingly offensive and racist in its outlook and portrayal of America.
It’s a little hard to be a “post-racial” president with associations like these. I suspect that people who believed in the post-racial message of 2008 and are now disappointed in how polarized things have become, will be very troubled by this video.
Of course it is very doubtful that this is the only thing that Breitbart’s folks have to release.
Time to WAKE UP..
the reason it dont mean much to you and others is that they dont know this world that is being shown to them…
THATS what is important… not the things mentioned here… that there is this world that exists where these beleifs that we thought we were through with, are not through with, and are the 4th Reich new soviet whatever…
i am glad that someone over at pj knows and is saying something
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/08/why-professor-derrick-a-bell-matters/
And do note… if your working wiht the communists your “he was also a trailblazing guy” becomes false, as they help each other.
ie. they operate collectively
which is why it didnt matter if they were discovered with Obama, they just moved someplace else… that is, WE would be unemployed, thye get stationed somwhere else.
His book is suggested reading for young Communists: http://epa.cpusa.org/book_list.htm
see… so if its on the communist book list, like the oprah book list, does that manufacture sales for the person? yes… so now the sales of his book are not an indication of anything other than those who he collectively worked with orchestrated his sales.. (this is also done by making huge orders then throwing the books away. the rappers did this with canadian record stores that neve existed to get chart placement… )
ie. why bother to even try to figure it out if your first positional move is not to figure out if your being gamed?
how can you tell the con job if you refuse to believe there is even such a thing?
He is referenced at length (pg. 1) in a piece about why blacks should have no fidelity to the Constitution: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3355&context=flr
so a trailblazer int his is not that!!!
yes.. good old fordham university…
and i remember this stuff… i told you guys to READ IT and learn about the people.
its the basic theory that since the blacks didnt write laws, they dont have to follow them or be subjected to them. of course the most radical and those with anti personality disoders take that as orders. (The thug class. i said read the history, the use prisoners as the new police and so forth)
He was a sponsor of “New Politics”, a socialist publication, along with Frances Fox Piven, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West and others:
http://keywiki.org/index.php/New_Politics
so its more than a hug.. its a COLLECTIVE OPERATION with ties to other governments (or dont you guys remember the student junkets?)
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was very connected to the professor..
As articles editor for the Harvard Law Review in 1985 Kagan helped shepherd into print a racially noxious story by a radical law professor and architect of Critical Race Studies, which is essentially “blame whitey” in legal vernacular.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish2_gahr.php3
IF you take the time…
but you wont
you will find that these link up and have passed on their efforts going back..
that is, who taught saul alinsky?
and saul who is gone, left what legacy
and bella dodd, to trumka…
ie… you will never ever ever ‘get it’ in any real way UNLESS you peer into that world and see what they say among themselves. they wont say it to your face in speeches, on camera and such UNLESS their mask slips.
its cargo cult false image orchestrated so that you would say what you say, then accept argument by authority
what do you think giving Obama the noble peace prize was about?
creating an image that will move masses for a time.. and after that, who cares..
of course, we dont WANT to understand this, so we just keep ignoring the system that is in play… we keep playing go fish while they are playing cutthroat…
as they think that they have won, they take their masks off, and breath easy, which is why we got all those clues and people switching. they overstepped the position, realized it, and did you notice put a cap on most of it?
After birth abortions:
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva created quite a ruckus when they proposed permitting “after-birth abortion” in a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
and this shows that socialist medical doctors are all cut from the same joseph mengele cloth!!!!!!!!!!
but what about that pianka incident? ie… they got to deny that that happened, but in light of quotes, goals, statements and other connected organizations, i am not so sure pianka incident didnt happen. are you?
all well and good, no?
but if you have been in that small world of leaders and not one of their tools… you would have a hard time disbelieving it.
oh.. and now we are finding more and more that the president that was elected is in agreement and LIKES These ideas enough to surround himself with such people.
heck… SANGER and Hitlers people talked, and they approved of each others work…
then there is:
http://www.vhemt.org/
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
“May we live long and die out”
[and the propagandist film Lorax?]
Diplomats make it their business to conceal the facts.
Margaret Sanger
and like holdren, and the others..
“To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization”, advocated the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932
I agree that part of this video is to demonstrate that the media and others chose to hide this part of Obama’s past.
