Illogical Politics

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy - Election Style

2020-10-19T10:03:00.001-07:00

Beware the “No True Scotsman” fallacy around election time.

It looks like this: “No true [insert identity/ religion/ ethnicity/ race] can vote for [insert politician or political party].”

Reject these efforts to control you, especially from those who profess to be very learned. Study the issues, weigh the options, stay true to your principles, and vote for whomever you want. It’s YOUR vote. No one is entitled to it. 

Or...don’t reject these efforts. Trust those who profess to be very learned. After all, it’s YOUR vote. No one is entitled to it.

Just be aware of the fallacy.

DERRICK A. BELL: Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory

2020-10-12T19:34:00.001-07:00

This is a law review article written by Derrick A. Bell in 1995. If you want to understand what Critical Race Theory really is, here is one of its chief spokesmen over the last few decades; and Barack Obama's favorite Harvard professor. I have done some selective highlighting. Open your hearts and your minds to the words of Derrick Bell...or...open your eyes and ears. - Garrett Hall

1995 U. Ill. L. Rev. 893

University of Illinois Law Review

1995

WHO’S AFRAID OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY?d1

Derrick A. Bella1

In this essay, originally delivered as a David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights at the University of Illinois College of Law, Professor Bell begins by discussing the recent debate surrounding The Bell Curve, and utilizing the tools of critical race theory, he offers an alternative explanation as to why the book’s authors decided to publish rejected theories of black inferiority. Professor Bell then discusses the origins of critical race theory, what the theory is, what the theory ought to be, and the critics’ attack of the theory. He concludes with stories about black struggle in America, stories which Professor Bell believes accurately depict the ongoing racist efforts to prevent black success.

As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it.1

I. INTRODUCTION

Radical assessment can encompass illustration, anecdote, allegory, and imagination, as well as analysis of applicable doctrine and authorities. At the outset, I want to utilize all of these techniques to comment on a contemporary phenomenon: The Bell Curve.2

For the past three or four months, a great deal of attention and energy has been devoted to commending and condemning Mr. Charles Murray and the late Dr. Richard Herrnstein, authors of the best-selling book on racial intelligence, The Bell Curve. This book suggests great social policy significance in the fact that black people score, on average, fifteen points below whites on I.Q. tests.3

*894 This thesis has been criticized as the rehashing of views long-ago rejected by virtually all experts in the field.4 There is, critics maintain, no basis for a finding that intelligence is inherited and, indeed, no accepted definition of the vague term “intelligence.” There is, on the other hand, a depressingly strong and invariant correlation between resources and race in this country, and resources and success—including success in taking I.Q. tests. These are settled facts.

Even so, the book has enjoyed an enormous success that its critics find difficult to explain. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, writes:

The Bell Curve, with its claims and supposed documentation that race and class differences are largely caused by genetic factors and are therefore essentially immutable, contains no new arguments and presents no compelling data to support its anachronistic social Darwinism, so I can only conclude its success in winning attention must reflect the depressing temper of our time—a historical moment of unprecedented ungenerosity, when a mood for slashing social programs can be powerfully abetted by an argument that beneficiaries cannot be helped, owing to inborn cognitive limits expressed as low I.Q. scores.5

Criticism of The Bell Curve has been so universal among biologists that one must wonder: Why did these two well-known men produce a book filled with rejected theories? Surely they must have known that the book would provide pseudoscientific support for racial hostilities that always worsen during times of economic stress and anxiety.

The all too easy answer is that The Bell Curve’s authors saw a market opportunity and they took it. The book has sold over 300,000 copies and has become a major source of discussion in the media. But utilizing the conceptual and experiential tools of critical race theory, I want to suggest another possibility.

It is not difficult to imagine that the authors were aware of the generally accepted findings regarding the lack of any connection between race and intelligence. Suppose, as well, that recognizing the debilitating effects of discrimination and exclusion on African Americans, they devised an “oppression factor” and, adding it to existing data, discovered that there was indeed a discernible racial difference in intelligence measured by I.Q. tests. However, when the I.Q. data playing field was leveled via the “oppression factors,” contrary to their own expectations, they discovered that blacks performed fifteen points higher than whites. Quite likely, they disbelieved and thus reviewed painstakingly their data several times. Each time they did so, the conclusion *895 that they (perhaps) did not want became ever more certain. It was beyond denial. There was an answer beyond simple faith that explained why blacks survived two centuries of the world’s most destructive slavery and a century of utter subordination under segregation: Black people are simply smarter than whites.6

What would they do with this information? Its release would almost certainly throw the country into turmoil. Let me explain. As history indicates all too well, blacks have suffered greatly as a result of discrimination undergirded and often justified by the general belief in black inferiority. But history shows with equal clarity, though it is less frequently acknowledged, that indications of black success and thus possible black superiority result in racist outrage. Most of the many race riots in this nation’s history were sparked by white outrage over black success.7

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, blacks who were successful at business or farming were targeted by the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups for death and destruction.8 While protection of white womanhood is deemed the major motivation for the thousands of blacks lynched during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth, in fact, retaliation against blacks who dared compete successfully with white men was the real source of many, and perhaps most, of these atrocities.

A debate raged in Florida over a bill intended to compensate black victims for losses suffered more than seventy years ago, when the Klan absolutely destroyed a thriving black town called Rosewood—murdering, raping, pillaging, and finally burning all the property in sight. Denial is the usual response to even such well-documented racist rampages.9 State officials who opposed the measure noted that the statute of limitations had expired, and that “compensation would be ‘bad for the county and bad for our state’ because it would encourage similar claims.”10

In more recent times, discrimination aimed at skilled or talented blacks is a well-understood fact of life in the black community. Dozens *896 of able and ambitious blacks were interviewed by journalist Ellis Cose in his book, The Rage of a Privileged Class.11 They complained bitterly:

I have done everything I was supposed to do. I have stayed out of trouble with the law, gone to the right schools, and worked myself nearly to death. What more do they want? Why in God’s name won’t they accept me as a full human being? Why am I pigeonholed in a ‘Black job’? Why am I constantly treated as if I were a drug addict, a thief, or a thug? Why am I still not allowed to aspire to the same things every white person in America takes as a birthright? Why, when I most want to be seen, am I suddenly rendered invisible?12

In the context of law school faculties, my character Geneva Crenshaw describes an experience with which many professors of color can relate:

When I arrived, [the first Black hired], the white faculty members were friendly and supportive. They smiled at me a lot and offered help and advice. When they saw how much time I spent helping minority students and how I struggled with my first writing, they seemed pleased. It was patronizing, but the general opinion seemed to be that they had done well to hire me. They felt good about having lifted up one of the downtrodden. And they congratulated themselves for their affirmative-action policies.

