Image 01 Image 03

The Derrick Bell thing has them worried

The Derrick Bell thing has them worried

The Breitbart video of Barack Obama embracing Prof. Derrick Bell, one of the founders of critical race theory, has been dismissed as a dud and failure.

But the dialogue about how that narrative fits into Obama’s campaign tactics — something I explored on Day 2 of this blog — must have the Obama campaign worried because the Obama campaign has released an ad attacking Sarah Palin on the issue (h/t HotAir):

Is this merely an Obama distraction play to get everyone’s mind off gas prices?

I don’t think so.  Even Gawker is worried how this will play out in the election.

Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers and so on are Obama’s achilles’ heel, so every effort is made to squelch inquiry and criticism, and to demonize anyone who raises the issues of class and race card warfare as a political strategy.

Update:  Soledad O’Brien Tells Angry Audience: ‘Stop Tweeting Me!’:

After the discussion O’Brien told angry viewers to “stop Tweeting me!” and arbitrarily declared the issue dead and announced that she was “moving on.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Oh, they should be worried. Very, very worried…

It takes NO leap to tie all this together in a very strong chain, each link of which is sound.

I think you could literally post these all day. Funny how they all point in ONE…and only ONE…direction.

VERY, very, very worried:

Obama’s ideal Rep. Danny Davis accepts award from Communist group called Unity – caught on film – with Obama operative and a known communist getting nasty trying to stop filming –

The Breitbart vetting campaign will continue EVERY DAY until the election.

Breitbart lives!

JimMtnViewCaUSA | March 12, 2012 at 11:09 am

Not only do Dem elites hate her for being a voice of the everyday citizen, there is also a significant disdain from Repub elites. They want to continue feeding at the trough and Sarah began her career by taking on corrupt Repub politicians.

I bet the current HBO docu-drama was slated to come out now in the hopes of doing damage to her candidacy. Since she ended up not running, the show has missed its mark.

    Ragspierre in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | March 12, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Sarah also shook up the status quo in Alaska very nicely…AND got things done.

    That scares the political class spitless…

      AmandaFitz in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

      I wish Sarah Palin would just flat out endorse Newt and campaign with him. The GOP “elite establishment” already hates her (because they fear she’ll decrease their power/money) so she might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat!

    Get ready for Palin unleashed! She will be the burr up Obama’s butt and the DNC and administration knows it. The HBO farce will backfire…..she will defend herself and continue to share her views on what a shit Maobama is. The Rush pile on will backfireas well.

    The woman is on target every time. We need her in this race to save and restore our once great country.

    Newt should step aside and appoint Palin in his place.

I’ve seen this tactic a thousand times from liberals, frame your opponent as far right extremist in order to move their radical leftism toward center … move the line of centrist moderate.

You know President Post Turtle is just a moderate centrist fence sitter, now promoting his own victimization as well.

He’s pandering to uneducated liberal sheeple who’ll not grade him on the Bell Curve.

The REAL Sarah Palin movie, The Undefeated, is narrated by Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin and others and it alludes to the RINOs and their collusion/actions to throw the election.

Did any of you buy Breitbart’s book Righteous Indignation? Yesterday I read Chapter Six, Breakthrough. In it Andrew writes about Critical Theory, and many other progressive terms we’ve been hearing three years into this nightmare. I think it represents Andrew’s grand plan of attack for this election and so far based on drips it makes perfect sense. If you have the book take a look, and see if I’m off my rocker. Andrew had been planning this vetting for some time.

The stink of desperation is palpable. Do we really need another 4 years of Marxist rule? I’m thinking not.

    wodiej in reply to Jenny. | March 12, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    love your avatar.

    RWRFAN in reply to Jenny. | March 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Of the Marxist swine Maobama, no.
    We need 4 years of house cleaning (both of them) by Sarah Palin.
    They attack her at will. She’s still standing tall and fights back…”like a girl!!”.

They should be very worried.

Breitbart said the President will be vetted and I think Hannity will not rest until it happens.

Anyone who votes to keep the Marxist President clearly doesn’t care about this nation.

Why are they running ads against Palin. Is she running now?…lol.

Ya think the left is a little scared of her much?