However, I think Pollak mentioned in the CNN interview that they were going to tie this to how he has governed as President, such as Holder’s handling of the Black Panther’s case as well as his voting rights team’s single focus on voting violations against black (per J. Christian Adams). Also, now that we know Obama embraced Bell and critical race theory it sheds new understanding of his appointment of Sotomayer (she, who claimed that as a wise Latina she had superior judgement) as well as czars like Van Jones, whose focus is on green jobs for minorities and “environmental justice” (pollution affects minorities more than whites).
Is Obama the race healer he and the MSM sold us in 2008? Can we confidently say that Obama has left behind his interest in critical race theory? I’m guessing that there will be more articles and videos to show us that this may not be the case.
I think there’s a good analogy here to a lawsuit.
A party makes a claim (the lawsuit) and then is entitled to discovery. The Breitbart claim, here, is more about the media than it is about Obama, but both are involved. One, that the media is dishonest and makes decisions to “protect” Obama; two, Obama is a radical.
Vetting is discovery and without proper and lawful discovery your “facts” or “evidence” cannot even be put before a judge. But, as I have seen over and over again, the proper establishment of even one fact changes the whole landscape.
Fact one to establish is Obama’s friendly embrace of Derrick Bell. Fact two to establish is the racist philosophy of Derrick Bell. The first fact has now been established. When the opposition has to “admit” a fact, then that fact is established.
The second “fact” is really still an allegation, but now a very public discussion has been made upon it and more discovery will be required on Derrick Bell. And that is a good thing. Because his critical race theory cannot be defended as non-racist. The more it is exposed, the more it will show itself for what it is.
This is setting a beautiful debate question especially if the country has some knowledge of Derrick Bell and Critical Race Theory by the time of the debate:
From the Republican candidate: Mr. President, Derrick Bell refudiated the approach of Martin Luther King and has stated that white people will never afford black people full civil rights and protection under the law. At Harvard you said “open your minds and hearts to Derrick Bell.” Do you still say “open your hearts and minds to Derrick Bell.”
physicsguy does state a truth: that most people have no idea of who Derrick Bell is and what he believes. However, this is the task before us and if we can achieve it even moderately, it might very well change the outcome of the election.
And please tell me, didn’t you enjoy that video “T” linked to? It’s kind of nice to win a culture battle every now and then.
ARRGHHHHH.. too long… 🙁
Who is Ernst Rudin?
Ernst Rudin was director of the foremost German eugenics research institute Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy, in Munich, Germany
he was the orchestrator of the FINAL SOLUTION…
On July 14, 1933 this committee’s recommendations were made law, the sterilization law (“Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring”); the start date for exercising the law was 1 Jan 1934.
Three months before the German ‘sterilization law’ was passed, Rudin’s “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” article was published in the journal (BCR) Margaret Sanger started and continued to influence until its demise in 1940.
whats different? the goal? certainly not!!
the methods? definitely… the idea is to experiment till you find a method that works.. hitlers didnt work… people rebelled.. so the adjustment was to remove all of western society who saved the jews…
there is no difference between national and international socialism.. if the first takes over the world, the world becomes one nation state.. if the latter takes over the world, international as a word will have no meaning.. and so, its one nation state..
no difference… one nation state under marx
but to do all that.
you woud have to control the medical field
you would have to be able to decide who gets care, and who has the right to kill whom..
did they get that?
The Passing of the Great Race
anyone other than me know the ACTUAL history?
well.. how about Derrick Bell?
how about reading this?
The Sixteenth Annual Derrick Bell Lecture on Race in American Society
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__alumni/documents/documents/ecm_pro_070101.pdf
and dont forget to save it before it goes down the memory hole..
PAGE 997
so YOU may not know this and will refuse to even bother..
but they are STEEPED in it.. and some of them WANT the same thing, but for their race… but they have deemed in their papers that you have to collectively remove the other race first, then capitalism will end…
[whats sad is that his history versions leave out the soviets influences in using race to create a image and story and so forth..]
now on page… 998
Boas? Boas was the man who taught Meade.. you know. the sexualization of women and children? feminism being a gulag, etc..
