Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Obama and Derrick Bell; Is this a big deal?
Topic Started: Mar 9 2012, 11:40 AM (1,202 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
mike in houston
Mar 9 2012, 11:24 PM
From KC Johnson's

The Troubling Video of Obama at Harvard Law

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/03/the_troubling_video_of_obama_at_harvard_law.html#more

Quote:
 
And what exactly was the scholarship that earned Obama's gushing praise? Bell was a pioneer of critical race theory, the idea that the American legal system is so embedded with racism that a neutral application of the law is impossible. Here's how Judge Richard Posner described the concept: "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."

Bell's having advanced that line of argument--which has gained almost no support in the federal judiciary--is what Obama compared to the work of Rosa Parks in advancing civil rights.
.
Kinda wacky, definitely scary.


.
Edited by Mason, Mar 9 2012, 11:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Mason
Mar 9 2012, 11:39 PM
.
This is important, Bell said his Goal in life was to harass white people.

Now, what would you think of someone that's stated goal in life was to Harass Black people? Or Harass Gay People?

None of us would have anything to do with anyone like that - but Barack cozied on up to him and Jeremiah Wright, and Ayers, and Michelle Obama.

There was a black guest on Hannity and he said what you see is the creep of acceptable black racism.


.
To make the point on what mindset Barry said he follows, if you and I are agreeing herethey needed to illustrate HOW that is obvious ...just where he has taken the DOJ is full of examples.

Barry had a pass to do it, for NOBODY would touch race issues early on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

(a sort of stream-of-consciousness post, forgive me, I'm on the way out the door, don't want to lose the notes, and so will leave for discussion amongst yourselves . . . )

Quote:
 
Bell's having advanced that line of argument--which has gained almost no support in the federal judiciary


This phrase got me looking for NC's "Racial Justice Act", and this

editorial popped up

Quote:
 
The RJA makes us the only state to require the courts to accept statistical racial percentages to decide who gets the death penalty rather than a life sentence. This directly violates constitutional law laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1987 case McCleskey v. Kemp. The RJA was enacted in 2009 without any Republican votes because it belies its cynical title, “The Racial Justice Act.”



The effect of Derrick Bell's theory?


.. . and Prof Ogletree who claims he was "joking" on his comment about hiding the video clip. . .

Ogletree represented Gates, wrote a book

Quote:
 
CHARLES OGLETREE: Well, what both of you know is that I’ve known President Obama since he was at Harvard Law School in 1988. I’ve know his wife, Michelle Obama, longer, since she was at Harvard Law School in 1985. And I cherish both of them and all the students I’ve had the chance to mentor.



Quote:
 
And I hope people will not only get the book, but look at the photograph of the beer summit. It looks great, right? You see two black guys, two white guys, Biden and Obama and Gates and Crowley, sitting there, having a beer. It looks like a great photograph, right? Look at it very carefully, because the one thing you notice is that Joe Biden’s beer mug is full. Why? Joe doesn’t drink. He doesn’t even drink non-alcoholic beer. So he’s having a great time. The President brought him into the discussion for the photo op, and then said, “Joe, get out of here.” Why? Because what might have Joe Biden said when the three — oh, I don’t even want to give you some ideas of the next crisis in America if Joe Biden had been free to talk. “Hey, Crowley” — I won’t repeat what he might have said. But the President handled that well and took it off of the agenda, and then got back to the business of the stimulus bill, healthcare and jobs and other issues for our country, which I think are very important

Not getting into what Biden "might have said", but he was ejected from the discussion because he was white? or because he frequently mis-speaks?

on racial profiling/traffic stops:
Quote:
 
CHARLES OGLETREE: Thurgood Marshall and John Hope Franklin. Thurgood Marshall, civil rights lawyer in 1930, going down South, winning cases, but still being profiled as someone who shouldn’t be where he was. Derrick Bell, my former Harvard professor, also taught my daughter Rashida at NYU Law School, the challenges he had.


And this is sound advice no matter what color you are:
Quote:
 
CHARLES OGLETREE: It’s very interesting. And the question is whether or not — here’s the clear thing. Professor Gates did not break the law in this house by saying this. He said, “Do you know who I am? Why are you doing this? I want your name, and I want your badge. I want to file a complaint.” He said all the things. What I teach my students to do, in twenty-five years, never, ever, ever, ever, ever tell a police officer, “I’m going to file a complaint. Give me your name and badge number.” I say, “Amy, look at their chests, and you’ll see their name on one side, you’ll see their badge number on the other side. Remember it, and file it later." Never do that. Never reach down to pick up something in a car. Put your hands on the steering wheel. “But we’re lawyers!” I say, “That’s exactly right. You’re lawyers, but you’re going to be presumed guilty until you do something concrete.” And that’s why these reports, I think, miss the point, because Gates was not drinking, he was not on drugs. He’s fifty-eight years old, 150 pounds, permanently disabled with his right leg, with hip surgery, and one leg shorter than the other. And here he is with Crowley, you know, “Do you know who I am?” Looking up, "Do you know who I am?" Right? Little Gates, he’s no threat. He’s angry because he’s been mistreated.

