The Rise of the Black Klan

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner via The Washington Times

Black supremacy is on the march. It is a poison that is spreading across our  society, meeting little to no resistance. This must change. Otherwise, America  will confront the real prospect of racial conflict.

The New Black  Panthers are the tip of the spear. They champion black supremacy, hatred of  whites, and militant Islam. They are the black version of the Ku Klux Klan — bigoted thugs who practice vigilantism and mob rule. They placed a $10,000  bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman — “dead or alive” — for the killing  of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black teenager. Their actions threaten the rule  of law. Placing bounties on people’s heads is an invitation to lawlessness and  murder. It has no place in a civilized society.

Recently, on their radio  show. the New Black Panthers called for a race war. In an April 6 broadcast,  Chawn Kweli, the party’s national spokesman, said that “true revolution means  some bloodshed.” In particular, he championed the racial cleansing of American  whites.

“And there are those who wish they could stand in this hour, to  see the destruction of the devil’s world and the devil’s society …” Mr. Kweli  said. “I’m talking about that blond-haired, blue-eyed, sometimes brown-eyed  Caucasian walking around with a mind-set, a demonistic mind-set, and a nature to  do evil and brutality.”

On that same broadcast, the Panthers’ chief of  staff, Michelle Williams, demanded that blood be spilled for Trayvon’s shooting. “Let me tell you, the things that’s about to happen, to these honkeys, these  crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these —- people,” she said in an  interview. “It has been long overdue.”

Mr. Kweli and Ms. Williams were  inciting violence and a race riot. Yet, Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to  file charges against the New Black Panthers. This is the same Mr. Holder who  dropped the case against members of the Black Panthers for their flagrant  intimidation of voters at a Philadelphia poll in the 2008 election. He has told  staffers at the Justice Department that he will not prosecute black civil rights  abuses perpetrated on white victims. Under his leadership, justice is not blind;  rather, it is viewed through a racialist lens.

It is not just,  however, the New Black Panthers. The sickness of ideological racialism even  reaches the White House. For more than 20 years, President Obama attended the  church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The pastor champions black liberation  theology. It fuses black nationalism with revolutionary socialism. Mr. Wright  baptized Mr. Obama’s daughters and presided over his marriage to Michelle. He  was Mr. Obama’s long-time spiritual adviser.

Recently, Mr. Wright was  back in the news. At a revival meeting in Charleston, W.Va., the pastor railed  against whites. He claimed that Jesus Christ, who was “not European,” was  crucified by the “European” — meaning white — Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. Mr.  Wright also attacked America’s supposed racist power structure, saying that it  was based on capitalist greed and black oppression.

“There are people in  power right now who have opinions about you based on their privilege of skin  color,” he said.

For Mr. Wright, the primary engine of history is race — especially, the imperialism of white supremacy. “The ignorance and arrogance of  white supremacy have the movers and shapers of world policy living in a  different world from people of color all together,” he raged. “And the sooner  you realize that the better off you’re gonna be.” His solution is what he calls “restorative justice and theology” — the redistribution of wealth from the upper  and middle classes to the poor.

Mr. Wright is simply a more polished  version of the New Black Panthers. He doesn’t call for blood on the streets. He  doesn’t walk around in military fatigues and jackboots wielding a club. But his  message is the same: Blame whitey. It is virulent racism masquerading as social  justice.

If George W. Bush had spent 20 years in the church of a white  supremacist, he never would have come close to winning the Republican nomination — never mind the presidency. Conservatives would have rightly excoriated him.  The liberal media would have driven him out of Washington. Yet, when it comes to  Mr. Obama, the press corps has been largely silent. The reason is simple and  pernicious: When it comes to race, there is a blatant double standard. White  racism is condemned; black racism is excused.

This racial hypocrisy  permeates American society. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan — all  are race-baiters and grievance-mongers who peddle a form of black nationalism.  Instead of being ostracized, they are embraced and their behavior is  rationalized by the liberal establishment. The N-word is routinely used by black  rappers and musicians. It can never be uttered, however, by whites.  Black-on-white crime is largely ignored by the media. White-on-black crime is  turned into a national tragedy — even when the alleged perpetrator is Hispanic,  such as Mr. Zimmerman.