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
its a COLLECTIVE.. so they are all in this tiny world, that if YOU and regular people would know about… would not tolerate..
you look at Helen Thomas… and say, what a mistake, and you dont think beyond her. but what you don’t know is that she was there so long because she fit in and they trusted her to hear that and NOT report it.
but there is no way to show you and everyone that history or the facts in concentrated form. heck, that pdf is over 100 pages..
and there is over 70 years of this stuff, generally not made public…
ie. the cancer of the nazi ideas has rested till it could rise again… a new hybrid..
FAther Coughlin and social justice was part of all that too… and sanger, the feminists, and so on… all coordinated by the CPUSA and others.. (that was admitted to)
even bella dodd head of CPUSA and head of teachers union… that should be a clue…
go ahead… dig in from any point, and you will follow back the same groups and overlaps since way back then…
to think its not possible is to think that a gothic cathedral that takes 200 years to build is not possible,,, despite quite a few of them and a few still being made…
but this will be shortened..
the opposition reads this, but their victims dont… could that be why they are victims? they are too lazy to not be?
what about the colleges who supported this line of thinking from Columbia (home of Frankfurt school after Hitler), NY university, Harvard, Stanford, etc?
the idea that you can clean this out or oppose this when the top schools foment this and normalize it for those who will lead and outside the purview of the common man is completely missed…
but if you read, and know the history, and follow along where people move and why, you will see whats going on…
basically their attitude is that since your too stupid and lazy, you DESERVE This to happen to you… they are not stupid… and certainly if they read what you wont, are not as lazy..
notice this is from columbia
Kovel on the Frankfurt School
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/modernism/kovel.htm
I’m with Curtis and friend: Breitbart’s action is a battle in his war with media.
However, Obama is being targeted in a subtle way: Obama is being exposed as a person who hid his true self (person who had consorted with radicals) in 2008. The rational extrapolation: if Obama willfully his true self in 2008, what else has he hidden and what else is he hiding? I think this targeting of Obama is secondary, and is in the background, yet is factored in. A talented candidate, such as Sarah Palin, could take this tidbit and use it to inflict damage upon Obama. Mitt’s team, with the help of Drudge and of Mitt’s Superpac, has been able to use such tidbits in order to damage Repub opponents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think we are seeing, with the consolidation of Breitbart’s Bigs, and with the breaking of this story on Hannity, and with everything surrounding this story … I think we are seeing right media rousing itself to counter the effeciveness of left media in driving stories.
Lee Stranahan is a left person who did work for Breitbart in researching the Pigford scandal. Stranahan found amazing info: the scandal was a true indictment of the political left government lobby – infused, through and through, with corruption and racism and big money payoffs. The worst part: farmers who had truly been wronged were left out in the cold .. as lawyers and frauds scooped up over a billion dollars in fraudulent payouts. Anyway, the story was huge. Stranahan did the work, had the bad guys cold, wrote the stories which were needed to expose the fraud, got it published by Breitbart, and then Stranahan excitedly waited for the stuff to hit the fan and for the story to blow sky high. Nothing happened. The story sat: barely reported, ignored by major media.
Stranahan later wrote that he was shocked: had a similar story emerged with the right as perps, then the story would have been instantly driven through the left blogs by Media Matters, Think Progress, Daily Kos, HuffPo; left blogs would have instantly picked it up and trumpeted it; major media would have instantly picked it up and trumpeted it. All heck would have broken loose. Stranahan observed that right blogs need a similar distribution network.
Fast forward to the Obama/Derrick Bell story:
I see a nascent right blogosphere which is trying to report this story on its own; which is trying, with this story, to go over the heads of traditional media .. and straight to consumers of American media and news. I sense a different dynamic. The Bigs, and the right blogs, are trying to accomplish something new. This might be a moment.
Post scarcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
Post scarcity (also styled post-scarcity or postscarcity, and also known as resource-based economy) is a form of economy or society, in which things such as goods, services and information are free, or practically free. This would be due to an abundance of fundamental resources (matter, energy and intelligence), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods, allowing manufacturing to be as easy as duplicating software
huge section on utopias in that one!!!!
it gets scary when you see the list and realize that such things as WALL-E are part of that zeitgeist…
but that would lead you to
The Venus Project
anyone other than me know this stuff?
be nice to speak to someone that knows…
i wonder why no one wants to look into that collective mind? do they not realize that they all endeavor to think the same, so to read all this is to know them, as this is them…
lookup stuff like
Garden city movement
Technological singularity
Technocracy movement
The technocracy movement is a social movement which arose in the early 20th century. Technocracy was highly popular in the USA for a brief period in the early 1930s, when it overshadowed many other proposals for dealing with the crisis of the Great Depression. The technocrats proposed replacing politicians and businesspeople with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy.
sound familiar?
how about:
Democratic transhumanism
Erewhon
Omega Point
superintelligence, hyperintelligence or superhuman intelligence
my fav is the posthuman god..
the uber mensch that isnt..
