Jump to content

Why Obama's association with Prof. Bell is significant


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

First terrorist Bill Ayers, then Black Liberation Theoligist Jeramiah Wright, now comes Derrick Bell.

How Critical Race Theory Molded Obama

Posted By Mary Grabar On October 29, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Positioning,Education,Elections 2008,Middle,Middle East,Politics,Race Issues,US News | 60 Comments

That intellectual thugs now rule the hallways of academe and threaten our civil liberties was perhaps nowhere more dramatically illustrated than in the Duke lacrosse rape [1] case two years ago. The humanities professors who persecuted Duke lacrosse players had acquired their jobs through force — through protests and demands that began in the 1960s. By the 1980s, Duke University had succeeded in filling its ranks with professors of dubious credentials, but who fit the new gender, race, and left-wing ideological categories. These professors began their work in indoctrinating their charges towards a Marxist view by castigating such foundational notions as truth, universal rights, rule of law, and due process into a category of “patriarchal white hegemony.” As on campuses across the country, anyone who disagrees is kept out of the club of the tenured.

Critical race theory [2]” is one label for such an anti-Western notion of justice; its ideas seep into the humanities, including my field, English. Its promulgators, like Derrick Bell [3], insist that long-held beliefs that underpin our legal system be replaced by a “justice” that takes into account past and current racial discrimination — however subjectively determined it may be. In short, critical race theorists believe that standards of justice should vary from group to group and situation to situation.

The lacrosse players’ presumed guilt, based on their white race, their male gender, and their class, followed lock-step. It was this view that rationalized the persecution of the innocent lacrosse players inside the classroom and spurred on violent mobs who threatened their safety.

As an example of how accepted such a view is in the insular academy, none of the group of 88 faculty members that signed a published statement condemning the lacrosse players within days after the false accusation was made has been punished. Nor have they been punished for clearly violating university policies regarding faculty conduct toward students. In fact, many of them, like Houston Baker, have been invited to endowed chairs at other universities. Duke President Richard Brodhead, who presided over the travesty of justice and suggested that the players needed to be “proven innocent,” recently received a 15% raise.

Indicating a receptive attitude to such a view of justice, at least by his teaching and academic background, is presidential candidate Barack Obama. While at Harvard, Obama [4] joined his professor, critical race theorist Derrick Bell, in mob pressures to hire a black female. Obama, during his richly remunerated stint as a part-time professor at the University of Chicago Law School, relied on his former professor’s writings, as his syllabus [5] shows. (Issues of race seem to have been a specialty [6] during Obama’s tenure, as I’ve described in previous [7] columns.) The media points to his inclusion of a reading by conservative jurist Robert Bork, but the preponderance of far-left readings, as well as other evidence, like Obama’s contribution [8] of a chapter to a volume devoted to the writings of radical socialist Saul Alinsky and his close ties [9] to the New Party, strongly suggest that Obama as professor used the tactic of most left-wing professors: throw in one token conservative as a whipping boy. Obama’s academic associations and writings show him favoring theories of justice based on race, class, and gender. These have their roots in a socialist doctrine — and not in Western notions of equal and universal rights.

It takes a regular Joe (the Plumber) asking an innocent question to reveal the Democratic candidate’s ideology, which, in faith to Marxism, is to “spread the wealth.” Joe the Plumber has likely been alienated by his schooling and the double talk reigning in the classroom. He, instead, relies on his God-given reason, just the way the Founding Fathers intended. Professor Obama on the campaign trail, however, mocked [10] John McCain’s reference to him during the third debate.

Obama has garnered the support of Christopher Buckley [11], who seems to have forgotten his late father’s prescient words in his book about his college years, God and Man at Yale [12]:

Marx himself … envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other, a slow increase of state power, to a point where a smooth transition could be effected from an individualist to a collectivist society.

Our founding principles are based on the idea of natural law, clearly expressed in such language that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.” The Marxist and critical race theory notions espoused by Obama and by those in positions as intellectual opinion-makers are diametrically opposed to our democratic foundations.

Joe rightly feels threatened by a double standard of justice. He knows that he is endowed with reason by his Creator — and not the professors.

The only response that the professors have left to give to Joe, the aspiring small business owner, is ultimately the one Chairman Mao espoused in his 1949 speech, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship”: “Communists the world over are wiser than the bourgeoisie.” Indeed, the professors, like Mao, have simply declared themselves smarter and excluded those who disagree with them. Unchallenged by the public or administrators, they have promulgated their ideology in the classrooms.

