Obama Hero Derrick Bell Praised Man Who Called for White Genocide
Derrick Bell, whom President Obama lionized and embraced in a speech in law school, praised a man who had called for white genocide in South Africa. Bell argued that society should be grateful that the violence had merely been threatened and not carried out.
John Podhoretz in Commentary noted that Bell had given an October 1994 interview in which Bell praised a man named Khalid Muhammad:
The very same interview began as follows: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.”
Here is Khalid Muhammad, whom Derrick Bell wanted us to “appreciate” while he was alive. In the following speech, which is one of the most hateful speeches you will ever see, Muhammad advocates killing every white man, woman, and child in South Africa . . . to the cheers of the crowd:
The relevant part is at 1:33:52. It’s a short clip, just three minutes long, and it’s worth your time. Here is a partial transcript:
We kill the women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the [imitates a crazy person]. We kill ’em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all.
Muhammad goes on to explain, in detail, why women and children should be killed. The children, because they will oppress blacks when they grow up. The women, because they bear those children, and thus constitute the “military of the army manufacturing center.”
We need to appreciate men like that while we’ve got them, eh, Professor Bell? Eh, President Obama?
It’s worth noting that this speech was made on November 29, 1993 — and received nationwide attention — while Bell’s praise of Muhammad came in October 1994. Meaning that when Bell said we needed to “appreciate” Muhammad, Muhammad had already given a famous speech advocating killing women and children in South Africa.
I should note that I have not seen the interview Podhoretz references. [UPDATE 3-17-12: I have now. Podhoretz sent it to me. Tommy Christopher claims I still haven’t, but he didn’t ask me, and is of course a liar. By the way, the better version of this post, which I am using now, can be found here.] Podhoretz explains that Bell’s praise for people like Muhammad was because they didn’t actually commit violence — they just talked about it. This would be like someone praising Hitler during his rise to power because he had not yet massacred any Jews. Bell should have criticized the rhetoric, but instead, he suggested that the rhetoric was mild and praiseworthy, because at least it had not yet translated into action.
There is no excuse for supporting a man like you see in the clip above. None.
And Bell’s praise for this hateful, ugly man was no accident or slip of the tongue. Breitbart.com is revealing that Derrick Bell opined that he is not sure blacks and whites will ever get along, and that Louis Farrakhan was a “great hero for the people” (although he didn’t agree with everything he said). And we have already examined how Bell was a proponent of a theory that maintained that whites in modern times have used principles of equal treatment under the law to oppress blacks, and that the system needed to be ripped up root and branch.
It is a legitimate question to ask Barack Obama, whose Justice Department refused to go after Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls, and who told a crowd at Harvard Law School to open their minds to the words of Derrick Bell, whether these are the sorts of ideas he wanted people to embrace.
Now gimme a hug!
UPDATE: I re-worked one of the paragraphs of the post in response to a commenter. Details here. I have also rewritten the opening of the post to provide clarity and context.
UPDATE x2: Muhammad gave this noxious speech more than once. I have replaced the original video with a video of the original speech made at Kean College in 1993.
I’m glad Obama decided to just kill our jobs instead
he is merciful
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:28 pmYou’re on fire today, happyfeet.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:29 pmthank you I have to go make my mom’s chicken spaghetti now – I’m a show a friend of mine how to make it cause it’s cheap and easy and tasty and he only has a temp job
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:34 pmalso it makes a ton and you can freeze it
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:35 pmIt is a legitimate question to ask Barack Obama, whose Justice Department refused to go after Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls, and who told a crowd at Harvard Law School to open their minds to the words of Derrick Bell, whether these are the sorts of ideas he wanted people to embrace.
Yes, indeed. From Day One of the Obama administration, the DOJ embarked on a highly selective program of what it would – and would not – prosecute, beginning with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes’s orders to “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”
Colonel Haiku (dbf60a) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:38 pmThread winner!!!
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:38 pmHas anyone else made this specific point? I barely read blogs these days and stumbled over the video by accident, so I don’t know for sure . . .
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:41 pmThis is unhelpful, as it may give the MFM a chance to portray this issue in terms of our racisms.
JD (318f81) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:42 pmI haven’t seen it elsewhere, Patterico, at least not as clearly as you presented it. I Googled it and found something at Free Republic with its link to this blog. The last one is interesting.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:47 pmPat — not that I’ve seen,. Reihljust pointed out your post — it’s good stuff.
Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:49 pmBell did not say Khalid Muhammad should be appreciated because he advocated violence against whites. No, he said that we should appreciate Khalid Muhammad because Muhammad didn’t actually do anything. Bell wrongly predicted that the black leaders who come next would be worse – ie that they would actually kill whites.
The implication of this thread that Bell approved of violence against whites is totally wrong.
We should be careful not to overplay this, and we should be very, very careful to only make charges that can stick and are more than guilt by association (in college). This really is thin pickings so far.
Besides the point that it distracts from the economic issues and thus plays into their hands more than social issues ever could.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:49 pmHmmm…Tom Maguire at Just One Minute (I think) has written about Obama being involved in the anti-apartheid movement while at Columbia/Harvard.
MayBee (081489) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:51 pmFrom Commentary
The controversy over the videotape of Harvard Law School student Barack Obama speaking in support of his professor Derrick Bell during Bell’s one-man 1990 uprising against the law school’s failure or refusal to hire a black woman as a professor has caused a predictable back-and-forth about what it might mean for Obama to have a favorable view of Bell. Michael Powell of the New York Times reflected conventional opinion in liberal media circles when he tweeted: “Derrick Bell, Radical? We’re to pretend our history cleansed? He fought 4 Civil Rights in Mississippi.”
