Paul Waldman At The American Prospect Shouldn’t Misrepresent My Work
It's unfortunate that all the left has to fall back on is deception, dishonesty and false accusations of racisim.
Over at Breitbart's web site, I count eight separate pieces on Derrick Bell (who died last year), trying to make the case that he was some kind of insane radical pushing radical theories of radicalism, all with the intention of oppressing white people, which is obviously what Barack Obama is up to as well. Just to get a flavor, here's an excerpt from one of the articles:
All Waldman does in response is spew nonsense, ridiculous charges and misrepresentations. Only Waldman and others on the left would suggest this is about trying to tell white people blacks are out to get them. Bell's thinking as embodied in Critical Race Theory is obvious and easily understood.
I have called Bell a racialist, not a racist, though any race should see him as that. His position was, any race will always and forever act in group think and out of a race-based self-interest over any other race. Consequently, every multi-racial society must be inherently racist, because the majority will act without interest in, or concern for any minortiy race residing within it.
I reject that short-sighted thinking and put my faith in individual liberty, not race-based liberty. The argument we're having is no more complex than that. There is nothing nutty, racist, or evil in understanding Bell's thinking and asking to what extent it may have influenced Barack Obama's thinking, and to what degree it still may. If anything is cause for concern, it should be Obama and the left's failure and fear as regards even engaging this debate honestly.
More to our point, it isn't so much about what the left thinks about either it, or us, it's that the Obama campaign efforted to conceal Obama's many associations with radicals and the media enabled them in doing it. There have been more than enough substantive points for debate already brought to light to discuss.
Unable to effectively engage, or refute them, all people like Waldman across the broader left have in their bag of tricks is to cry race-baiter, or scream racism. That's as dishonest as it is despicable and I won't engage in the follly of attempting to disprove false and illogical accusations based upon emotion and driven by ideology.
The irony here is in seeing how afraid the left is at the thought of America finding out precisely how they think, when, apparently unlike Waldman, they actually bother to think and speak honestly. At this point, I all but believe people like Waldman lie to themelves more than any other. They wouldn't be so good at it, otherwise.
Here is the post of mine in question. Below, concisely, are several key points from it Waldman could have engaged but didn't. Instead, his only response amounts to slander and false charges of racism. That may demonstrate all one need know about the left's inability to address them and the, apparently, very little one need know about Paul Waldman as an alleged thinker, or honest broker.
Another campaign adviser is Charles Ogletree, a Harvard Law School professor…. National Journal identified prominent radicals on the Obama presidential campaign’s black advisory council. (“Obama’s Inner Circle,” March 31, 2008).
Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree told the Herald he was just kidding when he suggested that a decades-old clip of a young Barack Obama praising and embracing controversial Professor Derrick Bell was kept hidden from voters during the 2008 campaign.
And we were caught up in Reverend Wright's rhetoric as the former pastor of Barack Obama. And amazingly, he sort of disappeared from the scene. He has a book that was scheduled to come out in August, than in October. I can't tell you where that book is, or where he is, but you'll see him after November 5th. (laughter)
"Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell." Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama's mentor said "We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign."
Ayers is not only a flag-trampling apologist for domestic terror. He’s an inveterate liar. Andy McCarthy refreshes your memory.Obama can wrap himself in the flag and attempt to gag his critics, but his false portrayal of Ayers as just a guy in the neighborhood is not going to fly. Obama’s friend is America’s enemy. And America deserves to know.
Despite only partial review of the papers, some outlets are pooh-poohing the disclosures. The Chicago Tribune writes: “A partial examination of the documents did not reveal anything startling about the link between Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, and Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, a Vietnam-era anti-war group that claimed responsibility for several bombings.”
My name is Sam from The Last Tradition and I appaud your post.
Nah, you’re racist.
Obama hates white people.
Dan Riehl: Butthurt on legs.
And yeah, your writing reads as relentlessly race-obsessed. Put it out there and people are going to call you on it. Get over it.
Those fixated on skin color based group rights are incapable of any other comprehension. Individuals can reason for themselves.
Obama announced his campaign for president in Springfield, IL. He had asked Rev Jeremiah Wright to do the invocation. At the last minute Obama sent Wright to the basement and replaced him because he “knew” he might say something controversial. Obama has been hiding his radical connections from the very beginning. Everything Obama does is a political calculation.
“Everything Obama does is a political calculation.”
He is a true Alinsky radical Collectivist.
Meaning, he is committed to subversive destruction of the order existing from the Founding, and replacement of that order with a Collective.
“…your writing reads as relentlessly race-obsessed…”
That is a laughable lie. Which makes you a pitiful liar.
Rags do you even know what “Collectivist” and what radical means? And finally what Alinsky means? Those are just words you through together, in and ill-grammatical and nonsensical manner. What does that mean. Is being a collectivist mean wanting to have a socialistic fire and police dept, Army and Navy, etc… I am going to start calling out folks casually using words like socialist and war to describe petty political policies and and petty disagreements. Live in an actual socialist country and go to in actual war and see the destruction and multilations and deadly political ramifications of belonging to a certain church, race, class etc…
I have read Derrick Bell’s books. Nobody yet has intelligently described his theory and what a legal theory actually means
“Rags do you even know what “Collectivist” and what radical means?”
Yes. To both. Do you?
“And finally what Alinsky means?”
You mean WHO it means, stupid? Yes, I do.
“I have read Derrick Bell’s books.”
I’m willing to bet you are a liar, but go ahead…tell us all about Dr. Bell’s theory, and how we have it wrong.
(This WILL be fun…!!!)
Oh, and tell us what a “legal theory actually means”.
While you’re at it, tell us where you went to law school.
ummm…
buck?
Waiting…
“I have called Bell a racialist, not a racist, though any race should see him as that. His position was, any race will always and forever act in group think and out of a race-based self-interest over any other race. Consequently, every multi-racial society must be inherently racist, because the majority will act without interest in, or concern for any minortiy race residing within it.”
This would be more persuasive if someone quoted Derrick Bell saying anything close to this. After all, if that was so clearly his view of the world, it should be easy to find such a quote. But the reason you are not seeing any such quote from Bell is because Riehl is intentionally misrepresenting Bell’s work. Bell is dead now and cannot defend himself as wingers put words in his mouth and mischaracterize who he was and what he thought. I leave it to the more intellectually curious among us to read what he wrote and see how Riehl has attempted to pull the wool over our eyes.
What I don’t get is how people will talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle but won’t just look at facts – some which are *a lot* more damning of Obama’s presidency than his supposed “radical brotherhood” of friends.
He is accused of being a socialist. What anti-capitalism measures has he taken? Quite to the contrary, he has pretty much left Wall Street the way it was, even after the monstrous charlie-foxtrot of 2008. He is in bed with most of the power players in the financial market, and market deregulation continues unabated.
He is accused of being an appeaser. He has pretty much just sanctioned the killing of American citizens without due process, bypassing our whole checks & balances system. You can have a hellfire missile shot at you from a drone out of the blue sky without a single judge looking into your case. You can be detained indefinitely without being able to see a lawyer or the US judicial system. He took us into Libya bypassing Congress and every single law in the book.
He is called a racist. How does a half Iowa-whitebread/ half Kenyan become all of a sudden a black militant? What policies has he effectively instituted to promote a race over another?
There is so much more than name calling and epithet slinging that can be used against him! Leave his “radical associations” behind, those obviously are not sticking – there is more than enough about his current policies and practices that can be used to define the man and his presidency.
LOL Whut?