Then after I became acclimated to academic life, I began receiving invitations to publish in the top law reviews, to serve on important commissions, and to lecture at other schools. At this point, I noticed that some of my once-smiling colleagues now greeted me with frowns. For them, nothing I did was right: my articles were flashy but not deep, rhetorical rather than scholarly. Even when I published an article in a major review, my colleagues gave me little credit; after all, students had selected the piece, and what did they know anyway? My popularity with students was attributed to the likelihood that I was an easy grader. The more successful I appeared, the harsher became the collective judgement of my former friends.13

Professor Richard Delgado, a well-known critical race theorist, believes the shift may be caused by “cognitive dissonance”:

At first, the white professor feels good about hiring the minority. It shows how liberal the white is, and the minority is assumed to *897 want nothing more than to scrape by in the rarefied world they both inhabit. But the minority does not just scrape by, is not eternally grateful, and indeed starts to surpass the white professor. This is disturbing; things weren’t meant to go that way. The strain between former belief and current reality is reduced by reinterpreting the current reality. The minority has a fatal flaw. Pass it on.14

Recognizing this strong, though often unconscious, white preference for black mediocrity in even the most elite professional schools, The Bell Curve’s authors faced a dilemma that they chose to resolve by intentionally falsifying their data, to spare blacks the reprisals and even bloody retaliation they would have suffered had the real truth regarding superior test performance by blacks come out. Dr. Herrnstein and Mr. Murray may well have foreseen the serious criticism of their work, if published without their new findings, criticism that, in fact, has been heaped on them by social scientists and experts in biology. They may have feared, though, that if they published the new data revealing the superiority of black intelligence, black people would be deemed a threat to many whites and thus placed in far greater danger than if the book served simply as a comfort to whites by repeating the oft-told tale of black inferiority.

The Bell Curve’s authors must have known what every professional and skilled black has learned the hard way: that policies of affirmative action are endangered far more by the presence of blacks who are clearly competent than they are by those blacks who are only marginally so. Because it has been difficult for many whites to acknowledge that black people are competent—even superior—at some sports, it would be impossible to gain the same acknowledgement for blacks across the board, particularly if the reluctant recognition required the admission that inferior status is the result of discrimination rather than the old racial rationales of inferior skills, lack of drive, or the unwillingness to compete. The Dodger’s official, Al Camparis, lost his job for saying so, but he was far from the only white person who believed that blacks lack “some of the necessities” to become managers in baseball.15

Finally, Dr. Herrnstein and Mr. Murray may have feared that, even if they were to convince a reluctant America of blacks’ superior intelligence and ability—much of which has been smothered by racial discrimination—that reality may have opened the question for many whites as to whether they had not been similarly disadvantaged on the *898 basis of class. Such a long-overdue revelation could well spark serious political unrest and perhaps a rebellion.

Given the potential for societal mischief at this level, the authors would almost certainly opt for conclusions that conform closely with what most people already believe. Better one more libel of blacks as an inferior people than a truth posing a greater threat that could lead to racial atrocities and class warfare. Thus, while The Bell Curve, as published, is condemned as a perversion of truth and a provocation for racial stereotyping, we should view it less harshly for what it is, and more sympathetically for what it might have been.

The moral: To understand the motivation for and the likely intent of racial policies in America, one need only be willing to reverse the racial composition of the major components of those policies. To see things as they really are, you must imagine them for what they might be. In this instance, the effort is intended to delegitimize the illegitimate. The Bell Curve captured the nation’s fascination precisely because it laid out in scientific jargon what many whites believe, need desperately to believe, but dare not reveal in public or even to their private selves. The critical race theory perspective offers blacks and their white allies insight, spiked with humor, as a balm for this latest insult, and enables them to gird themselves for those certain to follow.

II. THE ONGOING DEBATE OVER THE LEGITIMACY OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY

At the outset, I asked, “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?” The interrogatory poses indirectly two additional questions that may remain after my Bell Curve illustration. First, what is critical race theory? And second, what ought critical race theory to be? The distinction is useful even though the dividing line between the descriptive (what is) and the prescriptive (what it ought to be) can be quite fine.

The answers to what is critical race theory are fairly uniform and quite extensive. As to what critical race theory ought to be, the answers are far from uniform and, not coincidentally, tend to be leveled in the form of outsider criticism rather than insider inquiry. As to the what is, critical race theory is a body of legal scholarship, now about a decade old, a majority of whose members16 are both existentially people of color and ideologically committed to the struggle against racism, particularly as institutionalized in and by law. Those critical race theorists who are white are usually cognizant of and committed to the overthrow of their own racial privilege.

*899 Critical race theory writing and lecturing is characterized by frequent use of the first person, storytelling, narrative, allegory, interdisciplinary treatment of law, and the unapologetic use of creativity.17 The work is often disruptive because its commitment to anti-racism goes well beyond civil rights, integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures. This is not to say that critical race theory adherents automatically or uniformly “trash” liberal ideology and method (as many adherents of critical legal studies do). Rather, they are highly suspicious of the liberal agenda, distrust its method, and want to retain what they see as a valuable strain of egalitarianism which may exist despite, and not because of, liberalism.

There is, as this description suggests, a good deal of tension in critical race theory scholarship, a tension that Angela Harris characterizes as between its commitment to radical critique of the law (which is normatively deconstructionist) and its commitment to radical emancipation by the law (which is normatively reconstructionist). Harris views this tension—between “modernist” and “postmodernist” narrative—as a source of strength because of critical race theorists’ ability to use it in ways that are creative rather than paralyzing.18 Harris explains:

CRT is the heir to both CLS [Critical Legal Studies] and traditional civil rights scholarship. CRT inherits from CLS a commitment to being “critical,” which in this sense means also to be “radical” [while] [a]t the same time, CRT inherits from traditional civil rights scholarship a commitment to a vision of liberation from racism through right reason. Despite the difficulty of separating legal reasoning and institutions from their racist roots, CRT’s ultimate vision is redemptive, not deconstructive.19

Consider how the two groups view the law. Duke English Professor Stanley Fish explains the critical legal studies view of legal precedent as not *900 a formal mechanism for determining outcomes in a neutral fashion—as traditional legal scholars maintain—but is rather a ramshackle ad hoc affair whose ill-fitting joints are soldered together by suspect rhetorical gestures, leaps of illogic, and special pleading tricked up as general rules, all in the service of a decidedly partisan agenda that wants to wrap itself in the mantle and majesty of law.20