JD (318f81) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:53 pmIt is incumbent on Powell and others, if they want to get in on the conversation about Bell, to explain what on earth is mainstream about comments he made in an eye-opening New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, that is not available online. Among other remarks, Bell denounced Henry Louis (Skip) Gates for writing a New York Times op-ed condemning black anti-Semitism:
I was furious. Even if everything he said was true, it was inexcusable not to mention what might have motivated blacks to feel this way, and to fail to talk about all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.
Bell went on to say, “Now, that wouldn’t excuse anti-Semitism, which is awful, but it would at least provide a context for this anger…”
It might seem nice of Bell to acknowledge the awfulness of anti-Semitism, but he didn’t mean it. The very same interview began as follows: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” Khalid Muhammad was Farrakhan’s right hand, who made a name for himself referring to Jews as, among many other things, “bloodsuckers” whose “father was the devil.” As for Farrakhan, if you need a refresher course in his vileness, look here.
Why exactly were we supposed to appreciate them? Quoth Bell: “While these guys talk a lot, they don’t do anything. The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”
Note how he seemed to relish this prospect even as he tut-tutted it. Note also how almost unimaginably wrong he was. For no marauding gangs of black teenagers went around killing white people after he spoke; in fact, the ongoing crime drop that followed his words had its most remarkable impact in black communities, where the number of murders fell, by some counts, as much as 80 percent over the decade that followed.
More and more I am convinced that the vast majority of our problems stem from the wretched stench of radicalism that emanates from our nation’s universities. In the name of “diversity” they have embraced every malcontent and petty race-huckster, who then has free reign to guilt-trip pliable white liberals and mush-minded teenage students into believing that their warmed-over Marxism (delivered in the pretentious and phony language of Deconstructionism) is actually something intellectually deep and meaningful.
It’s getting to the point where if someone said by way of introduction, “I’m on the faculty at Harvard,” I would be instantly suspicious of them rather than being impressed by or intrigued with them.
JVW (4d72aa) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:57 pmWright gave Farrakhan The Trumpeter award in 2007.
Here’s Obama yammering on and on when asked by Tim Russert about some of it.
MayBee (081489) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:02 pmBell did not say Khalid Muhammad should be appreciated because he advocated violence against whites. No, he said that we should appreciate Khalid Muhammad because Muhammad didn’t actually do anything. Bell wrongly predicted that the black leaders who come next would be worse – ie that they would actually kill whites.
But if they… ya know, just ignore all the killings that happen, wouldn’t that be the same?
They don’t need a leader who kills all the white people. They have a leader who won’t prosecute those who do.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:02 pmI appreciate the criticism, and I reworked the wording of one of the paragraphs to make your point and respond to it.
I think his praise does indeed indicate support for violence. By supporting violent rhetoric, and saying, in essence: you guys should be glad this is just rhetoric — Bell supports the rhetoric.
Did you watch the video? That was some real incitement.
I appreciate the concerns, but I think this is legitimate stuff.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:06 pmAmphipolis appears to have taken the Commentary question and subsequent quite as beingnpart if what he originally said. The idea that he was not praising Khalid Muhammed. You just created that Bell approved of violence against whites, ignoring all of the vile things he preached and explicitly advocated.
Note a common ruse amongst Ogletree and Bell, laughingly brush off an idea, then continue to support it.
JD (318f81) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:08 pmThe post originally contained the following paragraph:
After a commenter pointed out that Podhoretz says:
I then reworked the paragraph as follows:
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:11 pmUPDATE: I re-worked one of the paragraphs of the post in response to a commenter. Details here.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:12 pmI’ve made my point.
If you accuse someone of advocating racial violence I think you should back it up with explicit statements such as the one against Muhammad above. Bell was subtle. Attacking him could easily lead to a trap. And he is not Obama.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:45 pmI did not accuse Bell of advocating racial violence. I accused him of praising a man who did, because that man had at least not engaged in said violence. I believe that, rather than praising violent rhetoric for not being violent action, Bell should have denounced the violent rhetoric.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:48 pmThis article starts out of left field. No introduction. No definition of who Powell is.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 3:52 pmKahlid Muhammed, Farrakhan, Wright, Bell, Ayers. One would think that a post racial, middle of the road, nacent politician who hopes to do good, embraces hope and reveres a United States of America over a divided one would have run as far from these types of violent radicals and their hateful ideas as possible and would have used his gifts of oratory to rationally criticize them as often as possible. But he didn’t and as far as I am concerned that’s a big problem he has presented us with.
elissa (b47460) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:11 pm‘Here is Khalid Muhammad, whom Derrick Bell wanted us to “appreciate” while he was alive.’
I appreciate him a lot more, now that he’s staring up at six feet of dirt.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:14 pmkoam,
You’re right. It’s a function of this originally being the end of another post.
I rewrote the beginning for clarity and context and noted this in the update.
Patterico (f6a2ef) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:28 pmThanks.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:36 pmI don’t understand this:
Why didn’t he call for the death of all the Gypsies?
He struck out against an oppressive minority, against the infirm, the mentally challenged, and “faggots” and lesbians;
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:50 pmwhy did he give “gypsies” a pass?
Just because the nomadic peoples of Southern Africa are Black is no reason to overlook them – why, they might be Capitalists!
koam:
Clarified that too. It was kind of a misplaced modifier. I was getting my hair cut so cut me some slack.
Patterico (f6a2ef) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:58 pmDo you think Bell was disappointed that Muhammed didn’t mention those “who think white and look black,” since Bell didn’t want those people to work at Harvard?
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:58 pmslack cut
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 4:59 pm“One would think that a post racial, middle of the road, nacent politician who hopes to do good, embraces hope and reveres a United States of America over a divided one would have run as far from these types of violent radicals and their hateful ideas as possible…”
I would expect that from a person such as you describe.
But, what’s that have to do with Barack Obama???