A variation on the posthuman theme is the notion of a “posthuman god”; the idea that posthumans, being no longer confined to the parameters of human nature, might grow physically and mentally so powerful as to appear possibly god-like by human standards
yes, an amoral god who will cause the waters to calm and all that… thats what we need, yes?
sorry left out the other important side to posthuman god
it merely means that some posthuman beings may become so exceedingly intelligent and technologically sophisticated that their behaviour would not possibly be comprehensible to modern humans, purely by reason of their limited intelligence and imagination[9]. The difference here is that the latter stays within the bounds of the laws of the material universe, while the former exceeds them by going beyond it
and so, we are just not smart enough to see obama and their works…
It is true that many of us already knew of Baracka’s radical ties and his radical pro-abortion views (voting against the Born Alive Act and supporting partial birth abortion). But Curtis is right every bit of this kind of truth and information that gets out there to those who rely on LSM to those independent and Democrat voters who are teetering on the edge is just one more thorn in the side of the Obama machine.
Death by a thousand cuts.
I lived in Hawaii before and after the 2008 election and found out on the internet that Obama supported the Akaka bill. The Akaka bill who when presented to Congress was described by John McCain as the most rascist bill every to be presented. It would have created apartheid in Hawaii, pitting race agaist race, families against each other and completely destroyed the already fragile Hawaiian economy. But isn’t this exactly what Baracka is all about.
Neo seems to overlook our past long-running discussions about Baraq as fool v. knave. A lot thought he was a fool. We now know he was and is a knave. That is no small thing: a legitimate conclusion. But, as others have observed, many, indeed most, did not and still do not know this. The mission is to reduce that number, by any means possible.
Derrick Bell was a roach, a point man for a now goodly number of tenured roaches. Cornel West of Princeton is another. The country will never amount to anything until the melanin-aggrieved hearken unto MLK’s words.
http://tinyurl.com/6qh6q5s
“Why the Jews must fight,” is also why we must not let despair or depression dull our edge.
Happy Purim to the Jews!
Artfldgr: Thanks once again. I knew some of it but not in the scope you laid out.
I am sure you feel as a voice in the wilderness, but I hear you and trust others here do as well. I sense you and I have deeper, visceral fears of totalitarianism than many. who down deep cannot believe it can, and is, happening here. That bubbles out from you as from an artesian well, under immense pressure.
Saw this at Ace’s Place. “Why is this shocking hate crime not news?”
Teachers in Kansas inciting race hatred: one teenager is doused with gasoline and set on fire. And there’s more: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=39021
Beverly:
That last post of yours is partly why America is screwed and who we elect doesn’t matter as much as you think. The left totally owns “racial” and “sexual” dialogue and both are built around memes such as women and minorities can’t be sexist or racist because sexism and racism require institutional power and…
Well, you get the point. It’s rights and responsibilities for all but the left has forgotten that, and thus their civil rights discourse is prone for abuse and causes ruptures rather reconciliation.
Tsk:
Way ahead of Artful on most of those ideas such as the singularity and all that. Heck, I read Bill Joy’s essay “The Future doesn’t need us” when it first came out.
We better hope for “Post scarcity” because the current intellectual discourse is very malthusian. It’s not hard to find physicists and ecologists and engineers writing blogs on the web asserting the end to abundance, and in fact, I myself have pretty much come to the conclusion that the vast majority of us will be no longer useful as physical OR intellectual labor within the next twenty years due to AI – and it doesn’t much matter whether we talk a scarcity world or a post-scarcity one because that displacement is going to happen.
That’s why I find so much of the economic analysis on this blog laughable. Government will be involved one way or the other whether one likes it or not.
“We already knew about Ayers, Wright, the socialist connections, Alinsky, and now we also know about Bell.”