Years and years ago when I was in school, an acquaintance was killed by a trooper who thought the 18 year old WHITE male was reaching for a gun during a traffic stop. Put Both Your Hands On The Steering Wheel and Keep Them There.

ttyl
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Rant On!

We knew exactly who Obama was in 2008. At least those who cared to open up their eyes. I am sorry for being so blunt, however Obama's involvement with Chicago's Trinity Church was revealed. The Rev Wright's racist views were clear for everyone to hear.

Who in the right minds couldn't have been outraged at Wright's sermon after 911, "the chickens have come home to roust." Obama got a big pass on that, really? Any sane person would have left that Church, as Oprah to her credit did. Obama sat there for 20 years!

We showed how the Trinity Day School was run on exorbitant govt grants. It was clear to me they were just racial hucksters and there sitting in the pew listening to his mentor, his pastor to whom he dedicated the title of his "auto" biography was Obama. the man who voted present most of the time in the Illinois & later US Senate. That he admired Bell is revealing.

The proof is in Obama's record. He is nothing more than another Politician who put hand in the pot & fed his mega wealthy donors. Worse he is a fool who has led this country down a rat-hole of debt, banked on a "Green" future which isn't happening, and degraded the USA power on the world stage.

Jimmy Carter was a horrible President, but Obama takes the cake & Michelle eats it. How many vacations and lavish lifestyles do we have to pay for her? Planting a "garden" while she wears her $1000 shoes. Never-mind it is tended by our US Park employees. What sacrifice! She is nothing but a big phoney, as is he.

The reality comes down to this? Are you better today because Obama was elected in Nov 2008? I know I am not and many of the people I know are not either. Let's take a look at the people who really had "Hope & Change" with dreams of Obama being a new kind of politician, the Blacks of America. They are suffering from his economy, his gas prices, his policies, and they will suffer them for a while, a far too long "while."
Edited by Baldo, Mar 10 2012, 02:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
CNN had a long, long segment on Derrick Bell.

They made him out to be an Angel - glowing, glowing and more glowing. The only thing pull-back on the Sainthood was that he underestimated the amount of community organizing that would need to be done to bring about the change.

The quote was that he thought his place in Heaven was reserved, but he underestimated the amount of Organizing that was needed to effect change.

This is a guy that stated his goal in life was to Harass White People!





.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
60slib

If it's not a big deal why do they keep lying about it?

"This morning, CNN host Soledad O'Brien .... decided to have on her program Emory University Professor of Law Dorothy Brown to shill for Critical Race Theory (CRT). Here's what Brown had to say:

Critical Race Theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question what does race have to do with it .. it looks at race in America .. It's nothing about white supremacy. When I hear "white supremacy" I think of the Ku Klux Klan. Critical Race Theory is the opposite of that. So honestly, I have no idea what he was talking about.

Hilariously, Soledad then refers to the Wikipedia entry on CRT - the same entry she likely referred to during the original interview -- and stated that the definition has been changed 82 times. She says she hasn't changed the Wikipedia entry; then she asks if Brown is surprised that there's been parsing.

Brown admits that there are varying interpretations of CRT, but says that everyone agrees it's not about white supremacy.

But wait a second - as TheRightSphere points out, Brown wrote this herself:

Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.


In other words, the precise opposite of what Brown said on CNN. So CNN was trying to mislead its viewers to protect Obama?! Say it ain't so, Soledad!"

....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/12/soledad-stop-tweeting

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
60slib
Mar 12 2012, 01:20 PM
If it's not a big deal why do they keep lying about it?

"This morning, CNN host Soledad O'Brien .... decided to have on her program Emory University Professor of Law Dorothy Brown to shill for Critical Race Theory (CRT). Here's what Brown had to say:

Critical Race Theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question what does race have to do with it .. it looks at race in America .. It's nothing about white supremacy. When I hear "white supremacy" I think of the Ku Klux Klan. Critical Race Theory is the opposite of that. So honestly, I have no idea what he was talking about.

Hilariously, Soledad then refers to the Wikipedia entry on CRT - the same entry she likely referred to during the original interview -- and stated that the definition has been changed 82 times. She says she hasn't changed the Wikipedia entry; then she asks if Brown is surprised that there's been parsing.