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/10/2012 @ 5:03 pmthe idealism
Colonel haiku (28008a) — 3/10/2012 @ 5:20 pmof Hitler praiseworthy if
murder not involved?
UPDATE x2: Muhammad gave this noxious speech more than once. I have replaced the original video with a video of the original speech made at Kean College in 1993.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 5:24 pmGot Netflix? Dreaming too peacefully lately? Recent and recommended: “Worse than War” http://goldhagen.com/
This sort of rhetoric IS what leads to genocide, whenever there has been any.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/10/2012 @ 5:28 pmPatterico –
I did not accuse Bell of advocating racial violence
I was referring to your post 17:
I think his praise does indeed indicate support for violence
I don’t think this “appreciate” statement was praise, so I don’t think it indicates any support for violence at all, but reading your post again I see that support for violence is not the same thing as advocating violence. So I withdraw that point.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:05 pmI’m not sure what to make of this.
I don’t think Obama wants racially-based genocide of half his own genetic stock. And you’re talking about “a friend of a friend”, not even one of Obama’s friends. As much as I don’t like Obama, this isn’t moving the needle much for me.
Obama’s direct associations with terrorists/Pentagon bombers/Chicago-cop murderers, the Ayers’, and, to a lesser degree, his radical church attendance, bother me.
He had a loony racialist professor friend. Meh.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:17 pmI mean what black Chicago university intellectual involved in the Wright church wouldn’t?
I’d say this is pretty much already priced in.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:19 pmElissa, even if (as I posit) Obama secretly thought himself far beyond Bell in sophistication and importance and intellect, Bell was a symbol on the Left — and Obama was already committed to playing for that team. What he said at the rally — urging that people have open minds, praising Bell as a Rosa Parks-type pioneer, giving him a hug — was effectively mandatory, lest Obama give offense to other people on the team whose approval he still very much sought and needed.
To the extent Obama could make use of being perceived as an ally of Bell, Obama was perfectly willing to do that. But I think Obama was already being very, very careful by the time he was at Harvard Law, and he was already concerned about what paper trail he was creating that might be left behind in the hands of others, upon whom he might not always be able to count. I don’t think it’s an accident that you can find Obama assigning reading materials written by Bell to his seminar students, but no law review articles from Obama in which he’d be obliged to take positions, make enemies, or leave footprints that come back to haunt him.
The people who Obama actually respected at Harvard and Chicago Law Schools are now either in his administration (e.g., Cass Sunstein) or still closely tied to him on an informal basis (e.g., Larry Tribe). Ogletree, though, is at best an advisor emeritus, honored by the Obama crowd because of old ties from Obama’s law school days, but not a powerful figure even behind the scenes.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:19 pm(I think I was responding there to a comment elissa left on a different, previous thread. Mea culpa.)
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:21 pmBeldar, your reading of the situation in your last comment makes a great deal of sense to me. While I don’t agree with the leftists Obama now openly associates with, to me this is the equivalent of McCain going after Jerry Falwell’s voters or what have you. I’d prefer a principled stand where every politician just said exactly what they thought, but they would never get elected, so politics — or just normal human relationship skills — come into play, and you open yourself up to a broad base of people, some of whom are a little nutty.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:24 pmSo, the story has gotten some play on Fox. Geraldo (yes, I realize we’re talking Geraldo, however I think his take will be echoed loudly by the MSM…) seems to think it’s a non-starter.
“I don’t think it’s a very significant deal,” Rivera told O’Reilly, asking him what the strange facet to the story was when stripped down to “the black president of the law review hugs a black law professor protesting a lack of diversity.” O’Reilly noted Bell was “a pretty radical guy,” to which Rivera countered that “he’s not Jeremiah Wright” but had to make the argument after O’Reilly played clips of some of Bell’s most radical statements– among them, that he thought well of Louis Farrakhan and “I live to harass white people.” Rivera argued the comments were “interesting, but irrelevant” and, to him, he seemed “definitely anti-racism,” but not necessarily anti-white.
O’Reilly argued that there were elements of his argument that were troublesome in his eyes, namely that “it was always white racism oppressing white people” that Bell opposed, and not all racism. What’s more, O’Reilly continued, the President associating with Bell made a pattern, given his relationship with Wright.
Here’s the rationale that will become the oft-repeated truth,
“What President Obama did was support Bell’s crusade to get more minority women professors tenured at Harvard,” he noted, which seemed to O’Reilly one piece to a larger puzzle.
“I don’t know who you hung around with at Harvard,” Rivera began to tease– before O’Reilly cut him off with “nobody!”– “but you should’ve seen me back in the day!” Rivera noted that universities lended themselves to that sort of interaction and “to try to make Derrick Bell’s shoes fit Barack Obama is extremely unfair” and “a sign of desperation.” O’Reilly agreed only with the point that the video seemed not to be “getting much traction” as far as polling indicates.
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:10 pmNow lets keep in mind, that Geraldo was once Minister of Propaganda for theLatin version
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:19 pmof the Panthers, and that statement seems clearer.
____________________________________________
Muhammad advocates killing every white man, woman, and child in South Africa . . . to the cheers of the crowd:
It’s easy to define the harsh reality of South Africa along racial lines. But it’s really the political ones that need to be focused on. How much of the following is all that different from trends of dysfunction evident here in the US? How much of a parallel can be seen between this country and the one in Africa?
How many people who are truly moderate to conservative — particularly the ones in government — a dominant part of the socio-political landscape of communities (eg, Johannesburg or Detroit), or societies saddled with the biggest problems (South Africa, Argentina, Greece, Mexico, Venezuela), year after year?
Mark (411533) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:19 pmBe that as it may, Narciso, it isn’t like Obama or anyone in his position was ever likely to do much different. Sometimes in life — and I suck at this — you have to get along with people you don’t like and don’t agree with, for professional, career, and personal reasons. I’m not saying Obama necessarily disagreed with him, but regardless, I don’t know what else you would have expected him to do.