Adherents of critical race theory basically agree with this assessment. They depart from their critical legal theory colleagues regarding what is to be done with this tangle of illogic and corrupted jurisprudence. I think Professor Patricia Williams speaks for most practitioners of critical race theory when she concedes that the concept of rights is indeterminate, vague, and disutile. She readily acknowledges as example that the paper-promises of enforcement packages like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have held out as many illusions as gains. Recognizing further that blacks have never fully believed in constitutional rights as literal mandate, Williams states (in terms that constitute as much creed as response):

To say that blacks never fully believed in rights is true; yet it is also true that blacks believed in them so much and so hard that we gave them life where there was none before. We held onto them, put the hope of them into our wombs, mothered them—not just the notion of them. We nurtured rights and gave rights life. And this was not the dry process of reification, from which life is drained and reality fades as the cement of conceptual determinism hardens round—but its opposite. [This was the story of Phoenix]; the parthenogenesis of unfertilized hope.21

It seems fair to say that most critical race theorists are committed to a program of scholarly resistance, and most hope scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance. Veronica Gentilli puts it this way: “Critical race theorists seem grouped together not by virtue of their theoretical cohesiveness but rather because they are motivated by similar concerns and face similar theoretical (and practical) challenges.”22 To reiterate, the similar concerns referred to here include, most basically, an orientation around race that seeks to attack a legal system which disempowers people of color.

Although critical race theory is not cohesive, it is at least committed. As John Calmore observes, “almost all the critical race theory literature seems to embrace the ideology of antisubordination in some *901 form.”23 It is our hope that scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance. We believe that standards and institutions created by and fortifying white power ought to be resisted.24 Decontextualization, in our view, too often masks unregulated—even unrecognized—power. We insist, for example, that abstraction, put forth as “rational” or “objective” truth, smuggles the privileged choice of the privileged to depersonify their claims and then pass them off as the universal authority and the universal good. To counter such assumptions, we try to bring to legal scholarship an experientially grounded, oppositionally expressed, and transformatively aspirational concern with race and other socially constructed hierarchies.25 John Calmore puts it well:

[C]ritical race theory can be identified as such not because a random sample of people of color are voicing a position, but rather because certain people of color have deliberately chosen race-conscious orientations and objectives to resolve conflicts of interpretation in acting on the commitment to social justice and antisubordination.26

Professor Charles Lawrence speaks for many critical race theory adherents when he disagrees with the notion that laws are or can be written from a neutral perspective. Lawrence asserts that such a neutral perspective does not, and cannot, exist—that we all speak from a particular point of view, from what he calls a “positioned perspective.”27 The problem is that not all positioned perspectives are equally valued, equally heard, or equally included. From the perspective of critical race theory, some positions have historically been oppressed, distorted, ignored, silenced, destroyed, appropriated, commodified, and marginalized—and all of this, not accidentally. Conversely, the law simultaneously and systematically privileges subjects who are white.

Critical race theorists strive for a specific, more egalitarian, state of affairs. We seek to empower and include traditionally excluded views and see all-inclusiveness as the ideal because of our belief in collective wisdom. For example, in a recent debate over “hate speech,” both Chuck Lawrence and Mari Matsuda made the point *902 that being committed to “free speech” may seem like a neutral principle, but it is not.28 Thus, proclaiming that “I am committed equally to allowing free speech for the KKK and 2LiveCrew” is a non-neutral value judgment, one that asserts that the freedom to say hateful things is more important than the freedom to be free from the victimization, stigma, and humiliation that hate speech entails.

We emphasize our marginality and try to turn it toward advantageous perspective building and concrete advocacy on behalf of those oppressed by race and other interlocking factors of gender, economic class, and sexual orientation. When I say we are marginalized, it is not because we are victim-mongers seeking sympathy in return for a sacrifice of pride. Rather, we see such identification as one of the only hopes of transformative resistance strategy. However, we remain members of the whole set, as opposed to the large (and growing) number of blacks whose poverty and lack of opportunity have rendered them totally silent. We want to use our perspective as a means of outreach to those similarly situated but who are so caught up in the property perspectives of whiteness that they cannot recognize their subordination.

I am not sure who coined the phrase “critical race theory” to describe this form of writing, and I have received more credit than I deserve for the movement’s origins. I rather think that this writing is the response to a need for expressing views that cannot be communicated effectively through existing techniques. In my case, I prefer using stories as a means of communicating views to those who hold very different views on the emotionally charged subject of race. People enjoy stories and will often suspend their beliefs, listen to the story, and then compare their views, not with mine, but with those expressed in the story.

Probably my best known story is The Space Traders,29 which I wrote to convince a resisting class that the patterns of sacrificing black rights to further white interests, so present in American history, pose a continuing threat. In the story, as at least some of you know, aliens from outer space visit this country on New Year’s Day in the year 2000. They promise wealth in the form of gold, environmental-cleansing material, and a substitute for fossil fuels. If accepted, their gold and space-age technology will guarantee another century of prosperity for the nation. In return for these wares, the space traders want to take back to their home star all black people. Given two weeks to *903 decide, Americans in a variety of settings debate the trade offer. Finally, in a referendum vote, they opt for the trade by a seventy to thirty percentage. The story ends:

The last Martin Luther King holiday the nation would ever observe dawned on an extraordinary sight. In the night, the Space Traders had drawn their strange ships right up to the beaches and discharged their cargoes of gold, minerals, and machinery, leaving vast empty holds. Crowded on the beaches were the inductees, some twenty million silent black men, women, and children, including babes in arms. As the sun rose, the Space Traders directed them, first, to strip off all but a single undergarment; then, to line up; and finally, to enter those holds which yawned in the morning light like Milton’s “darkness visible.” The inductees looked fearfully behind them. But, on the dunes above the beaches, guns at the ready, stood U.S. guards. There was no escape, no alternative. Heads bowed, arms now linked by slender chains, black people left the New World as their forbears [sic] had arrived.30

Initially, a number of reviewers criticized The Space Traders story as negative and unremittedly despairing. Blacks should be more grateful, critics complained, given the substantial gains made by your people in this great country. Some even condemned me as a racist for daring suggest that white Americans would ever trade away any American lives for profit and well-being. Most black people accepted the story as an all too accurate portrayal of their worst fears. Always, there were a few blacks in my audiences who not only were certain that if offered, Americans would accept the trade, but also indicated their willingness to go voluntarily. “Better the unknown,” one man told me, “than the certainty of the disaster that awaits us here.”

This is a strong statement, but even criticism of the story has been muted by subsequent events. While some blacks are doing very well—the true beneficiaries of the civil rights era—more than one-third of all black people are mired in poverty that is degrading, dispiriting, and destructive. Those in the middle-class have seen their progress halted and many are sliding back toward the low-income status they worked so hard to escape. The spaceships are looking more like a means of escape rather than vehicles of danger, exile, and death.

Let us further consider another phenomenon. Whites in this society seem so willing to accept their own subordination to other whites because of class and social barriers, yet they portray so much hostility toward blacks. The historian, C. Vann Woodward, put the issue well when he wondered how much racism must exist in the bosom of a *904 white man who feels superior to a black while working at a black man’s wages. I have suggested that in this country (which views property ownership as a measure of worth), many whites with relatively little property of the traditional kind—money, securities, and land—see their whiteness as a property right.

Professor Cheryl Harris takes up this challenge31 and examines how whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property, historically and presently acknowledged and protected in American law. To state this view is to meet resistance. There is no direct support for it in the precedents or in the traditional legal writing on race and rights. Harris sets the stage for her long piece by telling the reader about her grandmother. Harris writes:

In the 1930s, some years after my mother’s family became part of the great river of Black migration that flowed north, my Mississippi-born grandmother was confronted with the harsh matter of economic survival for herself and her two daughters. Having separated from my grandfather, who himself was trapped on the fringes of economic marginality, she took one long hard look at her choices and presented herself for employment at a major retail store in Chicago’s central business district. This decision would have been unremarkable for a white woman in similar circumstances, but for my grandmother, it was an act of both great daring and self-denial, for in so doing she was presenting herself as a white woman. In the parlance of racist America, she was “passing.”

Her fair skin, straight hair, and aquiline features had not spared her from the life of sharecropping into which she had been born in anywhere/nowhere, Mississippi—the outskirts of Yazoo City. But in the burgeoning landscape of urban America, anonymity was possible for a Black person with “white” features. She was transgressing boundaries, crossing borders, spinning on margins, traveling between dualities of Manichean space, rigidly bifurcated into light/dark, good/bad, white/Black. No longer immediately identifiable as “Lula’s daughter,” she could thus enter the white world, albeit on a false passport, not merely passing, but trespassing.

Every day my grandmother rose from her bed in her house in a Black enclave on the south side of Chicago, sent her children off to a Black school, boarded a bus full of Black passengers, and rode to work. No one at her job ever asked if she was Black; the question was unthinkable. By virtue of the employment practices *905 of the “fine establishment” in which she worked, she could not have been. Catering to the upper-middle class, understated tastes required that Blacks not be allowed.

She quietly went about her clerical tasks, not once revealing her true identity. She listened to the women with whom she worked discuss their worries—their children’s illnesses, their husband’s disappointments, their boyfriends’ infidelities—all of the mundane yet critical things that made up their lives. She came to know them but they did not know her, for my grandmother occupied a completely different place. That place—where white supremacy and economic domination meet—was unknown turf to her white co-workers. They remained oblivious to the worlds within worlds that existed just beyond the edge of their awareness and yet were present in their very midst.

Each evening, my grandmother, tired and worn, retraced her steps home, laid aside her mask, and reentered herself. Day in and day out, she made herself invisible, then visible again, for a price too inconsequential to do more than barely sustain her family and at a cost too precious to conceive. She left the job some years later, finding the strain too much to bear.

From time to time, as I later sat with her, she would recollect that period, and the cloud of some painful memory would pass across her face. Her voice would remain subdued, as if to contain the still remembered tension. On rare occasions she would wince, recalling some particularly racist comment made in her presence because of her presumed, shared group affiliation. Whatever retort might have been called for had been suppressed long before it reached her lips, for the price of her family’s well-being was her silence. Accepting the risk of self-annihilation was the only way to survive.

Although she never would have stated it this way, the clear and ringing denunciations of racism she delivered from her chair when advanced arthritis had rendered her unable to work were informed by those experiences. The fact that self-denial had been a logical choice and had made her complicit in her own oppression at times fed the fire in her eyes when she confronted some daily outrage inflicted on Black people. Later, these painful memories forged her total identification with the civil rights movement. Learning about the world at her knee as I did, these experiences also came to inform my outlook and my understanding of the world.32

*906 Professor Harris conveys to her white readers what those who are black already know, namely, that her grandmother’s story is far from unique. Indeed, there are many who crossed the color line never to return. Passing is well known among black people in the United States and is a feature of race subordination in all societies structured on white supremacy. Notwithstanding the purported benefits of black heritage in an era of affirmative action, passing is not an obsolete phenomenon that has slipped into history.

The persistence of passing is related to the historical and continuing pattern of white racial domination and economic exploitation that has given passing a certain economic logic. It was a given to Harris’s grandmother that being white automatically ensured higher economic returns in the short term, as well as greater economic, social, and political security in the long run. Becoming white meant gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that materially and permanently guaranteed basic needs and, therefore, survival. Becoming white increased the possibility of controlling critical aspects of one’s life rather than being the object of others’ domination.

Harris’s grandmother’s story illustrates the valorization of whiteness as treasured property in a society structured on racial castes. In ways so embedded that they are rarely apparent, the set of assumptions, privileges, and benefits that accompany the status of being white have become a valuable asset that whites sought to protect and that those who passed sought to attain—by fraud if necessary. Whites have come to expect and rely on these benefits, and over time these expectations have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by the law. Even though the law is neither uniform nor explicit in all instances, in protecting settled expectations based on white privileges, American law has recognized a property interest in whiteness that, although unacknowledged, now forms the background against which legal disputes are framed, argued, and adjudicated.

In a fairly traditional fashion, Professor Harris develops these themes and their effect on racial policies from slavery to affirmative action. But the tragic image of her grandmother provides an almost mystical presence to her piece that informs, validates, and finally renders her conclusions impossible to avoid or deny.

As Harris’s article illustrates, critical race theory writing embraces an experientially grounded, oppositionally expressed, and transformatively aspirational concern with race and other socially constructed hierarchies. Indeed, even a critical race theory critic finds that the “clearest unifying theme” of the writing is “a call for a change of perspective, specifically, a demand that racial problems be viewed from the perspective of minority groups, rather than a white *907 perspective.”33 We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that the American social order is maintained and perpetuated by racial subordination. The narrative voice, the teller, is important to critical race theory in a way not understandable by those whose voices are tacitly deemed legitimate and authoritarian. The voice exposes, tells and retells, signals resistance and caring, and reiterates what kind of power is feared most—the power of commitment to change.

Given all of this, you will not be surprised to learn that the legal academy has come to recognize, but is far from ready to embrace, critical race theory, particularly at the faculty level. Indeed, there is now a small but growing body of work that views critical race theory as interesting, but not a “subdiscipline” unto itself and therefore must be amenable to mainstream standards.34 These writers are not reluctant to tell us what critical race theory ought to be. They question the accuracy of the stories, fail to see their relevance, and want more of an analytical dimension to the work—all this while claiming that their critiques will give this writing a much-needed “legitimacy” in the academic world.