Sure, we do. But we are not the average person. We need a break out story to get the word out. Each of these can be another run at that.
I hate the way the MSM handles politics as much as anyone and I love Breitbart and the things he’s done but this first tape left me kinda disappointed.
The rest of them better have stronger impact or they will have negative influence on the election.
thomass,
We also have to show that these radicals caused many of the problems they now blame on us. Remember, it was the radicals and their radical chic enablers who started the BS that learning to read is acting white. These same people sold out the blacks who had educated themselves and were trying to pass their learning on to a new post-civil-rights-act generation. I saw myself how such people were dissed aand called Uncle Tom. Now today, the same radicals blame us because black kids cant read and right. Bill Ayers, who thinks it is important to inject social justice BS into math texts, blames us because blacks can’t figure out things like interest rates. The radicals condemned Bill Cosby because a TV show featuring a black doctor and his lawyer wife wasn’t authentic.
We have to do more than just alert the public to the philosophies of the radicals. We have to show that these very philosophies pulled the rug out from under many kids who for the first time in our history had a real chance to learn and advance in our society. We have to show that Obama hasn’t figured this out. He still lectures black kids for not studying hard enough, while telling them that even if they do study, they will still be victims and that it really doesn’t matter because Hey, see what a cool dancer I am.
The people like Obama and Holder are embarrassed by blacks who don’t have Ivy degrees; they don’t care about them.
Time has mellowed dear Leader. That, basically, is the spin because the facts have been established. And the spin is coming from no less than a Corner columnest, David French.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292994/obama-critical-race-theory-and-harvard-law-school-david-french
Fact number 2 has bascially been admitted: That critical race theory is a rascist theory. Combined with fact 1, that Obama embraced it and it’s progenitor while at Harvard, has been established.
Now what we want is the truth of Obama’s values, beliefs, his inner workings. We see him racially dividing America and Breitbart’s vetting, its beginning, shows a consistency between “Harvard Obama” and “White House” Obama.
The process will need to move on to the next important set of facts to show that there is no disconnect between “Harvard Obama” and “White House” Obama.
I’m thinking Acorn. It’s time to publically crack that nut.
“There’s little doubt that law student Obama was a political radical by any conventional, society-wide measure of the term.” –David French
So why did the media hide this fact.
The last paragraph of French’es articles is, well, honestly, and I hate to say this because I know how it upsets people, but honestly, it makes me want to throw up. To see a conservative columnest spin the facts (Doesn’t BeerGate provide a much better question for answering than “Hahvard Obama wouldn’t use drones.”) and then excuse and temporize, well, the bucket’s full from this one: Law school Obama is not our president, and I’m not sure that the videos tell us much at all about the man who sits in the oval office.
Hold on there, judge French, we haven’t rested yet, we’ve still got a few more exhibits to introduce. Begging your honor’s indulgence, might he refrain from judgment until we’re finished.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/was-breitbarts-video-a-dud.php
Powerline asks if Breitbart’s video was a dud. The better question is “Was Breitbart’s video a good start.”
The fact that it has become a focal point shows its value; the fact that it has already accomplished showing how the media operates shows its value; and the fact that many otherwise anti-Obama sources were and are unable to see if for the opportunity it is shows, what? Something.
Forgive me for “wearing out my welcome” by posting too much. I am, however, posting at the end.
But, here’s what gets me, gets me real good, about people of education like John Hindraker. He writes “The Party of Hate,” on March 7 (see link below) and then on March 8, “Was Breitbart’s video a dud?”
So, on March 7, Mr. Hinderaker observes “Barack Obama has been a terrible president in many ways, but perhaps his most poisonous legacy is his cynical fomenting of partisan hate to advance his own political interests,” and then fails to use the connection to CRT, Derrick Bell and Harvard in the 1990’s.
Can’t he see Breitbart was being a general here? The Breitbart video? A dud?
No, it’s a grenade, you numskull. Pull the pin and throw it. Instead, you waste the opportunity that Breitbart created.
Unbelievable.
Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but as a followup to the point I made above about Palin/Gingrich/Breitbart and Joel Pollak, here is a quote from Jennifer Rubin’s article of March 8:
“. . . the left can throw a punch but not a counterpunch. Confronted with their own double-standard, they suddenly wish to ‘move on.’”
here’s the link if you want to read the entire article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/bill-bennett-a-lesson-in-how-to-turn-the-tables/2012/03/08/gIQAxN75yR_blog.html
Classic, as in the video with Soledad O’brien and Joel Pollak above, and again, this is precisely the left’s weak point. The P/G/B group simply refuses to play by this rule (unlike McCain, Romney–so far–and other establishment conservatives). Jennifer Rubin clearly articulates the big visible target on the left; guys and gals of the right-leaning persuasion—- go for it!
Exhibit 1: Derrick Bell video
Exhibit 2: Syllabus of Professor Obama
The following paragraph comes from the Reading Packet #1, 1994, seminar taught by Professor Obama. In the packet, various topics for group presentations were provided of which Affirmative Action was one. As a prompt to encourage the student how to think about the subject and present a group presentation, the following was provided:
*The Meaning of Merit: With Affirmative Action increasingly justified on the basis of a desire for a diversity of viewpoints, the very notion of a fixed meaning to the idea of merit has come under attack? Is the notion of merit inherently political, rmbodying the preferences of the dominant group? Or is it possible to agree on some common standards by which jobs and university slots are allocated? Does it depend on the task? (e.g. law professors v airline pilots). Do minorities gain or lose when fixed notions of merit give way to more flexible standards for allocating goods and privileges?
Now, Obama is 33 years old at this point, a professor teaching the subject, and the “he was just a student” defense no longer valid. His statement (or if he didn’t write it, he copied it) that Affirmative Action is increasingly justified on the basis of a desire for a diversity of viewpoints is pure Derrick Bell thesis that race and color determine viewpoint. Whites will always be racists. White, basically, are immoral and will never provide equal protection under the law to blacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf
Curtis,
Great posts. I hope you will do us the favor of archiving and enumerating this evidence as you have just started (and your comments) as they become available so that by the time Breitbart’s done with the vetting we have a laundry-list of evidence to proffer anyone who will listen–and even those that won’t!
T: That’s a good plan. I’ll do it and arrange it like a trial, complete with a list of witnesses, exhibits and trial brief.
Curtis: I see nothing wrong with the questions Obama posed in his course. It’s typical law school stuff, asking students to debate the pros and cons of a policy, rather than presenting a certain thesis about whether it’s right or wrong, or what the professor thinks is right or wrong.
For example, the first sentence, “With Affirmative Action increasingly justified on the basis of a desire for a diversity of viewpoints, the very notion of a fixed meaning to the idea of merit has come under attack” was just a fact. Affirmative Action supporters did increasingly justify it on that basis (right or wrong), and the notion of a fixed meaning to “merit” was under attack. This is all in the passive voice as descriptors; Obama was careful then, as now, to keep his own opinion hidden.
A couple of years ago I did a huge amount of research on Obama as law instructor—the courses he taught, his syllabi, his tests, etc. I took notes for a post but it got unwieldy and I never tackled it. But my distinct impression was that the following was true about Obama: that the entire thrust of his career teaching in law school was race and the history of race in America and in the law, as well as election rights and election law as a sub-specialty. He was indeed very focused on those things, which is very interesting. But he tended to be very careful to keep his own opinions out of it as much as possible.
Curtis: to whom were you addressing your post of 11:45 AM “you numskull?”
To John H.
I’m afraid that there is going to be a disconnect between those who attended elite universities or other institutions dominated by those universities and your common thinking man on this issue. “Typical” law school stuff? Get out the bucket. If the common man is exposed to this trash, he won’t think it typical. Big deal if it is typical at Harvard. Killing Jews was typical int he Holocaust and that’s what has occurred in our higher education: a holocaust. The truth was killed.
Yesterday, on a legal magazine, The Advocate, I noticed a headline “Law, from a Women’s Perspective.” More trash.
This may be typical to you and law school grads, but it is far, very far, from the thinking of those whose thinking is dictated by a need for results. When you live in the real world, there’s no room for deceit as that which is involved in using the passive voice. Yes Obama was careful and that is why his radicalness is less easy to expose.
There’s also a hideous hint, to me, of Dr. Mengele using scrupulous method and medical procedures in his “research.”