If you haven’t noticed, the way he managed his human relationships led to him being elected the most powerful position on Earth, and as the first black man in a country that used to enslave them, no less.
When it comes to Obama’s human relationship skills, I think we should be pulling out notebooks.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:23 pmI mean, Obama was a man with definite career plans, depending on people’s support. He wasn’t an opinionated, anonymous blog commenter!
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:27 pmIDK, I’ve got Stanley Kurtz in Radical In Chief describing a 1995 profile of Obama in the Chicago Reader titled “What Makes Obama Run” as follows:
DeZutter writes that Obama rejects “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation – which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks ‘move up, get rich, and move out.'” This statement might surprise those who think of Obama as the epitome of integrationism. Yet Obama’s repudiation of integrationist upward mobility is fully consistent with his career as a community organizer, his general sympathy for critics of the American system, and his membership in Wright’s Trinity Church. Obama, DeZutter tells us, “quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground.” These statements match closely to Wright’s characterization of assimilated blacks as “sell-outs,” and to Wright’s justifications for Afro-centric education as well.76
Page 324
Sounds similar to Bell’s views. When you consider the people and projects to whom Obama funneled money to while sitting on the boards of various foundations, essentially using them left-wing slush funds, the connections become much clearer. Look at Bernadine Dohrn’s justice center at Northwestern and her views of the U.S. justice system, which seem to parallel Bell’s and the funding Obama gave her. Juvenile justice was a pet project of Obama’s in the Illinois legislature. Afro-Centric education was something else Obama funded out of foundations.
The media tried to kill this information before the 2008 election and did a very good job.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:32 pmOne problem with integration is people with sub-Saharan ancestry average both smaller brains, as determined by numerous studies including modern MRI studies directly measuring brain size, and resulting lower intelligences. There are other aggregrate biological differences, but these are two of the most relevant ones.
So when upwardly mobile blacks leave “black culture” to integrate with white culture, this creates a brain drain.
It’s similar to how America accepts the best and brightest from around the world, reducing the brainpower of the countries they came from.
I still think integration is the ideal to shoot for, but … it isn’t consequence free. Murray (one of the leading conservative thinkers behind welfare reform and, now, education reform a la Santorum that not everyone of every intelligence should to be going to college/university) and Herrnstein covered this well in The Bell Curve.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:44 pmI meant to add that in any meritocracy in a technological society, higher IQ people will tend to cluster at one end of the scale (for example, Ashekenazi Jews and people of far-east Asian — Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. — ancestry, and northern Europeans) … with lower IQ people(s) clustering at the other end of the scale.
This is the reality in a meritocracy in a biologically diverse world.
So if equality of economic outcomes is important, affirmative action or something like it is required. If rewarding ability is important, then meritocracy and the resulting unequal success distribution, including among population groups, is the result.
And it’s a valid political question.
Similarly, crime rates are not equally distributed, and what the policy should be in this case is something people will debate, even if they won’t admit some of (culture, etc., play roles, and significant ones) the underlying reasons for the aggregate unequal distributions.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:00 pm“One problem with integration is people with sub-Saharan ancestry average both smaller brains”
Random – Has Breggin written any papers on this subject? Do they also have extra bones which make them better athletes?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:22 pm‘shirley you can’t be serious’ Random;
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:35 pmI’m unclear about the connection between Obama’s remarks at Harvard in 1990 and remarks made several years later by Muhammad and Bell.
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:44 pmI doubt you are, actually. I just think you’re making a rhetorical point. You know what I would say in response, and I pretty much know how you would respond to that, so I’m not sure why I should bother.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:00 pmI’m unclear on what you think the difference is between Bell’s views in 1990 and Bell’s views in 1994. And on what evidence you have that there is any difference.
To respond in the same vein.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:02 pmangeleno – Try visiting Breitbart.com or rereading the posts here to resolve anything that is actually unclear.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:04 pmdaley,
I believe he’s just trying to point out that Obama’s praise for Bell predated Bell’s praise for Muhammad.
I also believe you are aware of that, and that there is nothing actually unclear to angeleno.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:08 pmthat was weak ‘squirreling’ seriously,
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:29 pm“I also believe you are aware of that, and that there is nothing actually unclear to angeleno.”
Patterico – I am aware of that and was just offering him an out if he wanted to weasel out of his comment.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:33 pmFrom the New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, quoted by John Podhoretz in Commentary’s Contentions blog that he said that is not available online.
“While these guys talk a lot, they don’t do anything. The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”
This last line sounds a lot like Sister Souljah:
In a Washington Post interview published on May 13, 1992, the hip-hop MC, author, and political activist Sister Souljah was quoted as saying, “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”[1] The remark was part of a longer response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Now I wonder who was plagiarizing whom? Probably Bell was plagiarizing because it follows the out of context rendering of her remarks.
I always was suspicious that that whole remark by Lisa Williamson (aka Sister Souljah) was actually designed as a foil for Bill Clinton to denounce. I mean I felt the whole thing was orchestrated, down to her original comments. I think I read somewhere that she was actually a supporter of Bill Clinton (or had been)
Clinton did that not in order to affect voters but so that the news media shouldn’t write stories about his closeness to Jesse Jackson. They were close. They both had ties to BCCI, for instance, and Clinton exploded when he was misinformed that Jesse Jackson had endorsed Harken for President.
Of course, if so, if this was organized from beginning to end by the Clinton campaign, she had to be protected and in fact her actual statement wasn’t so bad:
…In other, words, white people, this government, and that mayor were well aware of the fact that black people were dying every day in Los Angeles under gang violence. So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person? Do you think that somebody thinks that white people are better, or above and beyond dying, when they would kill their own kind?”
So instead of excusing the riot in any way, or endorsing the idea of killing white people instead of rioting, she’s – well actually the whole thing is doubletalk because she starts off endorsing the violence as “wise” although ,more carefully, what she seems to be saying is that wasn’t stupid – that is, makes sense. (The interviewer actually gives her two chances to expound on this.)
She then segues into pretending they killed lots of white people, and why should anyone be surprised that such bad people should do that since they kill people they should logically feel closer to. Then she segues back into half justifying it by talking about revenge. So now it’s their own family members who got robbed and killed presumably by whites (except everybody knows it is not true and can’t be claimed to be true except in the most metaphorical way)
It sounds she doesn’t know what she wants to say. The reporter gave her a second try.
http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-512.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/us/the-1992-campaign-racial-issues-rapper-chided-by-clinton-calls-him-a-hypocrite.html?scp=2&sq=souljah+clinton+%22real+name%22&st=nyt
It seems like her original remarks were taken out of context and made into something else by the Washington Post, which was very close to Clinton.
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:15 amI’m unclear about the connection between Obama’s remarks at Harvard in 1990 and remarks made several years later by Muhammad and Bell.
Comment by angeleno — 3/10/2012 @ 9:44 pm
— Do you know what you need to do? Get some more paper so you can add it to your “Things I’m unclear about” list.
Icy (a5eb14) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:28 amWhites need to file for endangered species and get the protection of Holder’s DOJ.
cedarhill (34e948) — 3/11/2012 @ 5:11 amThe bigger picture, from someone who did work at the DOJ
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_book_of_obama_the_ganza_megillah.html
narciso (87e966) — 3/11/2012 @ 6:15 amJohn Hinderaker now informs us that the connection between Barack Obama and Khalid Muhammad is “close.” That certainly clears things up!
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 9:32 amAngeleno is struggling.
JD (d246fe) — 3/11/2012 @ 9:45 amWhat was that about civility in public speech;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nation-of-islam-newspaper-attacks-minion-of-the-synagogue-of-satan-glenn-beck-for-farrakhan-comments-we-will-not-allow-such-vicious-assaults/
narciso (87e966) — 3/11/2012 @ 9:47 ambut angeleno
Colonel Haiku (30a10b) — 3/11/2012 @ 9:56 am0bama was “post-racial”
the “Great Uniter”
So is there video of Obama cheering on/praising KM or not? I could see a strategy of rolling out a tangential, friend of friend connection, with assumption that it will be dismissed as such, and then rolling out the slammer vid showing a more direct connection.
Is that what is going on?
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:13 amDaley, it seems pretty obvious that Obama bought into, at least on the surface, the CRT crap about integration, or rather, “assimilation” being impossible without annihilation.
Exactly what about literacy, in language, mathematics, rational inquiry and adoption of the cannon of Western thought and folkways is inferior to a world run by paranoid narrative building and self-serving allegorical outrage I haven’t figured out but then I’m racist.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:25 amThe racist hatred expressed by Khalid Muhammad, Father of the New Black Panther Party, in the Kean College speech is remarkably similar to that employed by the NBPP thug, King Samir Shabazz.
Shabazz was the one dressed in black fatigues brandishing a night-stick and shouting racial epithets at the polls in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.
Khalid Muhammed connects to King Samir Shabazz who connects to voter intimidation which connects to Eric Holder who works for Barack Obama.
ropelight (48d446) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:30 am“Khalid Muhammed connects to King Samir Shabazz who connects to voter intimidation which connects to Eric Holder who works for Barack Obama.”
Clarification on this point:
Actually, the connection is a lot more direct. Jerry Jackson, the other NBPP member present at the polls in Philadelphia is a member of both the NBPP and the Democrat party. As a matter of fact he’s an official in the Democrat Party (or he was at the time of the election).
Members of the ultra-racist New Black Panther Party have also served as muscle for Democrat Party Congressthings (dignifying them by calling them Congresswomen or Congressmen is inappropriate, IMO).
When it comes to associations between the ultra-racist NBPP and the Democrats it isn’t a question of them knowing each other, it’s a question of them having overlapping membership…just like it used to be with the Dems and the Klan.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:51 amInteresting that they’re mantra, “We kill the women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the [imitates a crazy person]. We kill ‘em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all.” includes those people that are supporting their agenda.
Sandi (28653d) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:53 amForgive my ignorance, but what is the relationship between Khalid Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad (both founders of Nation of Islam, no), and Jabir Herbert (J.H.) Muhammad (Elijah’s son) who was a partner with Rezko and tried to recruit Obama right out of Harvard?
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:57 amThis seems like he praised a guy who praised a guy scenario…. a premise easily refuted by countless examples of similar actions on all sides.
In 2008, the Farrakahn story did not stick one bit with Obama because there was an intermediary in Wright.
If Trent Lott had praised a guy who had praised Strom Thurmond, Lott would still be a Senate leader. The direct video tape of Lott & Thurmond was the smoking gun.
koam @wittier (2478cd) — 3/11/2012 @ 10:58 amI am getting tired of people trying to tell others what is and what is not a story.
JD (d246fe) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:03 amIn 2008, the Farrakahn story did not stick one bit with Obama because there was an intermediary in Wright.
I don’t know what all information is out there for 2012. I do know I don’t judge anything that will stick now based on what stuck in 2008, because then the nation was so crazed with Obama fever.
I do know Obama chose to go to a church that praised Farakhan and Qaddafi. That was his choice. I know Obama was recruited to Chicago by a man with ties to the Nation of Islam. And I believe Obama participated in Farakhan’s Million Man March. I don’t know what it all means.
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:10 amI do know Obama doesn’t seem to have one normal friend, or any accomplishments that aren’t tied to some out-there person.
JD is struggling.