In one of the major critiques by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, the authors urge the storytellers in critical race theory to tell stories that are more “accurate” and “typical,” that “articulate the legal relevance of the stories,” and that “include an analytic dimension.”35 The authors seem unaware of the bizarre irony in their pronouncement that “ w e know of no work on critical race theory that discusses psychological or other social science studies supporting the existence of a voice of color.”36

They do not tell us just what such a study would look like, and why centuries of testimony by people of color regarding their experiences, including individuals like Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Charles Wright, and Toni Morrison, are not measure enough. But Farber and Sherry “find little support for the general claim that traditional [academic] standards are inherently unfair to work by women and minorities,” and contend that “creating literature has little nexus with the specific institutional traits of law schools.”37 They urge critical *908 race theory writers to include more “traditional” scholarship in their approach.38

Perhaps critical race theory’s most politically damaging critic is Randall Kennedy, whose blackness lends his critique a super legitimacy inversely proportional to the illegitimacy bequeathed to critical race theory. Kennedy notes the “insurgent” quality of minority scholars whose “impatience” has succeeded in making the race question a burning issue as never before in legal academia.39 But, he says, the writings of critical race theory reveal “significant deficiencies”; they “fail to support persuasively their claims of racial exclusion or their claims that legal academic scholars of color produce a racially distinctive brand of scholarship.”40

Kennedy adds to his critique by severely criticizing critical race theory’s race-conscious perspective. When a black scholar at a prominent law school tells anyone who will listen that other folks of color are deluded about being excluded on the basis of their race; when a black scholar argues against race-conscious legal remedies or hiring policies; when a black scholar contends that there is no hidden “white” normativity or perspective but rather a meritocratic normativity (the companion claim to the claim that there is no minority perspective); when a black scholar says these things, all who rarely listen to scholars of color sit up and take notice. And take notes. And turn those notes into more fuel for the legitimacy debate that has always attended renegade movements. And critical race theory is renegade in the best sense of the word. Having drawn on the experience of the failed Second Reconstruction, how ironic and scary it is that the twentieth century draws to a close with racial hostility in full cry just as it was at the end of the nineteenth century.

At a time of crisis, critics serve as reminders that we are being heard, if not always appreciated. For those of us for whom history provides the best guide to contemporary understanding, criticism is a reassurance. The reason for this reassurance is contained in this final observation.

III. BLACK ART IN A WHITE LAND

It was in the early years of African slavery, after the point where the nation decided that slaves were essential for the exploitation of the land’s natural resources, but before the techniques of enslavement had been perfected. As a part of the subjugation process, newly arrived *909 Africans—those who had survived the dreaded middle-passage—were separated from those of the same tribe. They were barred from using their native language or practicing their customs. While required to learn sufficient English to understand the white masters who would rule their lives, penalties for actually learning to read and write were severe. Despite the dangers, we know that many of the enslaved did acquire basic literacy skills. The Bible was often their primer as well as the primary access to their adopted religion, Christianity.

The Africans were allowed to sing. It is said that many had voices that were pleasant to the ear, and their singing in the evening after a day of hard labor in the fields or in the master’s house, seemed an innocent relaxation for the slaves and those who owned them. It was a long time before the masters learned, if they ever did, that the slaves used their songs as a means of communication: giving warning, conveying information about escapes planned and carried out, and simply for uplifting the spirit and fortifying the soul. It was even longer before the Spirituals were recognized as a theology in song, a new interpretation of Christianity, one far closer to the original than that practiced by those who hoped the Bible would serve as a tool of pacification, not enlightenment.

At some point, white scholars must have heard the Spirituals. It is easy to imagine their reaction. Even the most hostile would have had to admit that the sometimes joyous and often plaintive melodies had a surface attraction. The scholars would have concluded, though, that the basically primitive song-chants were not capable of complex development and were certainly too simplistic to convey sophisticated musical ideas. The music, moreover, was not in classical form, likely deemed a fatal defect. Indeed, the slave songs were not even written down by those unknown persons who had composed them. Surely, these simple melodies could not be compared with the lieder of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, or Brahms.

Whatever they were, the critics would conclude, these songs were not art. There was no potential in the music for intellectual inspiration as opposed to purely emotional satisfaction. Of course, the critics might concede, in the hands of classically trained composers and musicians, the Spirituals might serve as folk melodies from which true art might be rendered. Stephen Foster was said to have done this, and later Antonin Dvorak, and still later, George Gershwin. Many others followed. A few of them credited the genius in the slave songs, but most simply took what they wanted and called it their own without acknowledgement of the sources that, when asked, they deprecated and denied.

Need it be said that fortunes were made through the utilization and often the corruption of the slave melodies? Need it be said that those who originated this music seldom benefitted financially from *910 their creations? There is no surprise here. A nation built on the backs of black labor would have little difficulty profiting from the product of black minds and hearts.

IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Comparing critical race theory writing with the Spirituals is an unjustified conceit, but the essence of both is quite similar: to communicate understanding and reassurance to needy souls trapped in a hostile world. Moreover, the use of unorthodox structure, language, and form to make sense of the senseless is another similarity. Quite predictably, critics wedded to the existing legal canons will critique critical race theory, and the comparable work by feminists, with their standards of excellence and find this new work seriously inadequate. Many of these critics are steeped in theory and deathly afraid of experience. They seek meaning by dissecting portions of this writing—the autobiographical quality of some work, and the allegorical, story-telling characteristic in others. But all such criticisms miss the point. Critical race theory cannot be understood by claiming that it is intended to make critical race studies writing more accessible and more effective in conveying arguments of discrimination and disadvantage to the majority. Moreover, it is presumptuous to suggest, as a few critics do, that by their attention, even negative attention, they provide this work with legitimacy so that the world will take it seriously. Even if correct, this view is both paternalistic and a pathetically poor effort to regain a position of dominance.

I hope that those doing critical race theory, when reviewing these critiques, will consider the source. As to a response, a sad smile of sympathy may suffice. For those who press harder for explanations, both Beethoven and Louie Armstrong are available for quotation. When questioned about the meaning of his late quartets, Beethoven dismissed the critics with a prediction: “it was not written for you, but for a later age.” And when asked for the meaning of jazz, Armstrong warned, “Man, if you don’t know, don’t mess with it.”

These are wonderful retorts precisely because they do not seek to justify. The work, they say, speaks for itself and is its own legitimation. It was written to record experience and insight that are often unique and prior to this new work, too little heard. There is sufficient satisfaction for those who write in the myriad methods of critical race theory that comes from the work itself.

