Obama called this rabid black racist a great man

Rate this post

Yesterday, Breitbart.com released a tape from Obama’s college days which Andrew Breitbart before his sudden death on March 1 had promised would do the job of vetting neglected by the media in 2008. In this video, Obama extolled Derrick Bell, then a prof at Harvard Law School, as a great man.

In my post on the video, I had provided a description of Bell from Wikipedia. Now, we have a better description, penned by John Perazzo for FrontPageMag.com, March 9, 2012. Here are excerpts:

“[…] by the time Barack Obama was delivering his glowing remarks about Derrick Bell in 1991, the professor had already established—and would continue to cultivate for another two decades—a reputation as someone who thoroughly, resolutely detested the United States and who viewed the nation’s institutions and its people as irremediably racist. In short, until his death last October at the age of 80, Bell was secular academia’s version of Jeremiah Wright—a raging, fulminating racist without the clergyman’s robe. And something about his philosophy resonated strongly with Barack Obama.

Derrick Bell is best known as the founding father of Critical Race Theory, an academic discipline which 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, according to Critical Race Theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact 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 at all, are nothing short of monumental.

Further, 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.” […]

Ideological conformity among blacks was of the utmost importance to Bell, since wherever he looked, he saw white racism. […]  By Bell’s reckoning, “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. And in fact, 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, white malevolence knew no bounds. In one of his writings, 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. Why? Because black crime, he explained, benefits many whites such as those who profit from the manufacture of prison uniforms. Wholly disgusted by the white race, 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.” Among Bell’s fellow signatories were Pete Seeger, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

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 Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

[…] a 33-year-old Obama routinely assigned works authored by Bell—including the latter’s racialist interpretations of seminal civil-rights cases—as required readings in the courses he taught at the University of Chicago Law School in 1994. To be sure, Bell’s work appeared on Obama’s syllabus more frequently than that of any other author—a clear indication of Obama’s high regard for Bell’s scholarship.

Still more recent was Obama’s alliance with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn—an alliance that shifted into high gear when Obama was 34 and remained in high gear (via his collaboration with Ayers on the radical Chicago Annenberg Challenge) until Obama was at least 38. And of course Obama’s attendance at (and his monetary contributions to) Jeremiah Wright‘s famously racist church from approximately age 27 until he was 47, says something noteworthy about his mindset during those years as well.

Pro-Obama automatons 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.” By contrast, people with a capacity to reason can surely understand that there is something far more profound at play here. In the final analysis, people should be free to throw their support behind a socialist who has spent his entire adult life allying himself with America-hating radicals and Marxists, if that is whom they choose to embrace. But when doing so, it is vital that they at least be cognizant of the fact that they are indeed backing such an individual.”

Now we know why Obama’s Department of Justice refused to prosecute the racist New Black Panthers for their intimidation of white voters in the 2008 elections. As Obama’s henchman Attorney General Eric Holder put it, that’s because the New Black Panthers (NBP) “are my people.”
And who are the NBP whom Holder calls his people? Here’s NBP leader “King” Samir Shabazz captured on video saying he hates all white people, “every single one of them,” and calling for the killing of all white babies.

In other words, the New Black Panthers are exactly what Derrick Bell had advocated: “instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.
Now we know why Obama had marched with the New Black Panthers in 2007.

Obama marching with NBP, Selma, Alabama, 2007.


~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Obama called this rabid black racist a great man

  1. “Obama praised a rabid black racist”
    How do you know? Done a saliva test?

     
    • Gosh, Walter Oren Hecht of St. George, Utah (Facebook page here):
      +
      walthe310 Walter Oren Hecht
      I can’t help you if you have a woefully inadequate command of the English language.

      rab·id
      adj.
      1. Of or affected by rabies.
      2. Raging; uncontrollable.
      3. Extremely zealous or enthusiastic; fanatical.

      BTW, don’t you think it’s just a tad unseemly that a 70-71 year old man such as you is a fan of Lady Gaga?

       
      • Dr E did you notice his taste in TV programs? He watches a lot of stupid animated shows and gets his news from Stewart, Colbert and Olbermann, what a high-brow intellect…
        Contact: bell-book-candle.com, would that be Wiccan Walt?

         
        • Kheta,
          Gone are the innocent but very clever animations of old — of Looney Tunes. 71-year-old Walter Hecht likes “Family Guy” — a vile, vulgar, obscene animated TV show. As for “bell book candle,” wiccan is just another word for witchcraft.

           
      • lowtechgrannie

        He’s probably a booster of Allegheny College; hence the crush on Lady Gaga.

         
  2. more trash the radical jihadist hangs out with-the enemy is in the gate.

     
  3. I’ve read a few articles about it not mattering that BO is vetted this time, since Americans already think he is a moderate. How dumb is that?
    I had known about the Black Panther connection from Christian Adams and Breitbart, but I had no idea about this hater. What must it do to someone to be constantly fed a diet of racial hatred and be half white to boot…

     
  4. end affirmative action (racial discrimmination) now obama must go….

     
  5. Dr. Eowyn, thank you so much for this thorough and precise list of facts showing the racism of Obama. You are who you “hang out with,” who your friends and colleagues are; indeed and in fact, Obama has defined his destructive racist policies and his desire to destroy this country. Thank you also, for exposing “wathe”. He has no idea who he is dealing with-what an idiotic thing to say! God bless you Dr. Eowyn for your brilliance, hard work, passion and love of truth!

     
  6. Sounds like Stickin’ to The Man 101…

     
  7. Winston Smith

    I have some severe misgivings regarding the coming December, 2012! The Maya calendar, Nostradamus, Revelations, et al have NOTHING to do with my unease. What has me concerned is the fact that December follows November and our next Presidential election!
    Without looking too closely there are two very ‘unfriendly’ scenarios that are not beyond possibility:
    1. Obama wins reelection
    He could (and probably would) consider he had a “mandate” (however that “victory” was achieved) that his policies were what the American people want and start cranking out Executive Orders himself and his underlings like Holder would commence rewriting, reinterpreting current laws and issue more and more oppressive edicts via the alphabet soup of Federal agencies. Any resistance to these edicts would be dealt with sternly – possibly as far as Martial Law!
    2. Obama looses
    He is STILL a nominal (lame duck) President until January 20th and he and his sycophants could, still, issue reams of Orders, regulations and such to continue to destroy America. AND his good buddies: Union goons, radical Muslims, La Raza, Black Panthers and all could begin a wave of terror in “protest to the stolen election” and, as President, he could, again, declare Martial Law and still have HIS way!

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *