Please! Quit Trusting the Lies from Obama

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2014

President Barack Hussein Obama has lied to American voters before he was even elected to Office in 2008.

Jeremiah Wright went from mentor to I have not heard any White-hatred sermons.

BHO lied about barely knowing Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were Communist terrorists in their younger days (and remarkably used the very American laws they railed against to get away with their violence via some Court technicality). Dear God in Heaven BHO had election/Community Organizing meetings in the Ayers/Dohrn living room.

BHO lied about his connection to Tony Rezko – who committed fraud and extortion. In 2003 BHO was at a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi - a promoter of then State Department designated terrorist organization PLO and friend of Yasser Arafat – delivering vitriolic hate-speech toward Israel. The proof of Obama’s Israel-hatred was recorded on a mysterious tape procured by the LA Times. The LA Times only released enough info from the tape during the 2008 Presidential campaign to remind BHO to be more favorable toward Palestinians. The LA Times has steadfastly refused to make the entire tape available to the public. Why? It would prove Obama is a liar about public statements his Administration is a friend of Israel.

Father Michael Pfleger is in the same mold as Jeremiah Wright except he is a Roman Catholic White man. Pfleger’s Chicago parish is mostly Black and rather than show the nature of Christ or even the official line of the Roman Catholic Church Pfleger has embraced the same White-hatred Left Wing ideology of the Black Liberation Movement as has the racist Reverend Wright. Prior to Obama’s 2008 election Pfleger publically stated he had known Obama for over 20 years. Pfleger is one of a number of Chicago religious leaders (Protestant – Wright, Islam – Farrakhan and Catholic – Pfleger) that cooperated with then State Senator Obama to use racial profiling that Illinois law enforcement picked on Black people for the reason of a higher rate of Black incarceration.

As a young man Barack Obama had a great affinity to the man known as the founder and/or godfather of Critical Racial Theory (CRT) in Derrick Bell. The simple explanation of CRT is that Whites are permanent oppressors and Blacks are permanently oppressed – err unless changes occur in society. Bell himself proclaims that CRT is highly influenced by Marxist ideology – rich Capitalists vs. oppressed proletariat-worker class. Obama’s ideological affection for race baiting Marxist Bell is evidenced by the young Obama introduction of Bell at a Left Wing protest while Obama was at Harvard:

VIDEO: EXCLUSIVE Unedited Obama Race Video Unveiled

The Left Stream Media (aka MSM) had gone to great lengths to brandish Obama’s connection to Bell as a non-starter; however BHO’s past radical associations’ show the Bell-connection is more of additional info of the current President hatred of America as it is under the U.S. Constitution.

Marshall Davis a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA was a mentor of the young Obama thus shaping our current President’s world view. Respected Conservative journalist Trevor Louden excerpts an American Spectator article showing Obama’s most trusted advisors David Axelrod (Left Obama’s Administration just before 2012 election) and Valerie Jarrett ALSO had a close connection to the Davis-Communist admiration society. Louden speculates at the end of his post, “Manchurian Candidate, anyone?”

Undoubtedly this is not an exhaustive look at the picture that President Barack Hussein Obama is a lying deceiver to American voters due to the building up his anti-American and anti-Jewish world view.

To drive the point home that Obama is a calculated liar to fool voters is this page that has linked documentation of the President’s lies from campaign promises for 2008 through his fifth year in Office:

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Also you can check out title from InvestmentWatch Blog dated September 17, 2013:

The Complete List of Barack Obama’s Scandals, Misdeeds, Crimes and Blunders

This list is huge and I make sure to post the date Obama’s lies, scandals and crimes seems to grow longer and longer each month. Which begs the question: When will the Left oriented MSM finally admit their transform America Leftist utopian President is more about destroying the foundations of America rather than preserving the American way of life that makes America good?

Now Leftists and Conservatives alike (if they made down this far) are probably wondering, “Why should I care about this rehash of facts - head buried in the sand if you are an American Leftist and ‘forget about it’ Conservatives who look to the next two election cycles to reverse the curse of Obamunism (or the blessing of Obama transformation for the Left)?”

Here is why – and I am really just picking one reason for my train of thought: Americans on the Left and the Right still support the right for Israel’s existence apart from the Muslim Jew-hatred ingrained into Islamic society via their holy writings and journalistic commentaries. The one difference between Left Wing and Right Wing Americans is the path to maintain Israel’s existence. The Left has fallen for the ‘Land for Peace’ idiocy. Center-Right Paleoconservatives and Establishment Republicans have also fallen for the idiocy of ‘Land for Peace,’ but perhaps not quite as much land as the Left believes their fallacy would solve. Then there are the Conservatives and the Christian Zionists (yep, I’m one of those) that either see that ‘Land for Peace’ is an equation that will lead to Israel’s demise and probable the next genocidal Holocaust of Jews or we Christian Zionists concurring but adding that the Land of Israel is a God-given paradigm right out of the Word of God. Regardless of the perceived viable path to preserve Israel’s existence the Left (for the most part) and the Right agree Israel’s right to exist should be a global guarantee.

Overwhelmingly American voters’ support Israel’s right to exist as opposed the Arab and Muslim desire to destroy the Jewish State of Israel. Thus at a time when a significant amount of voters may be watching President Obama speak because of the prime time nature of the coverage of the State of the Union Address the Leftist messiah told Americans:

President Obama also spoke about the peace process between Israel and Palestinians. The president openly declared Israel as a Jewish state, a point that the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge and that has led to numerous failures of past peace talks.

“As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” Obama told Congress. This statement received a standing ovation from both Democrat and Republican legislatures. (Bold Italics Mine - State of the Union Address: Obama Takes Soft Stance on Middle Eastern Policy; By Lea Speyer; Conservative Musings; 1/29/14 12:57 pm)

Just in case you missed the Obama promise: “… a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side”.

Here comes the Obama threat that makes that a lie:

'Bibi’, the President all but said, ‘if you don’t accept the peace plan that my Secretary of State hasn't even released yet, you will ruin your country.’ The interview was released for publication almost the very moment as Netanyahu’s plane departed to meet with Obama in Washington.

In addition to droning on about the growing dangers posed by increasing Israeli settlement ‘expansion’, the "rights" of Palestinian refugees, the historic "moderation" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and the reasonableness of the Iranian regime, President Obama used the interview with Goldberg to issue ominous new threats and dire warnings against the Jewish state if it did not agree to accept his plan to shrink Israel back inside the 1949 armistice lines.

Obama tells Goldberg that it isn't really the Palestinians who need to change. It is Israel. Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians is essentially the result of steps Israel takes to prevent such terrorism. The best way to change the Palestinian Authority's incitement to – and celebration of blood curdling violence against Jews – is for Israel to change its housing policy.

Nothing new here. This has been the President Obama's basic position since long before he ever ran for public office; and a position shared by most of the international community.

What is new about Obama's latest interview are his threats. If Israel doesn't do what Obama decides Israel should do, then Israel should no longer expect the U.S. to support it: “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction – and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the past couple of years – if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguously sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the fallout is going to be limited.” (Bold and Italics are mine - AS WORLD ORDER IMPLODES, OBAMA PROMISES TO ACT... AGAINST ISRAEL; By THOMAS ROSE; Breitbart; 3/3/14)

Not surprisingly this Obama lie is not getting a lot of American press. Rather the press is focused on the goings on in Ukraine. Ukraine is a crisis but selling out Israel to a potential Muslim executed Holocaust of Jews is a disaster of huge moral dimensions. The above Breitbart quote was discovered like on page 5 of a Bing Search. I had gone through 20 pages of a Google Search and found zero. I was alerted to this Obama threat of betrayal to Israel from being on the email list of the Times of Israel that had two titles relating to the Obama threat:

Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail

Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Benjamin Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama cautioned on Sunday ahead of a meeting with the Israeli prime minister

…

But if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said.