It is a plumber and not a Ph.D., though, who recognizes what Obama’s ideas mean for him, a small business owner, a member of the bourgeoisie: famine as a result of an ideology of “spreading the wealth” and guilt until proven innocent as a result of class-based justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





So, no actual reason to be concerned?

Only if you have no problem with radicals and black racists in the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't! It's only an issue when it's someone they don't approve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no actual reason to be concerned?

Only if you have no problem with radicals and black racists in the White House.

Who is the black racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no actual reason to be concerned?

Only if you have no problem with radicals and black racists in the White House.

Who is the black racist?

Hey link get a hold of this line in the "article"....."The Maexist and critical race theroy notions espoused by Obama".....wouldn't you use footnotes to back that up. kinda of like linking somethitn?

and tying President Obama to the Duke Lacrosse thing....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one was to recommend a Saul Alinksky book, what would it be? I've heard a lot of his teachings from the right, and I'd like to see what the buzz is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one was to recommend a Saul Alinksky book, what would it be? I've heard a lot of his teachings from the right, and I'd like to see what the buzz is about.

What little I know of him sounds like an American hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest take off your tin foil hat and put on a thinking cap. Would the rise in militia groups indicate a growing fear of this president?

Excerpted from Right Side News:

Bell believed then, as he did for the rest of his life, that whites would support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status. Since Bell viewed racial minorities as a permanently oppressed caste — and he saw racism as a normal, permanent aspect of American life — he reasoned that equality before the law was unfair to blacks, whose moral claims were superior to those of whites. Bell endorsed a journal called
Race Traitor
, which is dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness,” and whose motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”

Professor Bell (and his fellow Critical Race theorists) held that existing legal structures are, like American society at large, racist in their very construction. Critical Race Theory suggests that to combat this “institutional racism,” oppressed racial groups have both the right and the duty to decide, for themselves, which laws are valid and are worth observing. Critical Race Theory also promotes the use of storytelling narratives in law-review articles to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience. Bell used the technique of placing legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters extensively in his writings. While acknowledging that this “style of storytelling” was “less rigorous than the doctrine-laden, citation-heavy law review pieces,” he employed it nonetheless.

There’s a shorthand for this discursive mode: fascism. There is nothing anti-essentialist about this brand of race-based hatred.

In all serious - this tin-foil hat stuff needs to stop.

patriotsgraf.jpg?t=1331218858

http://www.npr.org/b..._medium=twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

Its fear - plain and simple. Not based on reality. And Obama has actually EXPANDED gun rights compared with Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

Its fear - plain and simple. Not based on reality. And Obama has actually EXPANDED gun rights compared with Bush.

Got a link for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

Its fear - plain and simple. Not based on reality. And Obama has actually EXPANDED gun rights compared with Bush.

Got a link for that?

Only gun law he has signed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hWkm0BUNO6LmObQ-xQmAce3Js2Lw

Obama signed the bill despite a controversial clause inserted in the legislation by allies of the gun lobby group National Rifle Association.

The language permits gun owners to carry concealed weapons in national parks, a rule which gun control advocates complain threatens public safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

Its fear - plain and simple. Not based on reality. And Obama has actually EXPANDED gun rights compared with Bush.

Got a link for that?

Only gun law he has signed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hWkm0BUNO6LmObQ-xQmAce3Js2Lw

Obama signed the bill despite a controversial clause inserted in the legislation by allies of the gun lobby group National Rifle Association.

The language permits gun owners to carry concealed weapons in national parks, a rule which gun control advocates complain threatens public safety.

And Fast and Furious was designed and intended to do what?

Hint - it wasn't to track guns and the drug cartels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

according to your chart, militias did not expand until Obama's election.

Its fear - plain and simple. Not based on reality. And Obama has actually EXPANDED gun rights compared with Bush.

As his justice department fights gun rights on every level exept for Mexican drug cartels,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain the explosion of groups PRIOR to the Affordable Care Act even being passed into law?

according to your chart, militias did not expand until Obama's election.

Yeah, thats the point. They exploded before any meaningful policy had been passed. Meaning it wasnt based on policy, but rather fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gun rights of yours were curtailed by fast and furious?

No one has said our rights were curtailed.

But what was their objective in running the operation? Ultimately to drum up support for more gun control. You know that was their objective. Too bad that border patrol agent got killed and screwed up their plan wasn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gun rights of yours were curtailed by fast and furious?

No one has said our rights were curtailed.

But what was their objective in running the operation? Ultimately to drum up support for more gun control. You know that was their objective. Too bad that border patrol agent got killed and screwed up their plan wasn't it.

Just wanted to clear that up. (bookmarked)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still want to know who the black racist is

Prof. Bell for one.

