I get my random bits of news from the Yahoo homepage. I admit it freely. It doesn’t cover the big news properly, but it keeps me aware of what’s going on at home, with lots of stupid stuff mixed in. Hey, can I help it if I like randomness? You should see my music playlists.
From there, I promptly go to Breitbart.com to get the actual news.
My friends will tell you that I post a lot of Breitbart.com articles on Facebook, and I don’t know whether anyone reads them or not. For all I know, they sit there and think, “Ah, yes, Rachel’s posting another one of those articles, and it’s clogging up my News Feed.”. I’m talking about my conservative friends, too. Since I’m the most prolific reader of politics that I know of, when I see something interesting, I share it, and they’re allowed to read it or not, as they please. I don’t argue with people about what I post, I just post it and let them decide for themselves.
So, I remember the day that Whitney Houston died, and at first, at the very top of Yahoo’s homepage, there was a “rumor” posted about her death. Then it became a reality, and then every top article for the next 72 hours were all about her and her legacy. Don’t get me wrong, I love The Bodyguard soundtrack, and listened to it hundreds of times when I was younger. She had a glorious voice, at one time, and I’m sorry she’s gone.
Then, on March 1, Andrew Breitbart died. Somehow, Yahoo actually got around to posting the news, so while half awake, I was able to get over to Breitbart.com to see if it was true. Painful as it still is to think about, it was true. But within the hour, I was unable to find that article ANYWHERE on Yahoo. The death of Andrew Breitbart, a New Media, conservative patriot had passed away, and the media didn’t care. In fact, they hardly waited any time at all, before saying the most disgusting things I’ve ever read about someone, while Andrew’s family were still in the initial throes of their grief.
Considering the mainstream media’s priorities (eulogize Whitney, trash or ignore Andrew), I was not surprised to see their treatment of the Derrick Bell videos. Andrew Breitbart announced at CPAC that for this election, we were going to vet the president, something that the media chose NOT to do, last time around. These videos he had of Obama’s college years were going to be a bombshell to the world’s image of “the One”, as I believe Oprah once called Obama.
Then, the Derrick Bell videos went up, and the media said… “Where’s the bombshell?”. Literally. Soledad O’Brien asked Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com where the actual bombshell was, and then sidetracked the discussion into an argument (on her side) of what Critical Race Theory actually is. Piers Morgan asked Dana Loesch “What’s the big deal?”, concerning these videos. By the way, did you know that O’Brien was a huge fan of Derrick Bell, but still doesn’t see what the bombshell is?
And on Yahoo, I saw an article proclaiming that “The Obama Video Bombshell Fizzles”, or something to that effect. Going back to look again, several minutes ago, I can’t find that article anywhere on the Yahoo homepage. Plenty of details about Snooki’s baby nickname, the recent Hollywood engagements, and other stuff. So, I searched “Obama Video Fizzles”, and got tons of articles that asked the same questions that Morgan and O’Brien asked.
You see, if they keep joking about it being no big deal, or acting like they can’t see a bombshell, then they may actually convince their audience that there isn’t one. I know many people that are suspicious of the media, but choose not to look beyond what they say. I used to be one of them. But at this time, when we need to get the country’s concentration back on our President’s radical background, instead of on Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, and the “contraception scandal”, we need to look further.
For those of my friends who notice my Breitbart.com FB posts, but never read them, this is for you.
The Derrick Bell videos show a young Obama introducing Professor Derrick Bell at a rally, at Harvard Law School. Obama tells his audience to “open your minds and hearts to the words of Derrick Bell”. Sound innocuous? Well, it isn’t, when you look further into who Derrick Bell was.
Derrick Bell believed in the subject of Critical Race Theory, which suggests that racist thinking, white supremacy, and the need to subjugate blacks is embedded in the very fiber of our government, the Constitution, and our own selves. Bell even created a movie about the idea that if space aliens came to Earth, while Reagan was President, they could offer us countless gold in order to pay off our national debt, in return for being given all the blacks on the planet. Reagan, of course, would accept this offer, and the Jews would only try and stop him, because of fear that they’d be the next scapegoats.
Bell also agreed with the sentiments and beliefs of Louis Farrakhan, didn’t think the civil rights movement went far enough (he considered it a sham), and the rally at Harvard was about the school needing to hire a black female professor that was as radical as he was. Bell didn’t want a conservative black woman teaching at Harvard, so his protest was not just about the hiring of more minorities.
If you want a really good definition of Critical Race Theory, who better to explain it than Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan? President Obama put her on the Supreme Court, and she knows the subject very well. (see Elena Kagan Taught CRT) At the end of Kagan’s four-point discussion of CRT, she says this, “Fourth, and relatedly, critical race theory insists that the law –legal doctrines of all sorts — be reformulated, fundamentally altered, to reflect and incorporate the perspectives and experiences of so-called “outsider groups,” who have known racism and racial subordination at first hand.”
Before I had even finished reading the article, what leaped to my mind was some things that Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor had said, long before she ever reached the Supreme Court. Yes, the article mentions it later, but I remembered it before that. Sotomayor believes that a “wise Latina” can come to a better conclusion than a white male, because of her life experience.
And yet, the media says, “Where’s the bombshell?”. Oh, sure, Obama was young then, I’m sure he’s learned his lesson since, they say. Well, has he? The man that once asked his audience to “open their minds and hearts” to Derrick Bell, and who made all of Bell’s books assigned reading in his classes, is the same man who is now President, and put two Justices on the Supreme Court who believe in CRT. Kagan and Sotomayor have taught it and believe it. Is the fact that Obama put these two on the Supreme Court an accident? They just happen to believe something that he “flirted” with, when he was in college? Elena Kagan’s explanation of CRT is that these minorities “experiences” should be “accepted and incorporated in the law”. What about the law? It doesn’t sound like the law even matters to them, because since it’s “inherently racist”, then maybe it shouldn’t be followed?
Barack Obama looked up to Derrick Bell, taught his books, imbibed his beliefs, and even had several visits from him in 2010. I believe that Obama didn’t give up his college beliefs, he only hid them from public view. And I think that the Breitbart “bombshell” is going to prove it.
Breitbart.com is continuing to report on this, and no matter what the media does, the subject isn’t going to go away. Andrew Breitbart’s legacy was to leave us with the ways and means to go around the mainstream media, which regularly lies to us and hides the truth. Whether they’re telling outright lies or hiding the truth, it’s all the same. They can’t be trusted, and the truth about our Presidents radical background needs to be made public. The media is having fun concentrating on the Republican primaries and Sandra Fluke, but the truth IS going to come out.
Andrew Breitbart wanted the American people to know the truth. And his death is not going to change that. It will only make those that come after him more determined to make his dream come true. Don’t worry, Andrew. We won’t let you down.