The “movie” Game change and now this ad? It’s crazy.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to rightConcept. | March 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Another theory…it’s a way to tarnish her and make her toxic so as not to make her appealing like in 2010. They want her allies to second guess her, politicos to brush off her endorsements, make her unpalatable for a VP pick and to get her off the stage for the GOP convention.

Soledud O’Brien tried to milk Joel Pollak for what’s coming next. I feel quite confident that we’ve only seen the first of more exposes – and the Progressive/Marxists/ Communists probably fear there’s more to come.

I watched The Undefeated last night on Reelz (same time frame as HBO’s Game Change). It is a compelling presentation of the enormous principled-based changes Governor Palin wrought in her first two years in office.

Several times during the program, The Undefeated acknowledged Andrew Breitbart’s passing with a simple screen containing his name, year of birth and death.

    LukeHandCool in reply to logos. | March 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    It’s going to come out drip, drip, drip … like water torture.

    I love those Breitbart guys … and after that Soledad O’Brien fiasco for CNN, Andrew must be looking down feeling very proud of Joel Pollak.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to logos. | March 12, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    yes, that was very classy of them.

Joel Pollak tacks this on to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright-Derrick Bell intersection today.

Excerpt: “In one sermon, which Wright published in 1995 in a collection entitled Africans Who Shaped Our Faith: A Study of 10 Biblical Personalities, Wright referred specifically to Bell’s protest against Harvard–the same protest that Obama supported in a video released by last week.

The sermon repeats the main doctrine of Bell’s Critical Race Theory–that the United States was founded on racism, and that America remains irredeemably racist. Wright also attacked “Jewish lawyers,” comparing the Jews of Jesus’s time to “Klansmen” and describing Jesus as a racial provocateur:”

Read more here

Don’t forget Bell was a big fan of Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan gave a speech at UC Berkeley this week and again went after Jews for controlling the media, the slave trade, etc.

Still crazy after all these years.

So this “distinguished” law professor with the crazy theory in a society so racist that he was able to become a professor at the top university in the country loved him some crazy Farrakhan.

Don’t forget that Jews control Legal Insurrection.

[…] fire: Obama has left us with a target-rich environment. Gas prices. Race division. Promoting voter fraud.Outrageous Attorney General clueless about at epic failure at Justice. Green […]

StrangernFiction | March 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm

This is why nominating Mitt Romney is so tragic. WE DON’T HAVE TO NOMINATE A STATIST TO BEAT IL DOUCHE! *sigh*

Midwest Rhino | March 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm

“Nothing to see here … move along”

from Naked Gun, Leslie Nielsen playing Maj. Media

This is a web ad being used for fund raising purposes.

Obama Fundraising Off Palin Attack

The ad is a cut and paste job.

Here is the interview:

… and oh yes, Sarah Palin’s comments were absolutely spot on and have caused the secular socialists to go sideways:

Sarah Palin Does It Again With Civil War Reference

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm

The leftsphere bloggers, led by Think Progress, have conditioned the socialist/liberal base of the Democrat Party to have a special kind of hate for private citizens Sarah Palin and Charles and David Koch.

So Obama is going to campaign against private citizens to stoke the hatred of his base to get them motivated until Republicans figure out who our nominee is.

WAR!: In “Dangerous Liaisons”, the Glenn Close character is being bullied into sexual submission by the one played by John Malkovitch. She DOES NOT roll over and take it. She DOES NOT compromise. A three-prong battle strategy to counter the elite media and Obama’s minions is provided at the link. We are in TOTAL WAR.

[…] Longer Funny – Or Invulnerable Posted on March 12, 2012 9:30 am by Bill Quick » The Derrick Bell thing has them worried – Le·gal In·sur·rec&middo… Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers and so on are Obama’s achilles heel, so every […]

Whaddya know?

The damage-control spin cycle on the CNN dryer produces a soft, fluffy security blanket of a critical race theory Professor who, completely by coincidence, comes down on Soledad’s side.

She says that if you got five critical race theorists in a room, they wouldn’t agree on what critical race theory is (except, again, coincidentally, that it would have nothing to do with white supremacy … they wouldn’t agree, but she knows that for sure and can speak for the other four … take that Joel Pollak!!).

So the five critical race theorists in a room wouldn’t agree on what CRT is … that doesn’t sound like much of a theory to me.

Put five scientists together and mention the theories of evolution or relativity … and I’ll bet they’d pretty much all agree on what those theories purport.

Anyway, as any critical race theorist with any interpretation of this “theory” would tell you, before you put the CRT professor in the sweet, soft, fuzzy, fluffy spin dry cycle for maximum amiable appearance on TV, make sure you separate the colors from the whites when you wash … this is 2012 … the 21st Century … after all!!!

We’re doomed.

I’m confused. I went looking for info on “critical race theory” and found this article, which makes the theory seem anti-liberal. I don’t understand what this controversy is about.

Critical race theory (CRT) first emerged as a counterlegal scholarship to the positivist and liberal legal discourse of civil rights… argues against the slow pace of racial reform… begins with the notion that racism is normal… critiques liberalism and argues that Whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation… looks at how citizenship and race might interact… requires critique of some of the civil rights era’s most cherished legal victories and educational reform movements, such as multiculturalism…

    Terri in reply to janitor. | March 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law and power. According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

    CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.[1]

    Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT asserts that white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, that law plays a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[2]

    Appearing in U.S. law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, critical race theory began as a reaction to critical legal studies.[3] Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars’ commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[4] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in Critical Legal Studies, but criticized CLS scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.[5]

    Critical race theory has obvious political and legal ramifications and has thus triggered numerous legal and political controversies.

      janitor in reply to Terri. | March 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm

      Thank you Terri and Moe4.

      I am still confused. I now have read both the above, and more. None of it makes sense. Whatever this “theory” is, it is mostly directionless gibberish.

      I suspect that it might have been encouraged by multiculturalism and liberal obsession with identifying people as members of discrete groups, however arbitrary or imaginary. Excuse making.

      “Racial equality” is an inane idea in the first place because the second one tries to delineate descriptive criteria to artificially group people into so-called “races”, ipso facto “equality” goes out the window. So “black” can be recognized because it is the group that is oppressed? Illogical circularity. My head hurts.


    jasond in reply to janitor. | March 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Here is a definition of Critical Race Theory by Professor Dorothy A. Brown, CNN guest expert this morning on the Soledad O’Brian show. When asked by Soledad if CRT had anything to do with White Supremacy she said no. Apparently she forgot what she wrote in her book.

    “Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neuftral and objective, but designed to support White Supremacy and the subordination of people of color. One of CRT’s central tenets is the pervasiveness of racism in American society. At it’s core CRT accepts the notion that even in the twenty-first century, if you are a person of color in America, you are the victim of racial subordination.”

    Pages 1486-1487 “Fighting Racism in the Twenty-First Century”

    Do not trust Wikipedia to define anything. It’s controlled mainly by lefties who will change content to suit their narative.

Joan Of Argghh | March 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm

It makes me want to vet MLK a little closer, as well. Perhaps he was not so far removed from CRT as we assume.

Cat’s outta the bag, at any rate.

Millions of white Americans who have never judged a man by the color of his skin are still found guilty and irremediable in the eyes of their President. Millions of white Americans who have never exploited or harmed a person for the color of their skin now find that they have been played, and played hard by their political, educational and media elites.

I can see why it would make CRT’s proponents a bit skittish.

    Critical Race Theory sprang up in the mid 1970’s.

      Joan Of Argghh in reply to CWLsun. | March 12, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      Reading for comprehension sprung up in the Dark Ages.

      MLK was brought into the discussion as being the polar opposite of CRT. CRT did not spring up out of whole cloth. It has been carefully pieced together from another idea. Shouldn’t we determine if MLK was influenced by that idea?

        I have read and I’m objecting to the “we” in your comment. As a occasional commenter and avid reader of Legal Insurrection I don’t want to be lumped into the “we” of the comment you made.

          Joan Of Argghh in reply to CWLsun. | March 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm

          Eh? If you says so. You merely pointed out when CRT sprang up. If I misread your intent in quashing my muse, I apologize. But mostly, at this point, I think any question of pronoun placement in conversation falls to the ones who wish to make a distinction based on race.

          Lots of folks (of every color) have NEVER based any assumptions on race, and now, knowing how they were played, will be more circumspect in their approach. I’m not saying I agree with it or embrace it. But it is worth noting.

          And worth wondering where it comes from.

        Hi Joan,

        Speaking of MLK, I saw this article at Frontpage:

        How Derrick Bell Beat Martin Luther King Jr.

        “Shouldn’t we determine if MLK was influenced by that idea?”

        Of course we should but then they would call us racists…. wait a minute….they already do so let us all continue to be Breitbart and keep digging for the truth.

LukeHandCool | March 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm

I’m a little surprised at the Bretbart Boys.

Remember when Andrew offered $100,000 to anyone with proof that the N-word was hurled at the black congressmen who provocatively marched through the tea party crowd (the congressmen armed with videocameras and not taking the usual subterranean route) on their way to the Obamacare vote? Remember Pelosi holding the Flintstones prop sized gavel?

Andrew had no takers for the $100,000 he offered … notwithstanding all those videocameras rolling at the time … and the congressmen stick by that ridiculous claim.

Well, another “critical theory” is that when Joel Pollak had Soledad frozen in his headlights when he asked her to explain CRT on the spot and how it differed from his definition, she got the wikipedia definition in her earpiece from an intern. Later on in their back and forth, she tells Joel she couldn’t hear him because someone was talking to her in her earpiece.

Why doesn’t Team Breitbart immediately offer $100,000 (or more) to any intern who will come forward with proof they fed that to Soledad? Proof could be passing a lie-detector test and signing an affidavit.

Come on, Team Breitbart. Be Breitbart! If an intern came forward it would be absolutely devastating to CNN and Soledad.

    Scorpio51 in reply to LukeHandCool. | March 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I do remember that because Congressman Cleaver lives in the Kansas City area and is now head of the Black Caucus. I happen to live in Kansas and remember that incident very well.

    Of course, Congressman Cleaver lied and played the race card with the Tea Party. There never was any video to back up his claim of being spit on.

The Obama Administrations achilles heel is that they are a very small tightly connected group.

Sometimes it doesn’t help to have one of the most cited law professors in your administration as part of that small group.

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics. He is uniquely qualified to lead my Administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued advisor, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

To put a nice neat little bow on the concept of Critical Race Theory, it has been co-opted and shorted to the concept of “White Privilege.”

Basically what it says is that institutional racism benefits the “White” person due to sociological structure, which can NEVER be remedied without either a (truly) separate but equal culture or a revolution where the current culture is torn down an a new one is installed.

Bell was critical of the Civil Rights Movement because they were attempting to get Black individuals equal rights without addressing the imbalances in society. Bell believed (I would assume from his writings) that this “equality” was doomed to failure because the underlying structure itself was tilted toward the “White” person.

    janitor in reply to Chuck Skinner. | March 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    What/who is a “white person” under this “theory”?

      theduchessofkitty in reply to janitor. | March 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      “What/who is a “white person” under this “theory”?”

      “white person” – anyone who wins an argument against them.

      Trust me, I’ve been there – and I’m Latina.

Uncle Samuel | March 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum at Alabama GOP forum, TODAY 3/12/12 – 6:30PM EST – 5:30PM CENTRAL

The event will be on CSPAN and ABC 3340 digital channel.

DINORightMarie | March 12, 2012 at 1:59 pm

I take issue with the words which intro. that attack ad/fundraiser: Sarah Palin did NOT (not in their edited version, not in the full segment on Hannity) EVER say that anyone – ANYONE! – was attempting to bring “race discrimination – against white people.” Period. Not her – nor anyone else on the right. No one! They put words into OUR mouths, imputing racial HATE and FEAR, as they insinuate Sarah Palin SAID this. Liars!!

Sarah correctly raised Obama’s incessant drumming of class warfare and division – which Obama creates then reinforces: by income, by color of the skin, etc. He IS taking us back to the before the Civil War, when all that was acceptable. She’s RIGHT!

What fear they must feel, how intimidated they must be, when a STRONG, truth-telling Lady states FACTS.

Turns on their fear-mongering Alinsky beams to HIGH. Rule 13 – with a little cash on the side.

Disgusting. Leftist are beyond sickening.

Barack Obama in “Dreams from My Father”:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.

At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling conventions. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.


Worthy of note is that Obama NEVER seems to have renounced any of these positions. He NEVER said that after further reflection, he realized he was wrong. It’s not hard to figure out why.

    janitor in reply to OCBill. | March 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    It sounds like Obama has some kind of emotional or identity disorder. Maybe it’s displaced sexual identity disorder.

Joan Of Argghh | March 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm

We’re already behind in the cultural upheaval and CRT can’t even come close to addressing the fact that universal distribution of education is proving far more powerful than laws of any stripe. But only if you’re in that distribution loop.

If we don’t find a voice on TED Ed at YouTube, we’re falling behind faster than we know. Half a million young skulls full of mush will believe anything that shows up on TED as Gospel. Anything. It’s mostly science and learning, but it’s fully embraced by the Left. It’s the new classroom of the 21st century, and while I love it, I’m hoping a million Breitbarts will find a way to embrace the youthful exuberance of the TED crowd and find their way in.

…and yet the mainstream media remains deafening silent..

Liberals aren’t worried with democracy hijacking get-out the vote initiatives and the Occupiers

Michigan unions fight back
Escabanana Daily Press – 3 hours ago

LANSING (AP) – After more than a year of what they consider continuous Republican-led policy attacks, Michigan unions are fighting back with a sweeping proposal that would enshrine collective bargaining rights in the state constitution and put them beyond the reach of state lawmakers.

The measure would serve as a pre-emptive strike against a possible right-to-work movement in Michigan, and potentially could undo some of what the state Legislature has done in the past 14 months related to unions and bargaining powers. It also could serve as a get-out-the-vote rallying point for Democrats as they seek to re-elect President Barack Obama this fall.

Professor Jacobson could you please strip the outplay coding from the Saladhead O’Brien video or at least properly format it to fit the page so one could pause the video.

Other than that you have to go full screen to access the controls to end Saladhead’s annoying diatribe.


So I keep trying to wrap my head around what this theory is.

By analogy, would this be similar to the assertion that all of the institutions in the United States are founded on an underlying notion of a meritocracy (let’s call it smartism), and that therefore we need to identify the stupid people and the lazy people so that we can assure that we have, e.g. an equal number of stupid people and lazy people in control in our institutions of power, such as the Supreme Court?

Or would this be similar to saying that there is inherent institutional Judeo-Christian religionism in the United States, and that therefore we must identify everyone who rejects everything Jewish or Christian and not only put these people into equal positions of power but also recast laws that are founded in notions that could be identified as stemming from beliefs that arguably arose out of Biblical ideas?

Or is it just an ill-thought-through, illogical and essentially ridiculous extreme multiculturalism, in which its ultimate conclusion would be akin to a snake eating its own tail? I.e. the blather of a bad thinker attempting to fashion some kind of cutting edge trendy envelope-pushing philosophy in the “Black Power!” days, but unfortunately taken seriously instead of being derided as rot because, after all, we must be sensitive to “race” as a viable avenue of intellectual, philosophical and legal thought (and of course also because it emanated from a so-called “black” person), and so serious scholars must seriously consider it as having substance?

(Anything this bad and nonsensical is dangerous to the extent that someone in power thinks it makes sense and in his mind arbitrarily advances something he imagines that it means.)

LukeHandCool | March 12, 2012 at 3:21 pm

Awwwww ….

Soledad’s expert, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown says in the clip “white supremacy” has nothing to do with “critical race theory.”

But … oops … this is found in her book:

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

H/T Brietbart and their link.

    I’m guessing Soledud won’t be issuing any “follow up” reports to set the record straight by quoting from Brown’s own book.

    Lying Democrat-Media Complex!

    janitor in reply to LukeHandCool. | March 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Soledad’s expert, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown says in the clip “white supremacy” has nothing to do with “critical race theory.”

    But … oops … this is found in her book:

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

    What are her examples of [current] laws “designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color”?

A black guy, An illegal alien, A Muslim, And a communist walk into a bar.

The bartender asks, “What can I get you Mr President?”