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:11 amJD I’m amenable to the “sandbag” strategy – roll out the weaker stuff first, get all the apologies for feckless youth and indirect or politically savvy (or necessary) sucking up – and then bring the hammer down with vid that connects dots that can’t be apologized away – or for which, at least, the early excuses fail. That was a Breitbart thing, wasn’t it?
It’s “interesting” now. It’s not enough by itself to really matter much, given the publicly resisted but general, tacit understanding that Obama hung out with these types and that his foreign sensibilities and red diaper upbringing affect his views on American government.
I don’t mind it reminding conservatives of the dangers, enough to motivate those made reluctant by the quality of the GOP alternative, or to get them to focus.
I don’t mind it helping people ready to ditch Obama to have a little psychological excuse to swing away from him.
It’s no death blow at this point, far from it. His ardent support actually approves, his overly-optimistic but milder supporters would need much more to have the scales fall from their eyes, and even then it must be made relevant to today and the future, not just something disgusting in his past (Obamas own track record and promises will matter more) and they must have someplace to go.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:22 amAngeleno wasn’t playing stupid.
JD (d246fe) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:27 am==I am getting tired of people trying to tell others what is and what is not a story==
Me too, JD.
If Derrick Bell is put into the nation’s narrative as a hero akin to Rosa Parks (by a future POTUS no less) and it is allowed to stand then it’s all over for us but the shouting. What an incredible affront to Rosa and her memory. This is the piece of the Obama-Harvard-Bell connection I’d like to see get more play. Any self-respecting civil rights archivist or decent historian of any skin color should forcefully denounce such a comparison.
elissa (b47460) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:30 amMaybee:
From what I know, NOI was actually founded in the early 1930s in Detroit by Wallace Fard Muhammed. He disappeared and in 1934 and Elijah Muhammad took over and moved the headquarters of the group to Chicago. Khalid Muhammed had nothing to do with the founding of NOI. Jabir Herbert Muhammad, was the third son of Elijah and died in 2008 at age 79. What if any connection he had to Rezko I don’t know. (this all came from wikipedia)
Many years ago, I had an interesting encounter (at least to me) with NOI. I was asked to make a sales call on their new restaurant on the south side of Chicago roughly at 79th and Halsted. And yes, I was a bit apprehensive (I will spare JD the trouble, yes I am a Racist!!!!). Anyway we represented a company that made various vegetarian products. I went to the appointment and met with the manager of the restaurant who was cordial but not particularly friendly. What was interesting was that the actual help, meaning the folks who cooked and did prep work, etc., couldn’t have been happier that I was there. They were great. It was an interesting contrast to say the least. I never found out if they liked what I had because the manager would never return my phone calls. Oh well. BTW, the place is now vacant and has been for probably 15 years.
Ipso Fatso (7434b9) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:32 amTwo weeks ago, an article about the Mormon Church posthumously baptizing Danny Perl made the rounds. Even Jake Tapper retweeted it.
Just for people wondering what might constitute a story and what might not.
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:33 amYes, the Left media is going wild on “crazy Mormon practices” stories. It’s shameless.
koam @wittier (2478cd) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:38 amThanks, Ipso. JH Muhammad was business partners with Tony Rezko. At one point I read about the two of them going to dinner with Obama and trying to recruit him to work for them, but Obama went to work for the law firm. Rezko continued to be his sponsor, of course.
Thanks for the info about Khalid’s lack of relationship with them.
In the mid-late 80’s NOI guys were all over Chicago. They would wear their black suits and stand on street corners and pass out literature to every black person walking by. I was never offered any.
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:39 amTo wit, Andrea Stone has been prolific on the Mormon-bashing stories that come out every few days now. (Mormon story count is directly correlated to Mitt’s delegate count)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-stone
koam @wittier (2478cd) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:41 amsee also https://www.facebook.com/stone.andrea
koam @wittier (2478cd) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:42 am“Daley, it seems pretty obvious that Obama bought into, at least on the surface, the CRT crap about integration, or rather, “assimilation” being impossible without annihilation.”
Sarahw – It’s not obvious to most people. Remember he was characterized as the “Magic Negro” in 2008, nonthreatening to anyone, but when you actually probe all his community organizing connections, UNO, DCP, ACORN, the Midwest Academy, they blend into a picture of someone deeply antithetical to the American way of life, which is why people tried so hard to avoid detailed discussions of his past.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:43 amThanks to elissa, I have seen the light! Obama insulted Rosa Parks! That’s what this is all about. JD is right, I was stupid not to have seen that before. Thanks for smartening me up!
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:47 am“It’s no death blow at this point, far from it.”
Sarahw – Nice strawman.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:48 amangeleno sees
Icy (a5eb14) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:51 amno “there” there; radicals are
just all right with him
rise up, “Sun People”!
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 11:59 amBig Zer0 sells popsicles
to an Eskimo
spent formative years
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:00 pmwith commie racialists but
he did not inhale
“Thanks to elissa, I have seen the light!”
angeleno – I’m glad you opened your good eye.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:01 pm==Thanks for smartening me up!==
You’re most welcome angelino. Always happy to try to help out. That’s just the kinda gal I am. I think we’ll have to wait a while to asses the permanance of the “smartening up”, though.
MWAH!!!
elissa (4cf3a6) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:10 pmhah!… she said asses.
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:12 pmDaley, “people tried so hard to avoid detailed discussions of his past” perhaps clarifies what I am saying is a tacit understanding, rarely publicly admitted of not only Obama’s enemies, but his supporters… about his background.
People who have not figured out who he is by now are not inclined to, or more likely they have and are not inclined to acknowlege it openly.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:14 pmMost of his supporters didn’t wanna hear it because his persona & media aura belie the accusations.
koam @wittier (2478cd) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:26 pmThe TANG allegations were out there for a while, but it was used against Bush in the 2004 election. Not so much in 2000.
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:30 pmExactly, koam.
MayBee (081489) — 3/11/2012 @ 12:30 pm<blockquoteTwo weeks ago, an article about the Mormon Church posthumously baptizing Danny Perl made the rounds. Even Jake Tapper retweeted it.
Just for people wondering what might constitute a story and what might not.
Comment by MayBee
I’ve seen a lot of coverage of this general issue. Jews talking about holocause victims being baptised, for example. I think hysterical lefty Colbert pointed out Anne Frank has been quasi-baptised nine times and how offensive this is.
I don’t understand why anyone would be offended by it. If this actually makes a difference in any way, well I guess the Mormons were right and you should be thankful. If they aren’t right, then it’s just meaningless to those outside their faith so why even worry about it?
That’s one reason I appreciate hitting Obama with his associations. As irrelevant as this is to our foreign policy and economy, this is one of the ways the presidency will be decided. Character attacks on our nominee’s background (presumably Romney, but they will be similar in hostility no matter who it is) vs character attacks on Obama’s.
I think it’s more complicated. For one thing, I think people who are faced with these against both Mitt and Barack might come out much more likely to dismiss the attacks on Mitt than they would be if it were solely attacks on Mitt with people attacking Barack merely for failing to handle the economy or constitution properly.
They may just equivocate and throw their hands up and ignore the attacks on both. That may be a net win (though this is unfair… the attacks on Barack actually make sense).
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:09 pmYou know that’s not the way it works, Dustin, they feel free to plaster lies against even a once prospective candidate, but we’re timid against pointing out the plain and simple truth, which shows why permits things like this;
http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-prisoners-guantanamo-agree-transfer-154849364.html
narciso (87e966) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:13 pm“People who have not figured out who he is by now are not inclined to, or more likely they have and are not inclined to acknowlege it openly.”
Sarahw – If people don’t read conservative blogs or are not anarcho-socialists, how are they supposed to figure out who he is? That’s the confuzzling part of your argument to me.
If the information has never been out in the mass media how are people supposed to know about it except if it somehow the media finally gets forced to cover it?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:20 pmI’ve noticed a strange correlation. Those who throw a tantrum at the mere prospect of examining Obama’s background also vigorously defend Michael Jackson’s pedophilia.
ropelight (48d446) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:31 pmObama is considered by the racist, extremist proponents of Black Liberation theology and nationalism to be their ticket to ride.
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:42 pmHey! didn’t Laura Bush kill somebody in an accident when she was a teenager, like back in 1963 or something? Seems like I read and heard quite a bit about that in the early 2000’s back around the time when W was running for president. Of course, by current standards that’s not a story because it’s so old from before they met each other and her action doesn’t directly reflect on the president himself any way. Their timing was just bad, that’s all. Running for the White House before the standards narrowed about what is acceptable stuff for the other side to bring up and rehash. Damn bad luck.
elissa (b47460) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:50 pmDerrick H. Bell never visited the White House… or did he?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/did-professor-derrick-bell-visit-the-white-house/
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:59 pmDerrick A. Bell
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 2:02 pmNote: in the Tapper piece the White House says it wasn’t that Derrick Bell. But they don’t deny that the controversial Derrick Bell may have vsited at some point, now do they? Whether he did or not, we have incontrovertible evidence of Obama imploring people to listen to Bell’s ideas. And that’s pretty bad in itself.
Icy (a5eb14) — 3/11/2012 @ 2:14 pmI keep reading that the whatever Obama does, the lefty lemmings are never going to pick up on it anyway.
Deborah (ebd176) — 3/11/2012 @ 2:46 pmWe want to sway the independents, and these connections to Obama to the most heinous of the radicals will have some effect.
Breibart is not done yet, so let’s not assume a defeatist atttitude until we lose the war.
This might be the “smoking gun” but happiness can be a warm gun mama. Pollacks’ wife is from South Africa so I would imagine this will not sit well with him. WAR
#104
I don’t recall reading much in either the 2000 or 2004 campaign about the tragedy Laura Bush experienced as a 17 year-old and I certainly don’t see that it had any relevance to the choice we had to make in those elections.
Mrs. Bush has always struck me as a person of considerable depth and feeling. This impression was was reinforced by the way she herself discussed the 1963 accident and the impact it had on her life, in the memoir she published just a couple of years ago.
If there were critics who tried to get political mileage out of this tragedy, I’m glad they failed.
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 2:58 pmthe angeleno
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:00 pmall strung out on heroin
on outskirts of town
Bird on shoulder
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:13 pmmighty wind in every orofice
the colonel passes gas
down in Echo Park
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:40 pmneither math nor english strong suit
of angeleno
automatic slim
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:46 pmangeleno get down on
the wang dang doodle
Ain’t goin’ down that dirt road, howled the wolf.
angeleno (4bb8b8) — 3/11/2012 @ 3:51 pmDerrick Bell talks about the Marxist foundation of Critical Race Theory…
http://youtu.be/XmOyLKTxAKE
Colonel Haiku (1f8994) — 3/11/2012 @ 5:51 pmCan we stop pretending that isn’t relevant to the present;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/11/What%20Is%20Critical%20Race%20Theory
narciso (87e966) — 3/11/2012 @ 5:57 pmSlightly off topic: 49. Comment by Random — 3/10/2012 @ 9:00 pm
Similarly, crime rates are not equally distributed,
They are not equally distributed over time, or between generation and generation, also.
And what ethnic groups are associated with it change from time to time.
