In a posthumous coup, Andrew Breitbart is releasing a series of videos which he had hoped would do the job of vetting Barack Obama that the mainstream media refused to do in 2008. The first of these videos showed a younger Barack Obama introducing a Prof. Derrick Bell at a protest rally designed to force the University of Harvard Law school to admit to it’s tenured professorship an ally of Derek Bell, Regina Austin.
Barack Obama punctuates his introduction with this stirring encomium, Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”
Since the Messiah is commanding us to embrace the philosophies of Prof. Bell, then I think it is incumbent upon us to understand what those philosophies are. Prof. Bell was considered the father of a doctrine called critical race theory.
Judge Richard Posner, U.S Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on Critical Race Theory:
“What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal — designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites”
Derrick Bell is listed in The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz, founder of Frontpage Magazine.
Critical race theory maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical Race Theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently its legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. A logical derivative of this premise, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled even obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Such a perspective’s implications for the ability of civil society to function are nothing short of radical.
Critical Race Theory holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in America’s national character, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent character flaws of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.” Asserting that “few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks,” Bell—right around the time Obama was praising him at the Harvard rally—believed that “racial discrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.’” Bell complained, in fact, that most white employers were loath to hire African Americans for “any position above the most menial.” Nor did the professor look kindly upon his black colleagues who failed to share his enthusiasm for affirmative action. Bell was among the first critics to condemn the June 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating: “To place a person who looks black and who, in conservative terms, thinks white, is an insult.”
Ideological conformity among blacks was of the utmost importance to Bell, since wherever he looked, he saw white racism. On the premise that “black people will never gain full equality in this country” due to the unending evils of the white “oppressor class,” Bell advised African Americans to squarely confront “the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.” Bell reflected this gloomy view of black destiny in his 1992 book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism.
Bell’s reckoned, “the racism that made slavery feasible” was “far from dead.” He added: “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.” Bell also railed against the racism that motivated acts of white-on-black crime, lamenting that “even our lives … are threatened because of our color.” That claim did not square with the fact that more than 90 percent of African American murder victims nationwide are actually killed by fellow blacks, but it made for a nice sound bite. Now Bell did not entirely turn a blind eye to the epidemic of black-on-black crime. That phenomenon, he explained, was itself a reaction to white oppression: “Victimized themselves by an uncaring society, some blacks vent their rage on victims like themselves.” In other words, whenever something bad happens, it is always the fault of whites.
As Bell saw things, there are no bounds to white malevolence. He mused that if scientists were to someday develop a magical pill that could transform any black person who consumed it into a perfectly law-abiding individual, whites would undoubtedly conspire to destroy it so as to prevent such an effect. Because black crime benefits many whites such as those who profit from the manufacture of prison uniforms. Bell predicted that eventually America would witness the rise of charismatic new black leaders who, in the interests of retribution, would “urge that instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.” Presumably this was some of the lofty “scholarship” that so impressed Barack Obama.
Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose stated aim is “to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Moreover, the publication’s guiding principle is: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” In 1999 Bell signed on to a Race Traitor article that stated: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category—in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.” So this was Derrick Bell, the man whom Barack Obama feted on that 1991 day at Harvard, just four years before Obama was to launch his own political career in the home of two America-hating Marxists in Chicago—Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn.
Particularly high on Bell’s priority list was his wish to pressure the Law School into hiring a black woman named Regina Austin for a tenured professorship. Even though 45 percent of Harvard Law’s faculty appointments during the preceding decade had gone to minorities and women, none was both black and female—hence Professor Bell’s objection. When Harvard’s dean stated that no attempt to increase “diversity” should override the University’s commitment to academic excellence, the protesters called his position “highly insulting to blacks” and symbolic of “the elitism of Harvard.” It is reasonable to assume that Barack Obama, who helped galvanize campus support for Derrick Bell’s crusade on behalf of black women, shared these views. Austin was a fellow adherent of Critical Race Theory who had been serving as a visiting professor at Harvard Law. Even though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence on campus, Bell issued a “non-negotiable demand” that Austin be given a faculty position.
When the Law School refused to make an exception to its policy, Bell took a leave of absence from his teaching post and even staged a hunger strike in protest. Austin, has long held that minority communities are not obliged to accept “traditional values” or “conformity to the law” as defined by the dominant power structure of a racist society. Such communities require an “alternative source of legal authority.” Professor Austin exhorted the black community to reject the distinction between lawful and unlawful activity as the imposed strictures of an oppressive white society. Austin scorned such “traditional values” as “conformity to the law,” which she insists will “intensify divisions within the black community.” Austin has also called on blacks to engage in outright lawbreaking, which she calls “hustling,” but which in fact amounts to any number of acts of thievery licensed by Austin’s demands for social justice. Thus, “clerks in stores who cut their friends a break on merchandise, and pilfering employees who spread their contraband around the neighborhood,” are encouraged by Austin to occupy the “good middle ground between straightness and more extreme forms of lawbreaking.”
