By now, the literate world is well aware of CNN’s news anchor, Soledad O’Brien’s public humiliation during her interview with Breitbart’s Pollak. If there was ever a doubt in the mind of anyone but the most dedicated Socialist sycophants of the Main Stream Media being less than an unofficial propaganda bureau for the president, this should have been the deciding factor.
CNN is now in full damage control mode, by trying to cast Derrick Bell, one of America’s foremost racists and former mentor to our president as a great crusader for civil rights in the spirit of Martin Luther King; unfortunately, the truth and facts are ugly and one of our president’s early friends and mentors is a vicious and vile racist who used his dubious academic credentials and a prolific effort of obfuscation to disguise stark racism as an analytical theory on race. In an effort to “Save Face” in the oriental tradition, a writer from CNN, with considerably more ability than O’Brien, has written a 1500 word essay to vindicate O’Brien and to help lessen the public’s impression of CNN and O’Brien being in the tank or should we say cess pool with Obama and willing to do or say anything to promote the Obama agenda. However, it is this essay and its revisionist stance on recent history, that provides the proof of CNN’s complicity with the Obama agenda.
Soledad committed her first error by not admitting that she was a fan of Bell or perhaps her first mistake was not admitting to CNN that although she had read Bell’s books, her comprehension was marginal.
There is nothing wrong with being a sycophantic fan of a writer, but the problem becomes apparent when the fan is passed off as an objective analyst; unfortunately, for Soledad, she was humiliated and became a laughingstock, along with her employer, the Obama Propaganda Bureau, CNN.
CNN has now decided to do battle with the forces that have no reservations against calling the racist Derrick Bell, a racist, by rewriting or blunting the message of the racist mentor of President Obama and trying once again to repackage the vile message of racism under a pretense of scholarly circumlocution.
The story of our president and the endemic racism of his associates is ongoing with many surprises.
In November of 1985, the Harvard Law Review published a seminal article of Critical Race Theory, written by Derrick Bell, and edited by a student, Elena Kagan. The same article was cited by Professor Charles Ogletree and by President Obama as support for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The article defines the Constitution as a form of “original sin”. A similar view has been expressed by President Obama in referring to the flaws of the Constitution. Most of the article is fiction and meant as a parable. Unfortunately, the parables of a racist are now becoming institutionalized within our legal system.
From Joel Pollak, Editor in Chief Breitbart.com
“It carries over into his governance because his Justice Department won’t treat black civil rights violators the same way it treats white civil rights violators, there’s a racial pattern in which justice is enforced and it gives us a sense of how Barack Obama thinks about these issues.”
From the pen of Bell as edited by Kagan and used as grounds for her nomination to the Supreme Court:
At the nation’s beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery….
The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy — that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks’ failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.
The myths that today and throughout history have nurtured the original constitutional contradiction and thus guided racial policy are manifold, operating like dreams below the level of language and conscious thought. Much of what is called the law of civil rights — an inexact euphemism for racial law — has a mythological or fairy-tale quality that is based, like the early fairy tales, less on visions of gaiety and light than on an ever-present threat of disaster. We are as likely to deny as to concede these myths, and we may well deny some and admit others. They are not single stories or strands. Rather, they operate in a rich texture that constantly changes, concealing content while elaborating their misleading meanings.
This is supposedly the nonfiction part that precedes the fictional writing that is expressed in parables. Although, Bell’s writing is non-sensical, the main precept is that the framers of the Constitution were White and since they were White, it was impossible for them not to write racism into the Constitution. Racism that gives preferential treatment to Whites and assures Blacks of failure.
Actually, is a call for a form of Marxism or Communism that is being played carefully by the left. Essentially the technique appeals to Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and the poor who feel alienated. Critical Race Theory is the vehicle designed to catch the imagination of the disadvantaged, the poor, and society’s alienated and promise them Redistribution of Wealth: of course, the ultra wealthy Liberals and students see themselves as the caretakers of the masses and therefore able to function as Elites within this Utopian Society promised by the Marxists.