Institutionalized discrimination against whites — affirmative action, racial quotas, and university admissions policies — has  become a permanent feature of life.
Liberals are playing with fire.  Multiethnic states — the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia — were torn  apart by nationalist passions. Other major countries, including China, France,  Britain, Spain, Canada and Nigeria, are under tremendous internal strain due to  resurgent tribalism. America is no exception. The danger of black revanchism is  that, if it remains unchecked, it may trigger a counterreaction among whites.  For every Farrakhan there could be a David Duke. The New Black Panthers would  then get what they want: a race war. And that battle will not end well — for  anybody, black or  white.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a  columnist for The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke  Institute.

Form more information click here.

Obama-Endorsed Rev. Jeremiah “G-d Damn America” Wright Calls on Muslims to Retake Jerusalem

via Atlas Shrugs

CiF Watch recently established a special  website to expose the truth of the Global March to Jerusalem at due to take on March 30, 2012. GMJ is run by  mostly Hamas and MB members — and Obama’s longtime pastor and mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is on the advisory  board: (hat tip Emet)


Obama’s Pastor calls on Muslims to retake Jerusalem March 13 (hat tip David W.)

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was US President Barack Obama’s pastor  for 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south  side, has endorsed the “March on Jerusalem.”

The  Doha conference was a two-day long effort to demonize Israel and deny  Judaism’s more than three thousand year connection to Jerusalem.  Both events are designed to reverse what their organizers call the Judaization of “occupied Jerusalem.”

The  White House has refused to comment on Wright’s decision to endorse the  March on Jerusalem, or the presence of state department consultants at  the so-called Doha Conference.

The National Conference of Jewish Affairs said  “That the President’s long-time pastor and “spiritual leader” is now  endorsing the Global March to Jerusalem, without a reaction from the  White House, underscores President Obama’s failure to recognize the  unalterable significance of Judaism’s multi-millennial connection to  Jerusalem, which is the capital of the Jewish State, Israel.”

Wright,  of “God Damn America” notoriety, has also asserted on ABC news that the  U.S. brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”

He  has also made openly anti-Semitic statements saying Jews have robbed  him of his influence over Obama, “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk  to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years  when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

“[T]he Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him,” Wright also has also claimed.  The Global March to Jerusalem, slated for March 30th, follows on the heels of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Doha Conference on the Defense of ‘Occupied’ Jerusalem.”

Obama  – who adamantly denied hearing any offensive statements from Wright  during his 20 years in his flock despite being shown numerous video  clips of them – has sought to defend Wright in the past.

“It’s  as if we took the five dumbest things that I’ve ever said or you’ve  ever said in our lives and compressed them and put them out there — I  think that people’s reaction would, understandably, be upset.”

This is the man who shaped Barack Obama’s thinking. From my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America:

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Obama was a member for twenty years, had roots in both Islam and economic radicalism: “But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles – what the church calls the ‘Black Value System’– included a ‘Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’”[i] Wright was also a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in November 2009 offered a doggerel version of Obama’s lofty post-American internationalism: “America,” he declared, “has run out of time. It is the time of the setting of the sun on the Western world.”[ii]

Jeremiah Wright was a committed Marxist, as he himself confirmed in an address in September 2009: “My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and with the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the social realities of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economics undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit.”[iii]

The Fight The Smears website says that Obama “has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.”[iv] The New York Times reported in 2007 that Obama was baptized at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988.[v] Details, however, are sketchy and contradictory: a year later, Newsweek stated that Obama was baptized “in the early 1990s.”[vi] Was Obama baptized at all? The truth of this matter is elusive. However, the positions of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended for twenty years, are not elusive in the least: black nationalism and socialism were always on the agenda – and it is significant that the Christianity preached in the Trinity United Church of Christ is a far-left variety that focuses upon few of the features of Christianity that distinguish it from Islam, or at least from the black nationalist amalgam of Islam, Christianity, and racial identity that is the hallmark of that peculiarly American brand of Islam, the Nation of Islam.

When Obama became a member of Trinity Church in 1991, he accepted what the church calls “the Black Value System,” a race-based code ethics that encourages black separatism, warning black Americans to shun the middle class life as a white trap, and to patronize only black-owned businesses. As Jeremiah Wright put it, “We are an African people, and remain true to our native land, the mother continent.”[vii]

Not to America.

Wright, of course, drew controversy during the campaign for his exaggerated race baiting and hateful statements in support of his protégé’s presidential campaign. And Obama, after a good deal of hesitation, ultimately threw Wright under the bus for these and other statements:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a … law, and then wants us to sing God bless America, no no no, not God bless America, GOD DAMN AMERICA, it’s in the Bible, killing innocent people.….

Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled by and run by rich white people!

Obama’s repudiation of this race hate was welcome, albeit tardy and politically motivated. Wright’s remarks during the campaign, however, were not likely to have differed significantly in philosophy from remarks he had made over the course of twenty years – while Barack Obama sat and listened.

And there were signs that Obama did listen. Wright preached after 9/11 that America had gotten what it deserved – that the attacks were just desserts for the atomic bombs exploded in Japan: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas are now brought back into our own front yard! America’s chickens, are coming home, to roost.”[viii]

This was Obama’s spiritual adviser. The man whose sermon inspired the title of Obama’s second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope.

Asked during a visit to Japan in November 2009 whether he thought the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, Obama ducked the question. Were Wright’s condemnations of those bombings still ringing in his ears? Of course, there were plenty of other radical leftists from whom Obama might have picked up this idea. But the coincidence was notable.[ix]

Now it certainly seems as if Barack Obama, with his schemes to nationalize health care, the auto industry, and more, has absorbed and adopted as his own some of Wright’s principal preoccupations – and is intent on making the nation as a whole disavow the “pursuit of middleclassness.”

These are not just insignificant associations. Obama and Wright are still close; despite Obama’s public repudiation of Trinity United Church of Christ during his presidential campaign, and bitter words from Wright about the severing of their relationship, Wright has visited the White House at least once since his onetime protégé became president.[x]

And Wright’s race-baiting Christianity of Resentment has also left its mark on Obama’s handling of racial issues as president.

[i] Ryan Lizza, “The Agitator; Barack Obama’s unlikely political education,” The New Republic

 [ii] Ashahed M. Muhammad, “Farrakhan: America’s Time Is Up,” The Final Call, December 2, 2009.

[iii] Thomas Lipscomb, “Did Bill Ayers Write Obama’s Book?,” Accuracy In Media, November 27, 2009.

[iv] Aaron Klein, “Obama anti-smear site: ‘He was never a Muslim,’” World Net Daily, June 12, 2008.

[v] Jodi Kantor, “Barack Obama’s search for faith,” New York Times, April 30, 2007.

[vi] Lisa Miller and Richard Wolffe, “Finding His Faith,” Newsweek, July 12, 2008.

[vii] “Obama’s Church,” Investor’s Business Daily, January 15, 2008.

[viii] Michael Tomasky, “Wright and wrong,” Guardian, March 14, 2008.

[ix] Pamela Geller, “Obama Refuses to Say Bombing Hiroshima Was the ‘Right Decision,’”, November 14, 2009.

[x] Sammy Benoit, “White House Releases Visitors List. Soros, ACORN/SEIU and Others,” Yid with Lid, October 30, 2009.

For more information click here.

Romanticpoet's Weblog



First This:

Barack Obama to Khalid Muhammad: Two Degrees of Separation

March 12, 2012

Hat Tip: BB

From PowerLine:

John Podhoretz and Patterico highlight a close connection between Barack Obama and Khalid Muhammad. Obama, as we know, was a disciple of Derrick Bell; in the video that released a few days ago, he urged his listeners to open their hearts and minds to Bell’s teachings. So, what were Bell’s teachings?

Bell was a fervent admirer of Louis Farrakhan and Khalid Muhammad of the Nation of Islam. Podhoretz quotes a 1994 interview in which Bell said, “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” Our readers are well aware of the repellent Farrakhan, but who was Khalid Muhammad? Patterico gives us Muhammad’s “Kill the Cracker” speech, in which Muhammad, whom Derrick Bell so admired, advocated genocide:


View original post 178 more words

The Racist Ravings of Derrick Bell, Obama’s Harvard Hero

By John Perazzo via Front Page Magazine

By now, you may already have seen the 1991 video footage of Barack Obama, who was then a 30-year-old student at Harvard Law School, speaking in glowing terms about Harvard professor Derrick Bell, whom Obama described as a man known for “speaking the truth” and for an “excellence of … scholarship” that had not only “opened up new vistas and new horizons,” but had “changed the standards [of what] legal writing is about.” “Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” Obama urged the sizable crowd which had gathered to show their support for Professor Bell that day.