The Derrick Bell thing has them worried

1. It should. The Left’s power in the academy has engendered their careless arrogance. Suddenly that arrogance is jolted–in a manner directly linked to Obama’s mismanagement of the economy, and thus to the election. They most definitely do not want the voters to make those connections.

2. It stands to reason that the Left is trying to divert attention, e.g. to Palin’s Civil War remark.

3. Is Palin a political idiot savant whose main talent is drawing attention to herself? I’m not convinced either way. Maybe the Civil War comment was a gross gaffe. Maybe it was a deliberate bid for the spotlight on behalf of the Palin brand: look at the immediate revival of Palinista magical thinking in some comments above.

4. As of this writing, I have not found Palin’s remark in a Fox transcript.

5. America, if your choices are between what the Palin video represents, what the O’Brien video represents, and what the Bush family represents, you are in serious trouble.

Uncle Samuel | March 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm

LIke Breitbart, PJTV, Bill Whittle and others in conservative media are also doing a great job of exposing the corruption in the Obama regime.

Here is one story – Two investigators publish story: Radicals are preferentially hired by DOJ:

Stacking the DOJ with radicals means election fraud will be ignored…or enabled.

This, plus Holder’s attempts to stop Voter Photo IDs, will allow wanted felons, dead people, illegal aliens, voting in multiple locations under variations of one name and anyone can vote for them.

We need a computerized National Voter Registry and Photo IDs, to (try to) prevent this election from being stolen. Corrupt people will always attempt to defraud, lie and stay power no matter what honorable people do to try to stop them.

Well, well, well.

With the effort by the Obama campaign to fund raise off of Governor Palin’s remarks to Hannity, while calling her ultra right, how does Sarah Palin respond?

Earlier today she sent out the following tweet:

The new ShePAC video calls out the hypocrisy.!/SarahPalinUSA/statuses/179241750878093312

…. that is correct, the video which points out the blatant hypocrisy of Obama towards women and that of his PAC in accepting Bill Maher’s “dirty money.”


Folks, follow her lead and re-tweet her tweet. Post it on social media sites. Help spread the word.

In November of 1985, the Harvard Law Review published a seminal article of Critical Race Theory, written by Derrick Bell, and edited by a student, Elena Kagan. The same article was cited by Professor Charles Ogletree and by President Obama as support for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The article defines the Constitution as a form of “original sin”. A similar view has been expressed by President Obama in referring to the flaws of the Constitution. Most of the article is fiction and meant as a parable. Unfortunately, the parables of a racist are now becoming institutionalized within our legal system.

Why does CNN employ an insecure apologist for racialism like Soledad?

Bell was not only prejudiced but a supremacist. He was the worst kind of human being that populates our planet. Someone who rejects individual dignity on principle and for profit.

That said, Obama’s associations do not necessarily reflect his own character; but, the preponderance of evidence, and his own opportunistic life and lifestyle, demonstrates exceedingly poor judgment.

As for O’Brien, she is a JournoList. She makes her living through opportunistic exploitation for her preferred interests, including her own. It is the rare individual who is capable of containing their ego and ambitions to preserve their dignity. In any case, she needs to work on presenting and defending her version of the equivalence principle. Unlike politics and, apparently, “science”, a limited consensus will not help her position. Welcome to the market, O’Brien. Even with a totalitarian and corrupt (redundant?) regime the market always rules. And Americans have not yet abdicated their dignity in the majority.

[…] Obama, then pushing thirty, embracing an anti-Semitic basket-case and all-around race-baiter (via Legal Insurrection) by the name of Derrick Bell.  Derrick Bell is the mind (or is it “mind?) behind a […]

BannedbytheGuardian | March 12, 2012 at 10:12 pm

Is there a half Race theory?

What about a 3/4 race theory for Sasha & Malia. ?

A 100% race theory is just -well -discrimination.

BannedbytheGuardian | March 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Regarding the anti Palin ad.

Whoosh -She really landed one one them….haha .

Not a man of Valour..

[…] in radical Obama’s life. Over the last couple of weeks we’ve been introduced to one Professor Derrick Bell, critical race theory, and gained far more insight into just how much Saul Alinsky influenced the […]