Brown admits that there are varying interpretations of CRT, but says that everyone agrees it's not about white supremacy.

But wait a second - as TheRightSphere points out, Brown wrote this herself:

Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.


In other words, the precise opposite of what Brown said on CNN. So CNN was trying to mislead its viewers to protect Obama?! Say it ain't so, Soledad!"

....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/12/soledad-stop-tweeting

.
Good Point.

That is what drives me crazy about the Democrats - they hide their real positions. I don't like scamsters and I don't like Snake-Oil salesman and all the disengenuousness turns me off.

They claim they this and secretly hold this position - and it comes out regularly at critical junctures.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
60slib
Mar 12 2012, 01:20 PM
If it's not a big deal why do they keep lying about it?



.
Speaking of Black Radicals, Michelle Obama's staff has announced she's appearing on David Letterman.

Wow, what guts.



.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/15/racial_quota_fallout_113479.html

Great column from Sowell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Sowell never disappoints.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bell-epoque/31897

I think I stand corrected. It may just BE a big deal...if time is taken to explain WHY to voters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Mar 16 2012, 05:04 PM
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bell-epoque/31897

I think I stand corrected. It may just BE a big deal...if time is taken to explain WHY to voters.
Yep it is important. It should have been debated during the 2008 but the MSM hide it.

The point is does Obama believe in Critical Race Theory? I believe his life says so & the way Holder's DOJ is run backs it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
It's not mentioned, but O'brien was a fan of Bell. She failed to mention that during that show.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

LTC8K6
Mar 16 2012, 06:43 PM
It's not mentioned, but O'brien was a fan of Bell. She failed to mention that during that show.
What's the matter with Soledad O'Brien?

By Michelle Malkin March 14, 2012

....O'Brien lost her cool when Pollak shed light on Bell's fringe legal theories. Acting more like an Obama campaign surrogate than a disinterested host, she angrily jumped on Pollak's mention of CRT. "That is a complete misreading of critical race theory," she shrieked. "That's an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that's not correct!"

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O'Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University's Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: "See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people."

Not so fast, sister.

Turns out that O'Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O'Brien tweeted that it was a "rough day" for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had "just started re-reading" one of his books and mourned again: "RIP Prof. Bell." O'Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That's the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he "hid" the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O'Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

O'Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to "highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color."Oops...snipped

....Nope, liberal minority journalists simply can’t resist carrying water for Obama. That’s because their journalistic unity demands political unanimity. If you don’t accept the left-leaning agenda of “social change” journalism, you’re enabling racism. If you don’t support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic and academic goal, you’re selling out.

Now you know the reason for O’Brien’s thin-skinned reaction to Obama’s critics. When you vet the president, you vet the media. And they don’t like the narrative table-turning one bit.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/14/whats-the-matter-with-soledad-obrien/
Edited by Baldo, Mar 16 2012, 07:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/11/What%20Is%20Critical%20Race%20Theory

CRITICAL RACE THEORY EXPLAINED

(snip)

So, what does CRT believe? In their primer, Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado (one of the movement’s founders) and Jean Stefancic set out some basic principles:

1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;

2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”


When taken together, these principles have serious ramifications. First, they suggest that legal rules that stand for equal treatment under law – i.e. the 14th Amendment – can remedy “only the most blatant forms of discrimination.” The system is too corrupted, too based on the notion of white supremacy, for equal protection of the laws to ever be a reality. The system must be made unequal in order to compensate for the innate racism of the white majority.

Second, these principles suggest that even measures taken to alleviate unequal protection under the law – for example, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education – were actually taken for nefarious purposes, to serve white interests. This is exactly what Derrick Bell believed: he said that Brown had only been decided in order to prevent the Soviet Union from using American racial inequality as a public relations baton to wield against the white-majority United States.

There is some internal conflict within CRT, though. For example, some CRT writers seem to take the Martin Luther King, Jr. line that race is arbitrary, a social construct; the majority, however, suggest that minorities have a special status in society, and something unique to bring to the table. As Delgado and Stefancic write, “Minority status, in other words, brings with a presumed competence to speak about race and racism.”

So here’s what we’re left with, in simple terms. Racism cannot be ended within the current system; the current system is actually both a byproduct of and a continuing excuse for racism. Minority opinions on the system are more relevant than white opinions, since whites have long enjoyed control of the system, and have an interest in maintaining it.

This is a deeply disturbing theory. It is damaging both to race relations and to the legal and Constitutional order. As Jeffrey Pyle rightly sums up in the Boston College Law Review:

Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis in principles, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled government, and they have lost patience with false promises.

(snip)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply