This man is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Would you want him teaching your kid?
Via CNS News:
Forget all that turkey, stuffing and pumpkin pie, today should be a day of fasting and atonement for American “sin.” That’s according to Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Jensen, known for his hard-left politics, also calls Thanksgiving a “white-supremacist holiday.”
Jensen’s opinion piece “No Thanks for Thanksgiving,” appeared on the far-left, Soros-connected website Alternet on Thanksgiving eve. In it, he wrote how Native Americans suffered because of the “European invasion of the Americas.” He went on to compare the Founding Fathers to Nazi Germany. “How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?” he asked.
According to Jensen, Thanksgiving is “at the heart of U.S. myth-building. “But in the United States, this reluctance to acknowledge our original sin — the genocide of indigenous people — is of special importance today,” he explained.
Jensen, as the CNS News piece points out, has a long history of being a hysterical loon. Three days after 9/11, he published this piece in the Houston Chronicle, basically stating the attacks on America were no more despicable than acts of terrorism committed by our own government. It is a strikingly similar tone to the “America’s chickens have come home to roost” delirium spewed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The most striking thing about this video, other than the full-throated defense of the controversial Reverand Jeremiah Wright, is the manner in which Obama is speaking. This doesn’t even sound like the President who we’ve heard speaking over the last four years.
This is a Daily Caller exclusive, please read the full report here…
First, watch an edited version of the video (full version below) in which snippets of the President’s speech where he was forced to give to quell the controversy around the reverend, combined with snippets from the new video in which he lavishly praises Wright.
As the DC points out, the speech is charged with inherently racist tones and anger.
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Obama also adds that Wright is, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”
The reason this has never seen the light of day is because transcripts of the campaign speech do not match the actual rhetoric used. As the report indicates, Obama frequently goes off script and ad libs at length, injecting his own fiery sermon into the speech.
One such example:
In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”
That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:
“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”
Obama of course, has been true to his word. Ge has not forgotten the ‘black folks’ from 300 years ago, introducing one of the most racially polarizing administration’s in American history.
Here is an excerpt from my AIM report on Obama’s racial agenda:
During a 2010 interview for the book, Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, President Obama spoke of his desire to build a “race-neutral administration,” while also claiming that race doesn’t drive decision-making in the White House. When asked about race and how he conducts his business, the President responded, “You just don’t think about it, you really don’t.”
But the Obama administration’s agenda has been anything but race-neutral, and has to be considered race-driven when looking through a history of unprecedented prejudiced actions and rhetoric. Here is but a brief sampling:
In one of his more high-profile comments on race, President Obama waded into the charged waters of the Henry Louis Gates case, an incident which saw Gates, an African-American, arrested in his own home after reports of a possible break-in. Gates and police on the scene gave conflicting reports on the level of cooperation between individuals, and the facts of the case remained murky. That said, after confessing to being limited on facts, Obama acted as judge and jury, declaring that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” in their haste to arrest Gates. To back up the suggestion that the police officers had acted inappropriately, the President cited “a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
The signature achievement of this administration, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is not devoid of racial components. In 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had already declared that the Obamacare plan was laced with race-based incentives, including giving “preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships,” and was littered with “sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants.” A few months after it was signed into law, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) pointed out that the new healthcare reform had provisions in place to provide monetary rewards doled out on a criterion of racial preference. One such provision stated, “In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
As AIM has disclosed, even some of the Obama stimulus dollars have gone for racial purposes. Joshua Correll, a University of Chicago professor, received $154,563 in stimulus grant money for what is called a collaborative project at the University of Chicago which “outlines a series of studies investigating the role of individual differences in executive functions (EFs) in expression of implicit racial bias.” This appears to be academic jargon for identifying and naming alleged racists. In fact, Correll operates a “Stereotyping & Prejudice Research Laboratory” that has been working since 2000 to develop and refine a first-person-shooter video game that was originally designed to ferret out allegedly racist cops in order to re-educate them.
The President’s policy on terrorism seems to play the race card when convenient, but very inconsistently. In the summer of 2010, Obama suggested that race is what motivates the actions of Al-Qaeda, as opposed to blind, radical ideology. The discussion was in stark contrast to several months earlier, when the administration was unable or unwilling to mention race, religion, or creed when reporting on the motivations of Fort Hood terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The Pentagon had released a report on the shooting rampage which failed to mention the word “Islam” or “Muslim.” In turn, while Obama did not wish to stir up anti-Muslim sentiments in the Hasan case, he was more than willing to play up anti-Muslim sentiments when he claimed that Israel is suspicious of him because his middle name is Hussein.
The Latino community has frequently been targeted as a key demographic in elections, but has equally been targeted by this administration in their attempts to racially divide a group through government policies. When Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona tried to defend their borders, the President quickly tried to demonize them, insinuating that racial profiling could result in someone without papers being harassed while engaging in the simple act of having ice cream with their family. This approach led former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to proclaim that Obama had engaged in “a racist dialogue to try to frighten Latinos away from the Republican Party.”
In March of 2010, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that supported the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from a battle over a 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education. Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.” The Supreme Court has opted to review the affirmative action case, which is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.
Here is the blockbuster video in it’s entirety…
Expect the media to thoroughly investigate the Mormon religion and tie Presidential candidate Mitt Romney to its more controversial aspects in the coming months.
David Gregory of Face the Nation started off yesterday with some brief questions.
In a rare appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took on a personal issue that has resisted talking about in the past: his religion.
Host David Gregory asked the GOP presidential hopeful what he thought a successful run this fall would mean to Mormons in America.
“I’m sure a number of members of my faith are proud of the fact that someone of my faith and our faith is able to run for president,” Romney said. “My own reaction is, I’ve got so many challenges ahead of me, I don’t think so much about the impact this has on the church day to day, but more about what kind of impact I want to have on the electorate and what it takes to become elected president.”
Romney emphasized the importance of the ethical foundations his religion had taught him.
In 2008, the media failed to ask a similar question of Barack Obama. A question along the lines of, “What do you think a successful run this fall would mean to your pastor Jeremiah Wright”?
As a public service reminder (because that’s what we do), here is a little smattering of the President’s religion and pastor which was all but ignored as he ran for office.
Best part of this report? The claim that the media ate Jeremiah Wright alive. The Wright scandal left Obama relatively unscathed and was vastly under reported.
‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”
“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.
“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”
“He offered you money?”
“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”
“How much money did he offer you?”
“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.
“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”
“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me.
Ed Morrisey at Hot Air states:
Wright’s version of the conversation makes it clear that Obama knew very well what his pastor had preached from the pulpit, and what he was likely to do once attention focused on him.
Some members of the media apparently are not willing to eat Wright alive. Take the Washington Post, which recently ran an embarrassing and thoroughly debunked story about Romney’s high school bullying. They apparently have not yet found the time to cover a story involving a Presidential campaign bribing somebody to shut up in order to protect their candidate’ reputation.
Via Legal Insurrection:
The Washington Post, all too happy to cover in detail the now-discredited story about Romney’s supposed bully incident, has yet to report on the story. Perhaps they’re still busy re-editing their myriad Romney hit pieces.
We have a right to be righteously indignant over the carelessness with which the media have skimmed over Barack Obama’s past and current affiliations. As the Washington Post concocts ways to vet Romney, perhaps they’d be better off doing some catch-up work on the one who has the keys to the ignition.
2008 seems like such a long time ago. The President will be thoroughly vetted this time around, and the mistakes of the past will not be repeated in 2012.
Make no mistake, the old media will continue to cover for the President. But the new media will hold the old media accountable. 2012 is a new game.
The bigger story here isn’t that Obama is shown embracing a radical professor. We know that the President associates himself with some of the more extreme members of society – i.e. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
The real news here is the flat-out admission by his peers that they intentionally withheld the video so as not to damage Obama’s election prospects in 2008. Further, the video could easily have been obtained and placed in proper context by any self-respecting member of the media – if they wanted to.
. . . Barack Obama was as close or closer to Derrick Bell than he ever was to Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn’t merely sit in the pews — or not — for Derrick Bell. He didn’t just hang out with Derrick Bell for prayers. He said:
“Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”
If we did, here’s what we’d be opening our hearts and minds to. This is a close associate of 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.
Remember the words of his friend and ally, Professor Charles Ogletree:
‘Of course, we hid this during the 2008 election… I don’t care if they find it now.’
Of course we hid who Obama really was, and we knew the media wouldn’t do a damn thing about it.