Asked in a 1999 interview to describe how she views her role as a legal scholar, Austin answered that it “should start with the premise that black people are at the center of the universe and go on from there.” Austin explained that this view was the “common characteristic of the body of scholarship that is classified as critical race studies,” which she has long promulgated in her academic writings. In her seminar, “Environmental Racism,” a course that connects Austin’s views on race with her commitment to environmental activism. She described that theory as exploring the problems and principles that fuel the environmental justice movement.”
In acknowledgment of the professional sacrifices Professor Bell made on behalf of this same Regina Austin, Barack Obama reverently referred to Bell as “the Rosa Parks of legal education.”
Bill also wrote a short story essay in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, obtain exotic forms of energy technology and that Jews would go along with it. The essay was filmed as a half hour HBO science fiction episode Space Traders, in 1994 as part of a “bizarre, thought-provoking” blaxploitation trilogy, Cosmic Slop. Bell received a writing credit for the short film.
Hmm. Could Bell have participated in writing “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?
What acting! What a script! What special effects!
It’s like Spike Lee and L. Ron Hubbard collaborated on this thing. I’d just like to say that I’d offer to trade our illegal alien President, Eric Holder, and Soledad O’Brien to extra terrestrial Space Traders for a 24 Pack of Sam Adams and hope they don’t notice they are being gypped.
This movie should make you realize that projection is at the very core of liberals and Cultural Marxists. Liberals are depraved, they know they are depraved, and therefore human nature must be depraved as well.
In 1994, Barack Obama taught a course at the University of Chicago Law School entitled, “Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” The reading list and syllabus for that class were made availableby the New York Times in 2008, although with little analysis of its content. Obama routinely assigned works by Bell as required reading, including Bell’s racialist interpretations of seminal civil rights laws and cases. No other scholar’s work appears as often in the syllabus as Bell’s does.
Obama relied particularly heavily upon Bell’s major work, Race Racism and American Law (1973). The book lays out Bell’s Critical Race Theory, which is based on the Alinskyite presumption that all of law is a construct–not of justice, but of power exercised by whites against blacks.
Obama’s also decided to include and to require the introduction to Bell’s controversial 1992 book, Faces At the Bottom of the Well: The Permanance of Racism, which relied on “allegories” or “fables” meant to portray the allegedly structural racism of American society.
More interesting tidbits for your listening pleasure, as the articles editor for the Harvard Law Review in 1985 Elena Kagan, yes Obama’s SCOTUS justice pick helped shepherd into print a story by a radical law professor and architect of Critical Race Studies named Derrick Bell,
A legal scholar Arthur Austin, ranked Bell’s fable one of the top 10 politically correct law review articles of all time.
Bell’s fiction was a way to circumvent law review standards. He made outlandish statements through a fictional alter-ego, modeled after a six foot three black woman in Portland, Oregon that would have been impossible to sustain with the logic and evidence required in a non-fiction piece. “What the hell was that doing in a law review article?” asked Professor Austin. “Bell would publish these things in legal journals that had nothing to do with the law.”
Kagan was his enabler. She helped get something published that turned on all kinds of noxious sentiments about society and a relativistic view of the law.
“Several editors worked with me on the piece but Elena Kagan was the articles supervising editor,” Bell told JewishWorldReview.com. “There was real dedication and support by Elena.”
Kagan’s participation in an article that replaced facts and logic with subjective narrative does not bode well for her tenure on the Court. Considering that as articles editor of the Harvard Law Review she willingly discarded standards there is good reason to think that she might do this on the Supreme Court.
This sheds new light on the reasoning behind how Obama may select his jurists. Obama on picking Judges:
..”We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Unfortunately I think Bell’s Critical Race Theory is being applied by Obama through the DOJ and life time Supreme Court Appointments.
This a radical change as to how our law has been traditionally considered to be applied, equality under the law to all those similarly situated under the law.
This video was sliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.”
Well, It has been found. It is damaging, because Barack Obama was as close or closer to Derrick Bell than he ever was to Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn’t merely sit in the pews – or not — for Derrick Bell. He didn’t just hang out with Derrick Bell for prayers.
This is a pretty big deal. Zero hugging Derrick Bell is equivalent to Gingrich or Santorum hugging David Duke or Rev. Phelps of the Westboro Nutcase Church. That’s why Ogletree et al. wanted to hide it during the 2008 campaign. This is just the beginning of the New Media’s vetting of Barack Obama.
Obamunists will dismiss these and all other references to Obama’s alliances as nothing more than mean-spirited attempts to smear a great man by way of innuendo and “guilt-by-association.” But people with a capacity to reason will reject that. If people want to vote for a socialist who has spent his entire adult life allying himself with America-hating radicals and Marxists, than they have every right to vote for such a candidate. But when doing so, it is vital that they at least be aware of the fact that that is the sort of person that they are voting for.
So in conclusion just let me say Barack Hussein Obama, Yeah that’s him with Derrick Bell. Umm Ummm Ummm!!!!!