Footnotes
d1	This essay was originally presented on February 23, 1995, as the second lecture of the David C. Baum Memorial Lectures on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights at the University of Illinois College of Law.
a1	Visiting Professor of Law, New York University. A.B. 1952, Duquesne; L.L.B. 1957, University of Pittsburgh. Erin Edmonds, J.D. 1991, Harvard, provided the research for this essay.
1	John O. Calmore, Critical Race Theory, Archie Shepp, and Fire Music: Securing an Authentic Intellectual Life in a Multicultural World, 65 S. CAL.L.REV. 2129, 2145 (1992).
2	RICHARD J. HERRNSTEIN & CHARLES MURRAY, THE BELL CURVE: INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN AMERICAN LIFE (1994).
3	See id. at 317-40.
4	See generally THE BELL CURVE WARS: RACE, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA (Steven Fraser ed., 1995).
5	Stephen J. Gould, Curveball, NEW YORKER, Nov. 28, 1994, at 139.
6	The Bell Curve devotes several chapters to the discussion of the traditional oppression factors, including poverty and schooling. See HERRNSTEIN & MURRAY, supra note 2, at 127-55.
7	See generally ANTHONY M. PLATT, THE POLITICS OF RIOT COMMISSIONS, 1917-1970 (1971).
8	See, e.g., ERIC FONER, RECONSTRUCTION 425-44 (1988). “But the most ‘offensive’ Blacks of all seemed to be those who achieved a modicum of economic success for, as a White Mississippi farmer commented, the Klan ‘do not like to see the negro go ahead.”’ Id. at 429.
9	See Lori Rozsa, Massacre in a Small Town in 1928, ATLANTA J. & CONST., Jan. 17, 1993, at M1.
10	Larry Rohter, Paying for Racial Attack Divides Florida Leaders, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 14, 1994, at A12. The Florida legislature finally passed, and the governor signed, a claims bill providing $60,000 in scholarships to compensate the Rosewood families and their survivors. See C. Jeanne Bassett, House Bill 591: Florida Compensates Rosewood Victims and Their Families for a Seventy-One-Year-Old Injury, 22 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 503, 520 (1995).
11	ELLIS COSE, THE RAGE OF A PRIVILEGED CLASS (1993).
12	Id. at 1.
13	DERRICK A. BELL, AND WE ARE NOT SAVED: THE ELUSIVE QUEST FOR RACIAL JUSTICE 157-58 (1987).
14	Id.
15	David Aldridge, Companis Admits Error but Maintains Innocence, WASH. POST, July 3, 1987, at F1.
16	Critical race theory’s founding members are usually identified as Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia Williams.
17	For the definitive example of incisive legal analysis utilizing these methods, see PATRICIA J. WILLIAMS, THE ALCHEMY OF RACE AND RIGHTS (1991).
18	Angela P. Harris, Foreword: The Jurisprudence of Reconstruction, 82 CAL.L.REV. 741, 743 (1994).
19	Id. Richard Delgado, one of critical race theory’s original writers, lists as among the attributes of critical race scholars the following: (1) insistence on “naming our own reality”; (2) the belief that knowledge and ideas are powerful; (3) a readiness to question basic premises of moderate/incremental civil rights law; (4) the borrowing of insights from social science on race and racism; (5) critical examination of the myths and stories powerful groups use to justify racial subordination; (6) a more contextualized treatment of doctrine; (7) criticism of liberal legalisms; and (8) an interest in structural determinism—the ways in which legal tools and thought-structures can impede law reform. Richard Delgado, When a Story Is Just a Story: Does Voice Really Matter, 76 VA.L.REV. 95, 95 n.4 (1990).
20	STANLEY E. FISH, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH AND IT’S A GOOD THING, TOO 21 (1994).
21	Patricia J. Williams, Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights, 22 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L.REV. 401, 430 (1987).
22	Veronica Gentilli, Comment, A Double Challenge for Critical Race Scholars: The Moral Context, 65 S. CAL.L.REV. 2361, 2362 (1992).
23	See Calmore, supra note 1, at 2189.
24	For example, Mari Matsuda is not willing to accede to the prevalent notion that reparations are dead, and has put forth a powerful call that America redress the harms it inflicted on blacks, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians, as a means of salvaging the national soul. Mari J. Matsuda, Voices of America: Accent, Antidiscrimination Law, and a Jurisprudence for the Last Reconstruction, 100 YALE L.J. 1329, 1333 (1991).
25	See Calmore, supra note 1, at 2146.
26	Id. at 2163. A partial listing of these “people of color” can be found in Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Biography, 79 VA.L.REV. 461 (1993).
27	See Gentilli, supra note 22, at 2363 (citing Charles R. Lawrence, III, The Word and the River: Pedagogy as Scholarship as Struggle, 65 S. CAL.L.REV. 2231, 2282-83 (1992)).
28	See generally Charles R. Lawrence, III, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, 1990 DUKE L.J. 431; Mari J. Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, 87 MICH.L.REV. 2320 (1989).
29	DERRICK A. BELL, FACES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WELL: THE PERMANENCE OF RACISM 158 (1992).
30	Id. at 194.
31	Cheryl I. Harris, Whiteness as Property, 106 HARV.L.REV. 1709 (1993).
32	Id. at 1710-12.
33	Daniel A. Farber, The Outmoded Debate over Affirmative Action, 82 CAL.L.REV. 893, 904 (1994).
34	Edward L. Rubin, On Beyond Truth: A Theory for Evaluating Legal Scholarship, 80 CAL.L.REV. 889, 960 (1992) (“Critical Race Theory is only a partial subdiscipline; although it is based on distinctive norms [i.e., distinctive from the liberal positivist tradition], it lacks the distinctive methodology that characterizes [the definite partial subdisciplines of] critical legal studies or law and economics.”).
35	Daniel A. Farber & Suzanna Sherry, Telling Stories out of School: An Essay on Legal Narratives, 45 STAN.L.REV. 807, 809 (1993).
36	Id. at 814.
37	Id. at 842, 845.
38	Id. at 842.
39	Randall L. Kennedy, Racial Critiques of Legal Academia, 102 HARV.L.REV. 1745, 1748 (1989).
40	Id. at 1749.

Letter to Frank W. Fox

2020-10-01T09:53:00.011-07:00

An Open Letter in Response to Frank W. Fox's "Letter to Arizona Mormons"

Dear Brother Fox,

I have read your "Letter to Arizona Mormons" and, while I applaud your spirited and civil appeal to voters, I find it fallacious, overly emotional, and lacking solid reasoning and evidence. Please allow me to explain with what I hope to be civility and reason.