Since the release of the video, Obama’s backers have been quick to dismiss it as nothing more than a young scholar’s affectionate tribute to a liberal academic icon who not only made major intellectual contributions to his profession, but who also was a leading champion of racial “diversity” in higher education. For instance, CNN host Soledad O’Brien, when interviewing’s editor-in-chief Joel Pollak yesterday about the significance of the video, described Bell benignly as “the first tenured African American professor of law at Harvard University,” and characterized the gathering merely as “a rally in support of racial equality among the faculty at Harvard Law School.” O’Brien then asked her guest, with apparent bewilderment, “What part of that was the bombshell? Because I missed it. I don’t get it. What was a bombshell?”

In a similar spirit of willful blindness, Media Matters describes Derrick Bell as “a respected academic” and “an influential figure in the Civil Rights movement.” This portrayal is reminiscent of Barack Obama’s pathetic characterization, a few years back, of Bill Ayers as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” But just as the reality of Bill Ayers was far more interesting than Obama indicated at that time, the truth about Derrick Bell is likewise far more compelling than the pablum the left has provided in the wake of this latest video. For you see, by the time Barack Obama was delivering his glowing remarks about Derrick Bell in 1991, the professor had already established—and would continue to cultivate for another two decades—a reputation as someone who thoroughly, resolutely detested the United States and who viewed the nation’s institutions and its people as irremediably racist. In short, until his death last October at the age of 80, Bell was secular academia’s version of Jeremiah Wright—a raging, fulminating racist without the clergyman’s robe. And something about his philosophy resonated strongly with Barack Obama.

Derrick Bell is best known as the founding father of Critical Race Theory, an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical Race Theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently its legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. A logical derivative of this premise, according to Critical Race Theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Such a perspective’s implications for the ability of civil society to function at all, are nothing short of monumental.

Further, Critical Race Theory holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in America’s national character, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent character flaws of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.”[1]  Asserting that “few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks,” Bell—right around the time Obama was praising him at the Harvard rally—believed that “racial discrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.’” Bell complained, in fact, that most white employers were loath to hire African Americans for “any position above the most menial.”[2]  Nor did the professor look kindly upon his black colleagues who failed to share his enthusiasm for affirmative action. Indeed, Bell was among the first critics to condemn the June 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating: “To place a person who looks black and who, in conservative terms, thinks white, is an insult.”

Ideological conformity among blacks was of the utmost importance to Bell, since wherever he looked, he saw white racism. Lamenting that “no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination,” Bell excoriated “a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”[3]  Claiming that racism was “an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society,” Bell went so far as to state: “The fact that, as victims, we suffer racism’s harm but, as a people, [we] cannot share the responsibility for that harm, may be the crucial component in a definition of what it is to be black in America.”[4]  On the premise that “black people will never gain full equality in this country” due to the unending evils of the white “oppressor class,” Bell advised African Americans to squarely confront “the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”[5]  This gloomy view of black destiny was reflected most vividly in the title of Bell’s 1992 book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism.

By Bell’s reckoning, “the racism that made slavery feasible” was “far from dead.” He added: “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”[6]  Bell also railed against the racism that motivated acts of white-on-black crime, lamenting that “even our lives … are threatened because of our color.”[7]  That claim did not square with the fact that more than 90 percent of African American murder victims nationwide are actually killed by fellow blacks, but it made for a nice sound bite. And in fact, Bell did not entirely turn a blind eye to the epidemic of black-on-black crime. That phenomenon, he explained, was itself a reaction to white oppression: “Victimized themselves by an uncaring society, some blacks vent their rage on victims like themselves.”[8]  In other words, whenever something bad happens, it is always the fault of whites.