I'm still trying to figure out if Obama would fall into that category or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out if Obama would fall into that category or not.

Balony. You know he isn't.

Yeah the Beer Summit is proof of that isn't it.

IS OBAMA A RACIST?

By Frances Rice

How do we decide who is a racist? The dictionary tells us a racist harbors feelings of antagonism and superiority based on biological differences, such as skin color. So, what demonstrates that President Barack Obama harbors such feelings toward white people?

Glimpses of Obama’s mindset can be obtained from reading his two books, “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams from My Father” where Obama describes his animosity toward white people.

In “Dreams from My Father” Obama wrote: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." This book also contains an explanation of why Obama joined and remained for 20 years in Trinity United Church of Christ, the church of black liberation theologian Rev. Jeremiah Wright who preached hatred against whites. Obama wrote: "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany". The core of black liberation theology is black separatism, a movement that, for more than a century, has been opposed to racial integration. Equally troubling is Obama’s church giving a lifetime award to one of our nation’s most racist men, Louis Farrakhan.

Obama’s belief system on race was on full display during the 2008 campaign when, on a Philadelphia radio sports program, he described his grandmother as a "typical white person" who fears blacks.

From the roots of Obama’s enmity toward white people sprang his gratuitous attack on Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. Obama declared that the sergeant “acted stupidly” while doing his duty, when all Obama knew, admittedly, was that the sergeant was white and the person arrested, Obama’s friend Harvard Processor Henry Gates, was black. Without bothering to learn the facts, Obama used the power of his position as President of the United States to demonize an American citizen because of his race. Details of the arrest are in the article “Obama Plays the Race Card” by Ronald Kessler that is on the Internet at:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_race_gates/2009/07/23/239408.html

A video featuring the testimonial of two black officers in support of Sergeant Crowley, including the comments of Officer Kelly King who states that she supported and voted for Obama, but would not vote for him again, is posted on YouTube at:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/07/26/nr.comrade.in.arms.cnn

Obama, in his rush to judgment, ignored pertinent facts, such as one of the arresting officers is black, the Cambridge Mayor is black and the Massachusetts Governor is black. From his lofty perch as the leader of the free world, Obama focused like a laser beam on the skin color of one man and engaged in grievance mongering about “racial profiling,” a charge that hampers law enforcement in black communities and was not even a factor in the Cambridge case. In an instant, Obama abandoned any pretense of being “post racial” and, before our very eyes, was transformed into our “race-baiter-in-chief”.

How ironic that the wrongs against blacks that are the genesis of Obama’s racial hostility were committed by the whites who supported the racist agenda of the Democratic Party (not that many years ago), the party Obama now heads. During his research, author Wayne Perryman uncovered documents which reveal that the Democratic Party was once proudly called the “Party of White Supremacy”. According to Perryman, Democratic Party campaign posters issued from 1868 to the early 1900’s declared: "This is a white man's country - let the white man rule". Perryman further pointed out that Democratic Senator Ben Tillman in 1909 said: "We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely, that this is a white man's country and the white men must govern it."

Today, Obama is changing the Democratic Party into a party with the sinister premise that America is a black man’s country and the black men must govern it. Perhaps this is why Obama refused to prosecute Black Panthers who wielded weapons, hurled racial insults at voters and blocked the entrance at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 Election. “Protecting Black Panthers” is an editorial by “The Washington Times” that reveals how Jerry Jackson, one of the Black Panther defendants, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Obama and the Democratic Party. That article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/protecting-black-panthers/

The intimidation tactics by Black Panthers are a chilling reminder about how the Democrats not long ago used the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, to intimidate and terrorize Republican voters, black and white. Democratic Party racism is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, was fighting against. In Obama’s world, the civil rights accomplishments of Dr. King have been abandoned, and we are now encouraged to judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. An analysis of Obama’s embracement of racial bigotry is provided in the article “How Our Post-Racial President Uses Race Card As Both Sword And Shield” by Larry Elder and is on the Internet at:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=483546

The article “A Post-Racial President?” by Thomas Sowell reveals in stark relief how destructive to our national fiber is Obama’s racial politics and can be found on the Internet at: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/07/28/a_post-racial_president?page=full&comments=true

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President BHO like 60% of all African-Americans goal is to destroy the United States. Why? Because they still hold this nation responsible for the enslavement of their ancestors and the way British, Spanish, and Democrat colonizers forced their ancestors to come to the new world. Slavery was wrong, slavery is wrong and slavery is going to destroy the United States. There was an American way of life that led to the success of this nation under GOD. Dependantcy on the Federal Government is slavery. There are many Jeremiah Wrights out their and his philosophy is the accepted norm in the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...