You don't like Donald Trump. I get it. You probably despise Donald Trump, not in the way the Savior condemns, but in that you can't stand to look at him, hear him, or even think about him. I've been there. Please don't misunderstand this letter to be a partisan defense of Trump. It's more a repudiation of: 1) your empty, weak criticism of Trump; 2) the one-sided vitriolic hatred of the man (from people who ironically attack his alleged hatred); 3) Joe Biden and his non-record; 4) the media, which fuels the fire of Trump hatred and feeds its viewers only the stories that fit its narrative; and 5) the usurpation of Executive powers by all recent Presidents.

I was a Marco Rubio supporter in 2016 and I despised Donald Trump, his style, his aggressive nature, his falsehoods, and his lack of understanding of basic functions of government. I thought he was a conman. I thought he was running for President for pure narcissistic reasons. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 (I wrote in Mitt Romney's name) but I hoped he would be successful as President.

I was only half right/wrong. He is a narcissist, has an aggressive nature, and exaggerates and hyperbolizes in nearly every situation. However, he has also done many/most of the things he said he would do. I think I was wrong about him being a conman. With some people you have to ignore what they say and focus on what they do. This has never been more true than with Donald J. Trump. What has he DONE?

- Largely defeated ISIS;
- Negotiated a number of peace deals in the Middle East;
- Brought record low unemployment for nearly all demographics;
- Helped build a flourishing economy (though based on way too much spending/debt);
- Renegotiated trade deals to favor America and its workers;
- Fought child trafficking more aggressively than any previous administration;
- Fought opioid abuse;
- Confirmed hundreds of originalist federal judges who support the Constitution;
- Nominated three originalist Justices to the Supreme Court;
- Enabled record-low energy prices;
- Correctly identified and confronted China as #1 enemy and competitor;
- Achieved energy independence; and
- Authorized the killing of brutal terrorists, such as Soleimani and Al-Baghdadi.

There are other accomplishments, but those are the ones that matter most to me and most conservatives. In a normal political environment and with a normal President, those accomplishments would almost guarantee re-election, though I admit that nothing is normal these days. With all that in place, let me specifically address your letter.

First, my Constitutional Law professor in law school was one of the most liberal people I've met. He taught Con Law for three decades and yet embraced the view that the original text of the Constitution mattered less than what people in our day thought it should say and mean. He didn't really put much weight in the Constitution at all; in a Constitutional Law class! So, just because you teach something for 30+ years, doesn't mean you have all the answers or that you see things clearly. I took American Heritage at BYU and enjoyed it, but also thought it was severely lacking in depth and global historical context. The fact that you created that curriculum is impressive, but doesn't give any more weight to your present argument, as you intended by including it in your letter.

Second, this election most certainly is a choice between Liberal and Conservative policies. Here are a few of the issues on the ballot:

- Free market vs. a more socialistic approach;
- Smaller government vs. bigger government;
- Protecting the unborn vs. continuing to brutal destruction of fetus' lives;
- American sovereignty vs. globalism and diminished sovereignty;
- Maintaining our American heritage (flawed as it might be) vs. Erasing our history;
- 2+2 = 4 vs. 2+2 = whatever you want it to be;
- Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome;
- Strict interpretation of the Constitution vs. activist Judicial legislation from the bench.
- Maintaining religious liberty vs. heavy-handed government control/censorship of religion.

I revere the Founding Fathers. They did have qualities of mind and spirit that are rare today; though they certainly had their foibles. We don't generally have men or women of the same stature these days who are willing to wade into the political swamp to help lead this Nation. Our last three presidential candidates are/were: Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Is this really the best we have to offer? Could any of these people hold a candle to Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison? Not in my estimation.

This highlights the most glaring fallacy of your letter: the Nirvana Fallacy. "The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem." I hate to break it to you, but Thomas Jefferson isn't walking through the door. Benjamin Franklin isn't stepping up to the plate. No, we're stuck with Trump, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Barr, et al. Pretending that we have any other options is fallacious and naïve.

This isn't an election where we have the option of choosing between great political, philosophical, and logical minds. It's Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden. That's the choice. Let's not fantasize that either one of those men represents all the good and the other represents all the bad. They're both mostly bad in personal terms. If you don't think Joe Biden has personal failings a la Donald Trump, you might want to look into that. None of them is close to perfect, and - this is an important part of my rebuttal - I don't think that even matters.

What matters to me and most of the people with whom I associate is that America continues to be a great country. The President's style doesn't really affect that. Bill Clinton's extramarital sexual activities in the Oval Office didn't cause America to cease to be great; it just meant that Bill Clinton had some moral issues while leading this great country. I would prefer a President who does "justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms" (Ether 10:11) more than a righteous president who destroys or fundamentally alters the country while appearing to be righteous. That is my judgement. I'm comfortable with that. Everyone has to make his or her own judgment and draw a line in the sand where they feel comfortable on this point.

I mention that because of the common refrain: "how can a Mormon support an immoral man like Trump?' My answer is that no one is perfect and I'm not electing a Pastor or Bishop. Given the choice between a righteous candidate and an unrighteous candidate both of whom have similar visions for the country, I will vote for the more righteous candidate 100/100 times. That is not our choice. Biden and Trump have questionable moral backgrounds (not making an equivalency between them; just stating they have both hit the immorality threshold, in my opinion) so what it comes down to for me is their vision of the country and how hard they will fight to maintain this country's greatness.

Your first point deals with truth-telling. This is an important issue for a President. He or she should tell the truth to the American people. Here's the problem; none of them does. They ALL lie. Trump just does it out in the open, on camera and on Twitter. He doesn't hide what he thinks and feels (I wish he would most of the time). He's not a politician; he's a salesman. He sells. Just like with most salespeople, he embellishes, exaggerates, and overpromises to get the sale. Most politicians lie more subtly, but they lie nonetheless. Joe Biden has some very shady dealings involving his family and his alleged abuse of the office of the Vice Presidency. He covered it up. He does it in secret like most polished and experienced career politicians. Which is better or worse? I know where I fall, and you will fall where you're most comfortable, but let's not pretend one candidate is a saint and the other is a sinner.

I won't address your allusion to Italy and Germany, because I believe comparisons like that are inappropriate and misguided.

Your second point is that Trump preaches fear and divisiveness. It's ironic, because your paragraph about Trump sowing fear includes allegations that Trump has mustered his own private army with which he can destroy checks and balances , which "is precisely how democracies have met their end from ancient times to the present". You see doom and gloom if Trump is re-elected. I could call that fear mongering. But that is your perspective and I respect that perspective. I don't see the need for that fear. I see a Biden presidency having far more destructive consequences for the country. You could accuse me of fear mongering, but it's just how I judge the situation. I recently commented to a Liberal family member that I thought President Obama was a divisive President. She couldn't believe it. It's not her world view. It's not how she heard him. That's fine; it's just how I saw and heard it. I would just preach caution when concluding that one side is sowing all the fear and division. As a religious Conservative, the Left sends plenty of fear, division, vitriol, bigotry, and hatred my way.