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.

The president went on to stress that he would convey to Netanyahu, in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.

“If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” Obama said.

The president went on to condemn in no uncertain terms Israel’s settlement activities in …

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama said.

The president added that Israel must come to a decision over its future character and weigh whether its current policies are conducive to achieving its true aspirations.

“Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank?” he inquired of the Israeli public.

“Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?” he asked.

Obama further stated that in his opinion, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve” the conflict.

…

Asked whether he felt Abbas was sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, the president replied that he was sure that was the case. (Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail; By ADIV STERMAN; Times of Israel; 3/2/14 11:51 pm)  

What a load of - Left Wing hate Israel – love Arabs that call themselves Palestinians – load of disinformation crap this is from the Liar-in-Chief.

Obama presumed to tell the public if Netanyahu had a better plan the Prime Minister should “articulate an alternative approach”. Netanyahu has been very publically upfront about an alternative approach and it is simple; viz. that PA President needs to agree that Israel is a Jewish State, all of Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Israel’s borders are defensible when Arabs – cough – like psycho-Palestinians decide to invade Israel to drive Jews into the sea.

Imagine the look down at your nose of hubris as a Left Wing Gentile saying publically he would tell Prime Minister Netanyahu, “…in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.”

Also in light of the very simple defined acknowledgments from PA President Abbas, Obama has the hutzpah to say, “…Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ‘has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve’ the conflict”.  Here is a 1/22/14 refutation to the lie to Obama’s statement that Abbas is committed to nonviolence:

Mahmoud Abbas' Party Threatens to 'Bomb Tel Aviv'

The Fatah party of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has posted threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page.

The threats came in the form of a video by Fatah's armed wing - the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - which threatened to turn Tel Aviv "into a ball of fire", as well as escalated rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been declared a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and Canada, among others.

The post was spotted on Tuesday and translated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), which regularly monitors PA media for incitement and anti-Semitism. Excerpts from the eight-minute video can be seen below:

VIDEO: Fatah publicizes threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page

The threats come despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority is engaged in "peace negotiations" with Israel, and bolster claims by Israeli leaders that the PA is not really serious about finding a peaceful political solution to the conflict.

The Israeli government only recently released its annual "Palestinian Incitement Index", which showed that incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is continuing on official media channels including - inter alia - by bodies that are very close to the PA Chairman and in educational and religious networks.

The findings also show that during the period of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not only did incitement not lessen, in certain areas it even increased, and that recently, the use of prominent Nazi elements - such as the image of Hitler - has also increased.

…

Such incitement ranges from the glorification of Nazism and the lionization of Adolf Hitler, to programs on official PA television featuring heavily-stereotyped Jews as villains (and encouraging violence against them), and various TV and radio shows which literally wipe the Jewish state off the map.

In at least one case, a terrorist who went on to murder an off-duty Israeli soldier used official PA TV to send a coded message of his plan to his jailed brother.

But the involvement by the PA in diplomatic talks and the simultaneous calls for continued violence by its official organs may not be as contradictory as it seems.

Another video exposed earlier this month by PMW revealed - not for the first time - how PA officials view negotiations, and subsequent Israeli concessions, merely as a "first stage" in the ultimate destruction of Israel, after which terrorism can be resumed "more effectively". (Mahmoud Abbas' Party Threatens to 'Bomb Tel Aviv'; By Ari Soffer; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 1/22/2014, 8:20 PM)

So much for Obama’s Foreign Policy acumen and veracity.

Since Obama stabbed Netanyahu in the back – AGAIN, the Israeli Prime Minister responded to the Obama threat to throw Israel under the bus:

Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure

Blame for the morass in the Middle East peace process lies squarely with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Sunday, hours after US President Barack Obama was quoted saying that Washington would be hard-pressed to defend Israel should talks fail.

Netanyahu made the remarks upon landing in Washington, where he was to meet Monday with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who is managing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Kerry will also speak at the conference of the AIPAC pro-Israel lobby in the capital.

…

Before boarding his plane to the US, the prime minister said he had rejected pressures in the past and would continue to do so.

… (Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure; By ARON DÓNZIS; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 3/3/14 8:30 am)

JRH 3/4/14
Please Support SlantRight 2.0

CRT is Evil and the Obama Influence

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2012

If you are wondering way President Barack Hussein Obama’s Harvard U student embrace of Professor Derrick Bell is important then watch this Soledad O’Brien Leftist attempt to inform CNN (known to Conservatives as the Communist News Network) viewers that Bell’s Critical Race Theory is not about calling White people supremacists in general. Editor-in-Chief Joe Pollak of Breitbart.com handles himself quite well with O’Brien’s invective defense of BHO’s warm affection for Professor Bell.

VIDEO: The Vetting: CNN Implodes Over Breitbart's Obama/Bell Video

   

Now here is the thing about Soledad O’Brien’s misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory. Pollak busted O’Brien on her inaccuracy about the White Supremacist component about the theory which cited from Wikipedia. Unfortunately for O’Brien the original Wikipedia article sided with Pollak. Evidently a large amount of people attempted to go into the article to change it to match O’Brien’s inaccurate rendering so Wikipedia “froze” the article and put an older version of Critical Race Theory. Can you say Left Wing cover-up?

The Daily Caller reports that Wikipedia has frozen its entry on Critical Race Theory, reverting to the version of the page that existed before her on-air implosion in debate with Breitbart.com's Joel Pollak.

At the time, O'Brien--evidently citing the first line of the Wikipedia entry--claimed that Critical Race Theory had nothing to do with white supremacy. However, the same entry she relied upon--or which producers provided via her earpiece--mentions white supremacy twice.

The Daily Caller quotes a senior Wikipedia editor as saying that the entry is being frozen for a short time because of attempts to cover for O'Brien--and competing attempts to uncover the cover-up: "Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I’m semi-protecting the article for a week."

As for O'Brien, she has yet to correct the record, and attacked Pollak for an entire segment in her Monday show, leading even sympathetic media critics to mock her attempted "do-over." She has asked angry viewers to "stop tweeting" her about the subject. (Brietbart.com 3/13/12)

So let’s look at Critical Race Theory from another source than Wikipedia.

Slate.com is a website that I think everyone would agree is Leftist oriented. And in being Left Wing Slate author Will Oremus defends Critical Race Theory and therefore Professor Derrick Bell and ultimately President Barack Hussein Obama.

Oremus first goes through a brief educational moment on Critical Race Theory (CRT). I am going to excerpt the part of his article that defends CRT as a non-supremacist race theory in the sense that CRT does not accuse the entire White Race of the supremacism that emanates from say the Ku Klux Klan, Arian Nation idiots and the like.

…

Bell in particular advanced what he called “interest convergence theory,” which holds that whites will support minority rights only when it’s in their interest as well. For example, he saw the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, as a part of a Cold War effort to improve America’s standing among Third World countries. To redress racial wrongs, he sympathized with black nationalists’ calls for separate black institutions but also pushed for affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.

On CNN, O’Brien and Pollak clashed over Pollak’s assertion that “white supremacy is at the heart of critical race theory.” It’s true that Bell often used that loaded term to describe what he saw as an entrenched racial hierarchy. He didn’t mean, however, that America is full of white supremacists, in the Ku Klux Klan sense. As Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic note in “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” those who subscribe to it believe that racism can be an everyday fact of life for people of color even if whites rarely notice it.

So is the theory radical? Yes, in the sense that it questions fundamental assumptions. Critical race theorists argue that what many Americans think of as the "white race" does not describe a distinct group of people but rather a social construct that serves to benefit some groups and marginalize others. And unlike some strands of academic and legal thought, critical race theory has an open and activist agenda, with an emphasis on storytelling and personal experience. It’s about righting wrongs, not just questing after knowledge.

But Bell and his fellow theorists, who include Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, and Charles Lawrence, were not radical in the sense of advocating extreme tactics to achieve political ends, like Greenpeace or the Irish Republican Army. They fought their battles in the halls of academia, not on the streets. And many of their ideas are not radical today in the sense of being outside the mainstream: Critical race theory is widely taught and studied, not only in law but in sociology, education, and other fields. And it is part of the mainstream debates over affirmative action, immigration, and hate-crime laws. (Slate.com March 9, 2012, at 2:59 PM ET)

So Oremus is saying CRT was not advocating a Black Revolution to terminate the U.S. Constitution and redistribute power and wealth to give minority races (Bell is thinking African-Americans) a leg up on the White Race like violent White Supremacists would do to minorities to denigrate their racial existence. CRT is different than violent White Supremacists because the theory advocates a societal-cultural transformation by writing about it in academia. What? So CRT is good because it wants to destroy the American experiment in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of Constitutional government because the White Race wrote the instruments of power to remain superior to any other race on a subliminal level; ergo it must change. Change how? Oremus DOES NOT really delve into the CRT methodology of this transformative change. I think the methodology is evident in the Gramsci-Alinsky-Obama model to use the U.S. Constitution to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

The change Bell intended for America and that President Barack Hussein Obama subscribes to may not be an immediate minority revolution to overthrow the White Race, but the Bell-Obama concept of Change is a racial theory to terminate the U.S. Constitution. After the Constitution is rendered to a relic of history the intention is to continue to whittle away the vision of the Founding Fathers to make America closer akin to a Marxist Amerika in which self-initiative, merit, power and property are redistributed in such a way that minorities tell the White majority how to exist in a kind of reverse Apartheid.

Violent or not, Professor Bell was an anti-White racist with a hatred that moved him to rip power and property from his perceived enemy race to bring equality to minorities in an egalitarian-authoritarian manner. In full disclosure I believe Bell intended to share that power and property with the enemy White Race, but only with those with a utopian Marxist like vision that eliminates property and Liberty that is still constitutional today.

Breitbart.com has a better explanation of Critical Race Theory than Oremus’ pro-CRT view. It is a bit lengthy but you need to read it to understand how anti-American Derrick Bell was and to understand that President Barack Hussein Obama totally buys into this theory to destroy the American way of life.

JRH 3/14/12

*****************************

Critical Race Theory Explained

By Breitbart.com

March 11, 2012

Last week, Breitbart.com released video demonstrating Barack Obama’s close relationship with Derrick Bell, the father of Critical Race Theory (CRT). And we’ve seen Soledad O’Brien try to twist the definition of critical race theory in order to protect Obama by grabbing a quick definition from Wikipedia. But just what is CRT? Why is it so dangerous? And what role does it play in President Obama’s thinking?

Let’s begin from the beginning.

CRT was an intellectual development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which some scholars, perturbed by what they perceived as a loss of momentum in the movement for racial equality, began to doubt that the constitutional and legal system itself had the capacity for change.

This criticism mirrored a Marxist attack long voiced in academia: that the Constitution had been a capitalist document incapable of allowing for the redistributionist change necessary to create a more equal world. To create a more equal world, the Constitution and the legal system would have to be endlessly criticized – hence critical theory – and torn down from within.

The Marxist criticism of the system was called critical theory; the racial criticism of the system was therefore called Critical Race Theory.

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.

We can see the clear footprint of CRT all over the Obama Administration. President Obama obviously believes that the system is unjust, upholding racism and requiring “community organizing” to change it in earth-shaking ways. He appoints Supreme Court judges on the basis of race and gender; his Attorney General refuses to enforce the law equally, because to do so would be to enhance racism. When President Obama said he wanted fundamental change, he meant it at the deepest level.