Within this theory of Bell, that is lauded by Obama, it is impossible for Whites to atone for their sins of the past. Their sins are a part of their DNA and represent a malignancy within our Constitution and until the system is destroyed and White Culture is eradicated, the cancer will always be there; hence, the premise of Marx is just tweaked a bit to produce this theory of Critical Race Hatred our president holds in such high regard.
When recognized, these myths often take the form of the missing link between the desire for some goal of racial justice and its realization. Black civil rights lawyers propound the myth that this case or that court may provide the long-sought solution to racial division. They fantasize and strategize about hazy future events that may bring us a long-envisioned racial equality. White people cling to the belief that racial justice may be realized without any loss of their privileged position. Even at this late date, some find new comfort in the old saw that “these things” — meaning an end to racial discrimination — “take time.” The psychological motivations behind the myths perpetrated by people of both races can be sufficiently complex to engender book-length explanations by psychiatrists. Racial stereotypes are also part of this suffocating web of myth that forms the rationale of inaction, but it is not necessary to catalogue here the myriad stereotypes about black people that have served since the days of slavery to ease the consciences of the thoughtful and buoy the egos of the ignorant.
The contemporary myths that confuse and inhibit current efforts to achieve racial justice have informed all of our racial history. Myth alone, not history, supports the statements of those who claim that the slavery contradiction was finally resolved by a bloody civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to serve the interests of the Union, not the blacks, a fact that Lincoln himself admitted. The Civil War amendments, while more vague in language and ambiguous in intent, actually furthered the goals of northern industry and politics far better and longer than they served to protect even the most basic rights of the freedmen. The meager promises of physical protection contained in the civil rights statutes adopted in the post-Civil War period were never effectively honored. Hardly a decade later, the political compromise settling the disputed Hayes-Tilden election once again left the freedmen to the reality of life with their former masters. Finally, the much-discussed “40 acres and a mule,” hardly extravagant reparations for an enslaved people who literally built the nation, never got beyond the discussion stage.
It is time to “Out” the Marxist influence within the Democrat Party, for these people are no longer hiding their core beliefs. If you refuse to accept the obvious, you are a part of the disease.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Richard Delgado (A founder of CRT) and Jean Stefanic wrote a primer on Critical Race Theory and stressed these two basic principles:
1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;
2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”
In their context, these two principles mean that the 14th Amendment with its equal treatment under the law, is unjust because it doesn’t deal with the concept of White Supremacy; therefore to compensate for the corrupt system the system must be made unequal. Hence Obama and Holder’s reasons for not prosecuting the Black Panthers in a case that was already won becomes apparent.
The CRT loyalists also maintain that Brown versus Board of Education was a ploy to keep the Soviet Union from using the White supremacy as a propaganda weapon against the United States. Again the loyalists show their support for the Marxist Party Line.
Although, the Critical Race Theory attacks classical Liberal theory, the Left is willing to overlook the contradictions and the inherent damage it causes to race relations, the laws of the land, and the Constitution, because it uses Marxism in an effective manner to play to the groups they want to represent.
Jeffrey Pyle writes of the dangers 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.
The Obama Administration is Critical Race Theory, and it is not just the junction of law, race, and politics as Ms O’Brien has so inelegantly tried to explain. Reverse Racism is not a cure for racism; especially, racism that exists in the imagination of race pimps who have nothing without racism.
Thanks to the Obama Administration, racism has taken root deep within our federal government and our courts; it will take decades to scrub this ugly stain from our country if we begin today and if it is even possible with endemic racism so deeply entrenched within our Supreme Court.
Epilogue: Early in my tenure as an amateur blogger at FA, I received several emails from authors who unknowingly served as my unofficial mentors. They asked that I tone down my rhetoric and refrain from calling Obama a Marxist; at least until, the public was ready to accept the fact. Never again will I rein in my keyboard for the delicate sensitivities of our readers or other writers. The country is in deep manure and I refuse to drown in it gracefully. Fire me or railroad me out of here, but I will not go down the path of Marxism quietly and without a fight. I will pull no more punches, not for Obama’s brown hide or anyone else’s.
The man in the photo up above is laughing his ass off at us and he should be, for the Communists could never mount a serious threat against our country, except through White guilt over past racism. Obama has the ball and he is a damned good runner and liar, but he might just get sacked in a few months.