Skip to comments.Why the Bell-Obama Connection Matters
Posted on 03/14/2012 5:23:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
The verdict is in: The mainstream media believes that Derrick Bell is not a story. They believe it so deeply that they've had members of the Breitbart.com team on national television repeatedly; they've spent thousands of words covering it; and they've mentioned it on radio and the Internet incessantly. All to say that there's nothing to see here.
Unfortunately, for President Obama, there's something to see here.
Back when President Obama was a 28-year-old student at Harvard Law, he gave a speech in support of controversial racialist Professor Derrick Bell. The raw tape of that video was parceled out in bits and pieces over the subsequent years -- much of it is still apparently missing -- but last week, the most relevant section was released. It showed Obama telling a crowd, "Open your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell." He then gives Bell a bear hug.
The full video was only found after Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree, an Obama campaign advisor, showed it in one of his classes. He proceeded to inform the audience that "we hid this throughout the 2008 campaign," but that he didn't care if people found out about it now.
So what's the relevance? The relevance is that Derrick Bell was a massive racial radical. He was the father of a fringe legal theory called the critical race theory, which states first that racial discrimination can never be eliminated; and second, that the constitutional and legal system is based on racism -- loaded with it -- and is therefore uncorrectable.
Bell was therefore significantly more militant than the traditional civil rights movement. That's why he felt that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, benefitted whites more than blacks. That's why he thought that Brown v. Board of Education was an attempt by whites to fight back against the Soviet Union during the Cold War by undercutting the narrative that the United States was racist.
Bell thought that Louis Farrakhan was a "hero for the people," since he stood up to the white establishment -- a position so extreme that even fellow Harvard professors such as Randall Kennedy thought it was over the edge. Bell excused a certain amount of anti-Semitism by blaming it on "Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can."
So what was the tie between Bell and Obama, aside from that one incident? When Obama lectured at University of Chicago, he assigned Bell's material, including lines like this: "Slavery is, as an example of what white American has done, a constant reminder of what white American might do." And this: "In similar fashion, African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status."
This philosophy pervades President Obama's tenure. Obama's Department of Justice ignores obvious cases of voter intimidation so long as they come from the New Black Panthers; Obama himself thinks the police act "stupidly" when they arrest black professors who violate the law; Obama appoints Supreme Court justices who agree with his stances on race.
But most of all, Obama believes that the Constitution requires fundamental change, for both redistributive and racial reasons. That's what he campaigned on, even though we didn't know it. And that philosophy has deep roots, some of which find their source in Derrick Bell.
Obama’s communist connections could fill an encyclopedia. They go way back.
I think the biggest revelation here isn’t that Obama is a hard left radical - we knew that already. The most revealing this is that Obama is so willing to sign on to what is a hard core racist political ideology. Obama, in his heart, hates white people.
“Obama, in his heart, hates white people.”
And no one more than his Mother. Not without some cause, I think.
A lot of stuff on 0bama’s communist connections and everything leading up to his presidency here:
I know why it matters, you know why it matters, and the author knows why it matters.
But if there is a necessity for someone to write a piece explaining why it matters... the public has already decided with the help of the enemedia that it doesn’t matter.
Nothing Obama does seems to matter, the man admits to pot and cocaine use, and no one seems to notice, or care.
Born a bastard, with no real father as a role model, experiencing the inherent resentment of his situation,
he sought/seeks an outlet to vent his rage.
If memory serves, Barcky’s mommy had a thing for sleeping with commies as well.
I think he also harbors a rage against 'straight' people.
He certainly acts as an anti-Christian in all he does.
This is going to open the floodgates to more Jeremiah Wright, Skip Gates, and “kill those cracker babies”. White voters are going to know with certainty that there IS such a thing as black racism (assertions to the contrary not withstanding) and their President has been steeped in it.
Question is, how does the “Derrick Bell Story” get told through a hostile and/or disinterested Media? The only use I see is to keep internet consevatives fired-up. That’s OK but it doesn’t expand the republican vote much.
Hoping Breitbart has more than this.
I think that is why the Bell hug tape fell flat—that no one knew a thing about Prof. Bell. More people remembered Bill Ayers and his connections to Weather Underground, but Bell was off the radar. It was easy to scoff at. We needed Andrew Breitbart to set it up and explain it, which he was very good at. It would be nice if Rush would take some time and explain who Bell was and why we should not “open our hearts and minds” to him.
......And thats why the DOJ seems so unconcerned with voter fraud, while cracking down on voter ID: only laws that make special provision for different groups (in this case, Hispanics) should be implemented.
What I find most alarming is not just Bell’s obvious call to racial friction, but media-idiots like Soledad O’Brien who profess to be puzzled by the reaction to Bell’s disgusting writings. Either she’s lying (possible), or she’s too stupid to be allowed on tv.
That real history, now is available online in the Founders' own words. This was not so many years ago, when so-called "progressives" carefully censored their ideas from textbooks and public places.
The Founders are maligned by those who wish to profit, either monetarily or politically. A real "scholar" of the Constitution could unite all Americans by educating them in the truth of the great achievements of that document on behalf of liberty for all citizens of then-future generations.
Instead, there is a continued "dividing" by buying into the false arguments of people like Professor Bell and others.
Personal research can uncover the writings and passionate speeches of many of the Founders on this subject, but a good starting point for any who wish to begin such research might be to take a look at this page from Wallbuilders.com. This is just one of many articles and historical documents on Wallbuilders, confirming facts few citizens in 2012 have had included in their education or reading.
Bell's so-called Critical Race Theory, as well as all the other theories which divide us are easily dismantled by truth--should we wish to seek it.
Fidelity to the Constitution demands leadership which has sought out its underlying principles, understands them, and can, in truth, pledge fidelity to those principles.
If "the People" believe it to be "flawed," then the Constitution provides, within itself, the only means by which "the People" can amend its provisions and protections.
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
By your measure, it doesn’t matter what Breitbart has.
I don’t think that anything Breitbart has (in terms of college videos) is going to make much of a difference.