Let’s start with President Obama’s own statements on race. Go back to his first memoir, Dreams From My Father. In that book, Obama describes his identity as the “tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds,” then states, “the tragedy is not mine, or at least not mine alone, it is yours, sons and daughters of Plymouth Rock and Ellis Island, it is yours, children of Africa, it is the tragedy of both my wife’s six-year-old cousin and his white first grade classmates, so that you need not guess at what troubles me, it’s on the nightly news for all to see, and that if we could acknowledge at least that much then the tragic cycle begins to break down …” America is irredeemably racist, wedded to an irredeemably racist past.

No wonder Obama found Malcolm X more inspiring than Martin Luther King as a young man. No wonder Obama writes of the “unspoken settlement we had made since the 1960s, a settlement that allowed half of our children to advance even as the other half fell further behind.” And no wonder that today, he writes off violence within the black community in South Side Chicago as a result of “humiliation and untrammeled fury” – a product of a racist system. This is all the language of CRT. No wonder that Obama compared Derrick Bell to Rosa Parks during his Harvard Law School days – he buys into Bell’s philosophy.

In 2001, Obama gave a telling interview with an NPR station in Chicago. Here’s what he had to say about the Constitution:

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.

This is pure CRT. And it’s what Obama believed – and believes.

And that is why Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright was so dangerous for him. Wright was a big backer of CRT. Bell spoke at Wright’s church. The problem was that Wright was a CRT supporter with the fiery passion of the critical race theorists, and without the gentle soothing language that Obama was so careful to cultivate. And so it was extremely important for Obama to disassociate from Wright, and CRT, as soon as possible during his 2008 presidential run. The conflict between Obama’s belief in CRT and his political need to move away from CRT is obvious throughout his 2008 Wright-under-the-bus speech. First, he disowns Wright’s “profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.” He pays lip service to the Constitution. Then he proceeds to talk about all that is wrong with America and little that is right with it, to bash the America that arose under the Constitution, and to suggest that “we’ve never really worked through” the problem of race in America.

Obama threw out the CRT baby, Wright; he kept the CRT bathwater.

His administration has been an ode to CRT. He appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court; she had no judicial background, and no record to speak of. But we do know one thing about her: she helped Derrick Bell usher a seminal CRT piece into the Harvard Law Review in 1985. As Bell stated, “Several editors worked with me on the piece but Elena Kagan was the articles editor … There was real dedication and support by Elena.” President Obama also appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; this was the same woman who suggested that she had a special perspective on the Constitution because she was a “wise Latina.” And then there’s Eric Holder, the Attorney General, who said we were a “nation of cowards” on race, and who has used the Department of Justice to target racial groups unequally (see, for example, the famed New Black Panther case).

The CRT theme runs deep in the Obama psyche. And it continues to impact us each and every day. That’s why Derrick Bell is relevant. And that’s why we will continue to vet the president – and a media that covers for him by pretending that CRT is mainstream rather than extremist and destructive.

_____________________________

CRT is Evil and the Obama Influence

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2012

_____________________________

Critical Race Theory Explained

Copyright © 2012 Breitbart

'Smoking gun' in Breitbart mystery video

Some of the videos Andrew Breitbart spoke of at CPAC are now being made public. This is significant because there is a blogosphere thought that perhaps Breitbart was assassinated because the videos expose President Barack Hussein Obama as a liar in his 2008 campaign when he expressed there was no direct ties between himself and the radical Left.

WND has a report on the Breitbart videos that include a link to Sean Hannity discussing with Breitbart.com people about a media coverup. Later in that show Juan Williams (FOX News Liberal) and Michele Malkin (FOX News Conservative) talk about the significance of the Breitbart videos. Malkin blasts Williams for pooh-poohing the video exposé.