Just a second for this tidbit: I expect a good response, but, please, your “Affirmative Action” assertion was incorrect. The statement carries no suggestion that it’s validity is only affirmed by affirmitive action “supporters.” It posits the statement as globally true.
Curtis: no, it does not. You are reading it that way. But it is in the passive voice, and taken as a whole the sentence pretty clearly means that people have increasingly justified it that way, not that it is in fact justified that way.
This is the typical way law school questions are phrased. Remember that I went to law school, and I’m very familiar with this stuff. The rest of the quote confirms that he is positing questions about the differing points of view rather than stating any of them as fact.
As I said, I’ve already read almost all of Obama’s law school material (tests, syllabi, student evaluations). It is all of a piece in terms of him keeping his own opinions pretty close to the vest. Students especially mentioned that as a trait of his.
Which doesn’t mean his opinions weren’t exactly what you think they were, or that materials can’t be found that express them. But he was not stating them here.
Neoneocon,
FYI–I submitted a comment and it was lost to cyberspace (twice). I only mention it here because someone had the same problem in an earlier thread.
If a statement in a certain setting is “understood” to be phrased that way, sure, or maybe it is a term of art, okay, but then there is an element of circular logic because how valid is proof when the proponent of an assertion verifies it by reference to another one of his own unproved assertions. This technique spawned the whole world of “longitudinal” studies. And the word “increasingly” gives it away too, don’t you think. “Increasingly” here refers to public opinion or scholarly opinion, not logic or reason. It boils down to this: Because we believe our own assertions to be true, they are true. And see, if they are true, then the other things we believe are true and they are true, so it’s all true.
There’s nothing wrong with this?
Just like we might have to accept that Holder’s guilty in Fast and Furious is incompetence and not active involvement, because, like Obama he plays it close to the chest and we can’t absolutely prove his direct involvement, so here, we may have to settle for Obama’s involvement in a nefarious and ludicrous theory. (But we know better, don’t we, that he was breeding little hate-Americers, little go forth and multipliers? C’mon, say it, say it — Sam Kinison)
Sadly, Obama provides no external proof and is no objective teacher here. Socrates would, indeed, by profoundly saddened, even angered that the questioner had lost his objectivity and that the answerer is so heavily prejudiced to favor an answer. The “just asking questions about points of view” is a ruse, a deceit. How many students, do you think, present a group presentation opposing the proposed answer? Knowing the discrimination they would face from both students and teacher, not many. I hope some, but not many.
Ironic isn’t it, that Obama’s narcissism, which elevated his own stature and power above that of the “cause” is what was essential to his consideration as a proper Manchurian candidate? Any other radical would not have kept himself so distant from the fray.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI
Curtis: actually, in law school, plenty of students would argue against it, in my opinion.
The nature of law students is to be very combative and to pride themselves on that, as well as being able to argue either side of a question equally well. I haven’t read my materials on Obama as law teacher recently, but my recollection is that the student evaluations were that he was fair to all sides. Again, this doesn’t mean he didn’t have a subtle agenda. And I am certainly assuming he had very firm opinions.
Looks like the Bigs are starting to link Obama;s embrace of Bell & his critical race theory to Obama’s performance as president:
Eric Holder: http://tinyurl.com/89zvuzw
Elena Kagan & Sonia Sotomayor:http://tinyurl.com/7uxnve9
Yep, absolutely no bombshell. Just one of those youthful phases, nothing worth reporting.
Obama is an elegant man. I give you that. Most dragons are. But he is a dragon.
Law students are argumentative, but how many fall on one side and how many fall on the other. I reference David French’es article.
Your later posted McCarthy article has this, which sums up my rebuttal:
While most ordinary Americans may think it radical for a lawyer to volunteer his services to file offensive lawsuits on behalf of the enemy against the United States in wartime, this is not considered radical in the legal community – there, it is “mainstream.” Well, okay … but that the radicals think of themselves as mainstream does not make them mainstream – they are still radicals.
Yep, good thinking Libby.
What organization does not examine the complete development and history of its inductees. The US of A is an organization and we have the right to examine our leader whom is elected by popular vote. Obama is not our master, but our servant. Remember what he said about taxes: “You would think they would be thankful.”
Statements like these demand a better vetting and we’re goddamn well gonna get it.
Another Derrick Bell/Obama revelation: Bell originated all that 1% talk.
Breitbart was genius!