The rise of black criminality only began in the 1930s or 1940s. It could only happen, on the scale that it did, after the coming of racial segregation between whole neighborhoods, which began around and after World War I. This later made possible the existence of a different law enforcement environment, which was created by the Outfit in urban black neighborhoods throughout the United States during the 1930s and 1940s by bribing policemen and using their political influence, which became considerable, to appoint liberal judges, who didn’t believe in punishment, and otherwise arrange for lenient treatment of offenders, so that their customers could continue to steal to pay for their heroin in certain
neighborhoods. (Starting in the late 1950s and accelerating in the 1960s, the boundaries of the “bad neighborhoods” began to expand, and the sight of a black person on the street, became a “broken window” to beat all other “broken windows.” In some sections, it could be a different group. By this time, lax law enforcement was the standard. There were not enough resources to cope, plea bargaining became the rule, but the places with the lowest crime had the most enforcement and a career criminal had a much shorter half-life there. During the 1970s, the most crime ridden locations began to be depopulated, but crime just gobbled up more of the city. Starting in the late 1980s and especially during the first two thirds of the 1990s, the AIDS virus began to disable and kill IV-drug users, most intensively affecting New York City, the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic, and law enforcement was able to catch its breath, and the crime rate began to plummet, starting with, and most intensively affecting, New York City. This sounds like horrible science fiction somebody could have written in 1928, but we all lived it. This is real, and not Derrick Bell’s nonsense.
Before the 1930s, the criminals used to be not black, but Irish. That’s why in the 1800s they called the place they rounded up criminals a “paddywagon” Now it’s almost all gone except for the Westies or in South Boston (Southie) and even there it’s gone.
Now if you subdivide a group, you will also find it is not the same between the sub-groups, and the same group will experience different results in different locations. Afro-Caribbeans have a
relatively low crime participation rate in the United States, but a much higher rate in England.
People have trouble admitting a real difference in the number of bad people between groups of people, although they will readily admit a difference in the illegitimacy rate, which also involves free will, and which changes over time, and which it is preposterous to propose is inherited.
and what the policy should be in this case is something people will debate, even if they won’t admit some of (culture, etc., play roles, and significant ones) the underlying reasons for the aggregate unequal distributions.
The great criminologist George Sutherland [sic his name is actually E. H. (Edwin) – I remembered George, but I see in my books it’s not George]
wrote about it along time ago. It’s called “differential association”
People have different friends. That’s all there is to it.
Criminals on the loose make lots of friends, and their friends make friends.
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/11/2012 @ 9:27 pmThis entire piece is based on the actions of President Obama over twenty years ago—maybe ultra-right-wingers thought the same on every issue that they did twenty years ago, but most people don’t.
Is this the best conservatives can do? Since they can’t find any dirt on him, they have to mock the actions of a twenty-something liberal college student.
tadcf (6f3ab1) — 3/12/2012 @ 7:36 amThat was the best BUNNIES you could come up with, “tadcf”?
JD (318f81) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:04 amGive him a break, he hasn’t had his coffee yet.
narciso (87e966) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:15 am–This entire piece is based on the actions of President Obama over twenty years ago—maybe ultra-right-wingers thought the same on every issue that they did twenty years ago, but most people don’t–
Then it’s easy. All Mr. Obama needs to do is say what he believes now, that he’s changed his mind about Prof. Bell being another Rosa Parks, decry CRT, and then we can all move on.
elissa (b47460) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:22 amMaybe ultra right wingers thought the same on “every issue” that they did twenty years ago, which is a reasonable way to dismiss if our President thought a kooky, extreme, racist Critical Race Theory was a great idea.
I mean, let’s hold our president to the absolute lowest standard and toss Critical Race theory in with “every issue”. Meanwhile, please pretend you never heard the name Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Saul Alinsky.
Why, supporting segregation is basically the same thing as changing my mind about windmill power or the speed limit.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:30 amAnd I grant the point that this kind of information is more useful to seeing how Obama will govern before he’s actually done so, and now we have his actual record to look at, however:
I think this radical stuff is helpful in interpreting Obama’s record. The IG firing, Fast and Furious, siding somewhat consistently against American Foreign policy interest, hiring a bunch of radicals, an enormous stimulus and other economic policies that seem idiotic if you assume Obama isn’t a radical… I think Obama’s associations help us see that this pattern is Obama governing as a radical with an insincere front as a good patriotic apolitical fella.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:37 amThey certainly intended ‘1984’ as a guidebook, by the way these were the folks against Citizen United;
http://amac.us/game-change-tries-to-rewrite-palin-and-fails
narciso (87e966) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:55 amDustin@ 8:37–
Nicely stated. For a lot of people figuring out what is fumbling incompetence, versus what is purposeful egg breaking with him during his presidency has been somewhat difficult. The radical ties and influences throughout his life help clarify that (or at least should.)
elissa (b47460) — 3/12/2012 @ 8:59 amDoesn’t anybody out there realize that we don’t all believe the same things we may have believe 20 years ago. Maybe ultra-conservatives always believed the same way, and always will. But I don’t think that’s normal.
tadcf (6f3ab1) — 3/12/2012 @ 1:55 pmtadcf @ 1:55–
This is basically just a repeat of your 7:36 A.M. comment. Is there another page to your talking points? Do they still pay you if you accidently double post?
elissa (7aa0fd) — 3/12/2012 @ 2:05 pmThat was even more pathetic the second time, “tadcf”
JD (d246fe) — 3/12/2012 @ 2:18 pmSeems to me that having a black President would pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of Derrick Bell’s ideas, at least to any sane person.
And speaking of sane, are you people crazy to be going back and forth like this, here and in the Carbonite thread?
nk (dec503) — 3/12/2012 @ 2:27 pm“This entire piece is based on the actions of President Obama over twenty years ago—maybe ultra-right-wingers thought the same on every issue that they did twenty years ago, but most people don’t.”
Come to that, I’d just as soon have a president who was never stupid enough to buy into the baloney Derrick Bell was serving up.
Not, that I believe Obama has had any substantial change of heart.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/12/2012 @ 4:11 pm