VIDEO: Obama's Mentor: 'We Hid This Throughout 2008 Campaign'

VIDEO: (FOX News) Exclusive: Unedited Obama race video unveiled

JRH 3/8/12

****************************

'Smoking gun' in Breitbart mystery video

Major cover-up alleged in 2008 presidential campaign

By Joe Kovacs

March 7, 2012 10:20 PM CT (Time approximate)

WND

Video footage of President Obama during his college years at Harvard University was intentionally suppressed by news media and academia during the 2008 presidential campaign in order to hide Obama’s connections with radical leftists, according to the editors of Breitbart.com, the website of late conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.

Tapes of Obama at Harvard in 1991 have now been posted online and aired on the Fox News Channel, and they show then-student Obama speaking warmly on behalf of a leftist professor, Derrick Bell.

“Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” Obama says during his speech before hugging him.

The embrace between the pair had been edited out of a video that was released earlier in the day by Buzzfeed. (Video of the embrace can be seen here.)

“This is just the beginning. And this video is a smoking gun showing that Barack Obama not only associated with radicals, he was their advocate,” said Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Referring to Professor Bell, Shapiro explained, “This is a close associate of [controversial Obama Rev.] Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.”

Shapiro says the original video “was spliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, ‘We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.’”

Portions of the tape had apparently been aired on PBS during the campaign four years ago, but without the audio of Obama’s statements and without video of Obama’s embrace of Bell.

“The media cover-up was very real. Ogletree’s cover-up was very real,” Shapiro said.

The videos were broadcast tonight on “Hannity” on Fox News, where columnists Juan Williams and Michelle Malkin were asked to weigh in on their content. (Video of “Hannity” can be seen here.)

“I thought this was going to be so much more,” said Williams. “I thought it was going to be a smoking gun. … But it really didn’t come to much.”

Malkin disagreed vehemently.

“I reject this idea that we should just shrug our shoulders and buy the PBS/Buzzfeed line that ‘There’s nothing new here.’ Stop it!” Malkin exclaimed.

“This is news. They didn’t want to talk about it then, and they don’t want to talk about it now. Do you think it’s a coincidence of timing that Barack Obama has now hired people to put out some 17-minute documentary? This is all about the Alinskyite control of who tells the story.”

Breitbart editors say today’s release was just the beginning.

“We’ve got plenty more and a lot will be released next week,” Shapiro said.

WND reported earlier that Andrew Breitbart had been investigating Obama just before the activist’s sudden death March 1, which is being probed by a coronor (sic).

He told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington he had obtained videos of Obama from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s college days.

“I’ve got videos, by the way. This election we’re going to vet him. I’ve got videos – this election we’re going to vet him – from his college days to show you why … racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008,” Breitbart told CPAC.

He said the videos would reveal Obama during a time when he was meeting a “bunch of silver ponytails” – referring to Weather Underground terror group members Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

It was in the couple’s Chicago home that Obama’s political career reportedly was launched, and his ties to the two run deep. There’s been a solid argument made that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s highly acclaimed memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”

The possibility of videos producing revelations about Obama’s college days is significant, as Obama has carefully kept concealed evidence about his life during the time he reportedly attended Occidental College in California and later two East Coast schools.

A lawsuit at one point obtained an order for Occidental to reveal Obama’s student records. The aim was to find out whether he obtained aid or assistance as a foreign student, lending credibility to the argument that he does not qualify to be president under the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement.

The video posted by Buzzfeed without the embrace:

VIDEO: Obama Protesting at Harvard in 1991

Interest in the issue of Obama’s eligibility skyrocketed recently when an investigative team commission by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., said there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery.

At a news conference, lead investigator Mike Zullo said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.

“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.

NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here.

______________________________

Joe Kovacs, executive news editor for WND, is an award-winning journalist and author of the No. 1 best-selling book "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told."

© Copyright 1997-2012 All Rights Reserved. WND.com Inc.