As Bell saw things, white malevolence knew no bounds. In one of his writings, he mused that if scientists were to someday develop a magical pill that could transform any black person who consumed it into a perfectly law-abiding individual, whites would undoubtedly conspire to destroy it so as to prevent such an effect. Why? Because black crime, he explained, benefits many whites such as those who profit from the manufacture of prison uniforms.[9] Wholly disgusted by the white race, Bell predicted that eventually America would witness the rise of charismatic new black leaders who, in the interests of retribution, would “urge that instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”[10]  Presumably this was some of the lofty “scholarship” that so impressed Barack Obama.

Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose stated aim is “to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Moreover, the publication’s guiding principle is: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” In 1999 Bell signed on to a Race Traitor article that stated: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category—in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.” Among Bell’s fellow signatories were Pete Seeger, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

So this was Derrick Bell, the man whom Barack Obama feted on that 1991 day at Harvard, just four years before Obama was to launch his own political career in the home of two America-hating Marxists in Chicago—Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. As Obama lauded Bell, a banner was displayed in the background which read, “Harvard Law School on Strike for Diversity.” To be sure, Bell had already staged numerous sit-ins on behalf of “diversity” during his time at Harvard. Particularly high on his priority list was his wish to pressure the Law School into hiring a black female for a tenured professorship. Even though 45 percent of Harvard Law’s faculty appointments during the preceding decade had gone to minorities and women, none was both black and female—hence Professor Bell’s objection.[11]  Bell’s students dutifully echoed the professor’s mantra, bleating that they desperately needed “black women role models” to help them combat “the status quo” that was dominated by “white men.” When Harvard’s dean stated that no attempt to increase “diversity” should override the University’s commitment to academic excellence, the protesters called his position “highly insulting to blacks” and symbolic of “the elitism of Harvard.”[12]  It is reasonable to assume that Barack Obama, who helped galvanize campus support for Derrick Bell’s crusade on behalf of black women, more or less shared these views.

At that time, there was one black woman in particular whom Professor Bell wanted Harvard Law to hire—Regina Austin, a fellow adherent of Critical Race Theory who had been serving as a visiting professor at Harvard Law. Though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence on campus, Bell issued a “non-negotiable demand” that Austin be given a faculty position.[13]

When the Law School refused to make an exception to its policy, Bell took a leave of absence from his teaching post and even staged a hunger strike in protest. Austin, you see, was a kindred spirit to Bell from an ideological perspective. An outspoken advocate of racial separatism and identity politics, she has long held that minority communities are not obliged to accept “traditional values” or “conformity to the law” as defined by the dominant power structure of a racist society.[14] Rather, such communities require an “alternative source of [legal] authority.”

In acknowledgment of the professional sacrifices Professor Bell made on behalf of this same Regina Austin, Barack Obama reverently referred to Bell as “the Rosa Parks of legal education.”

What does Barack Obama’s high regard for Derrick Bell tell us about the President? Certainly the praise he heaped upon Bell in 1991 reveals something profoundly significant about Obama’s mindset at the age of 30. Some, though, would dismiss it as ancient history. Slightly less ancient, however, is the fact that a 33-year-old Obama routinely assigned works authored by Bell—including the latter’s racialist interpretations of seminal civil-rights cases—as required readings in the courses he taught at the University of Chicago Law School in 1994. To be sure, Bell’s work appeared on Obama’s syllabus more frequently than that of any other author—a clear indication of Obama’s high regard for Bell’s scholarship.

Still more recent was Obama’s alliance with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn—an alliance that shifted into high gear when Obama was 34 and remained in high gear (via his collaboration with Ayers on the radical Chicago Annenberg Challenge) until Obama was at least 38. And of course Obama’s attendance at (and his monetary contributions to) Jeremiah Wright‘s famously racist church from approximately age 27 until he was 47, says something noteworthy about his mindset during those years as well.

Pro-Obama automatons will dismiss these and all other references to Obama’s alliances as nothing more than mean-spirited attempts to smear a great man by way of innuendo and “guilt-by-association.” By contrast, people with a capacity to reason can surely understand that there is something far more profound at play here. In the final analysis, people should be free to throw their support behind a socialist who has spent his entire adult life allying himself with America-hating radicals and Marxists, if that is whom they choose to embrace. But when doing so, it is vital that they at least be cognizant of the fact that they are indeed backing such an individual.

For Notes click here.

H/T Leslie Burt