Your third point is that no one can be above the law. I obviously agree with that. I will point to Pirates of the Caribbean movie when Will Turner is baffled that Captain Jack Sparrow - a pirate - cheats in a fight. Sparrow's response is a mocking, "Pi-rate!" As if to say, "what did you expect? I'm a freaking pirate and I do pirate things all the time, all day, every day." My response to your point is, "Pol-i-ti-cian!" They all break and/or stretch the law. They should be held accountable but mostly likely won't be. I have it on good authority that if any member of government not named Hillary Clinton had set up a private server in his or her home, he or she would be in jail right now. So I'm all about holding politicians accountable, but I'm realistic enough to admit that probably won't happen. Trump was impeached in a purely partisan - though constitutional - proceeding and I'm sure several Democrats would have voted against impeachment if they weren't under Nancy Pelosi's well-manicured thumb. This is government. This is politics. I don't like it, but it's not Nirvana and it's not utopia so we have to deal with it. I don't condone any unconstitutional or unlawful behavior, but I acknowledge it happens with every administration and will continue to happen.

Your fourth point is merely an accusation - undermined by the Mueller report - that Trump has some secret relationship with Putin. Speaking of documentation, it was revealed this week through declassifications by the DNI that Hillary Clinton cooked up the Russia conspiracy to create division and hide what she had been doing. You will say conspiracy, but there is much evidence to point in that direction. Who knows? But you have to look at both sides of the equation. If Trump were such a close partner of Putin, why has he put so much pressure on Russia's economy by, among other things, making America so much less dependent on foreign oil? Who was it that directed Dmitry Medvedev to inform Putin that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with issues after the election? The Russia-Trump allegations simply haven't borne the fruit we were promised by the media and Democrat members of Congress. Donald Trump's dealings as President haven't hinted at a special relationship with Russia; I would argue the contrary. I would also argue that Putin would prefer to deal with a weaker leader like Obama, Clinton, Biden, Romney, Rubio, or Sanders (who, incidentally, honeymooned in communist Russia).

Your fifth and final point is that Trump has shirked his duty of protecting the people from COVID-19. President Trump certainly has not been perfect in this regard, but his approach to leave the States in charge of their own specific plans is, in my opinion as a Federalist, the only plausible approach. Had he usurped more executive, federal power (as a true tyrant would have) to combat the pandemic, he would have violated the Constitution in a number of ways. I don't believe it is the President's job to protect us from diseases and viruses. If he is going to provide information, he should provide accurate, non-political information, which he has failed to do at times. But I don't need the President to take care of me or my family, including older members of my family. Again, this is just my perspective but it is a valid perspective and one that, I believe, is more in line with the intent and attitude of the Founding Fathers as it relates to executive power. In addition, Biden, Sanders, Fauci, Birx, Pelosi, Trump have all been wrong about the pandemic and have all mislead us. Pol-i-ti-cians!

You call Trump a tyrant. I too am concerned about the creeping usurpation of executive power from Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, down to the present time. Congress should have the power to make laws and set policy; not the President or Supreme Court. We have given too much power to the Executive and Judicial branches of government, and we have made the Federal government too powerful at the expense of the States. I will join with you in any effort to restore constitutional power to the Legislative branch, take a strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, and place more limits on Executive Orders. I don't want President Trump or President Biden to have the kind of power the President has today, but as long as they have it, they will use and abuse it. George Washington isn't walking through that door. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for a more constitutionally-consistent government. I want to live my life and enjoy my family and not hear about the President - any President - 24/7. Let's fight for that!

You may accuse me of "whataboutism" in a few of my responses and I'm 100% okay with that. When you use words like unprecedented and "beyond all constitutional limits", it requires drawing from other examples to show the hyperbole in your remarks. When you say Trump will "steal" the election, I have to point out that the Democrats have failed to accept election results, they have challenged results in court and in the public square, they have engaged in every possible scheme to "win" elections, just as Republicans have. D.C. is a swamp. This is what they do. If you can't concede that, your argument smacks of partisanship and naïveté.

Your final comment about the First Presidency not supporting this administration rings true. I believe and hope to heaven that is not the case, just as I don't believe they would support your letter or mine. Your mention of the work you have done under the direction of the First Presidency is interesting, but has no bearing on the validity or veracity of your letter. It is as irrelevant and misplaced as Mike Pence's alleged comment. Your use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is also interesting. You appeal to your readers' LDS faith and imply that no faithful Latter-day Saint can condone (and therefore support) Donald Trump. Well, we can support without condoning. We can like his policies without liking his behavior. We can appreciate his fight for the unborn, for the sovereignty of the nation, and for the economic opportunity. We can support his policies, without supporting him. We can support someone who fights for us, despite his many whoredoms. Your line of reasoning reminds me of the Pharisees criticism of Jesus - "how can he dine with sinners?" How can they support Trump, the sinner? Because we're all sinners and we are all liars, and we all fall short.

You say you will vote for Joe Biden because for his "balance, for his wisdom, for his humanity, and more than anything else, for his power to heal." This is where you really lost me. His power to heal? I believe only Jesus Christ has the power to heal this country and this people. Joe Biden is a career politician. 47 years of government work. He has plagiarized on numerous occasions, he has blatantly lied hundreds of times, he has told African Americans they're not black if they don't vote for him, he accused Mitt Romney and his supporters of wanting to put African Americans "back in chains", he lead the effort to destroy Clarence Thomas, he believes life begins at conception and still supports policies to terminate that life, etc. etc. etc. This is how I see Joe Biden. Another DC swamp creature who has made many promises in 47 years and delivered on almost nothing, while enriching himself and his family. Most of all, the Biden/Harris administration would usher in a socialist agenda, which as a conservative, I cannot ever support. If I don't vote for Trump; I would not vote for Biden. I would take another option.

I respect your right to voice your opinion and vote your conscience. I respect your ability and skill in appealing to Mormon voters, I just find it to be narrow and unpersuasive. This is the beauty of our Democratic Republic. We can disagree, agreeably. I wish you the best in your endeavors and hope your letter inspires others to look more deeply into all sides of all the issues. Just remember that no politician will heal this country. It has to come from us. When Alexis de Tocqueville said "America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great." I believe he was referring to its people. We've had some really bad Presidents and America didn't cease to be good by virtue of a leader. We will survive Donald Trump and whichever politicians come along after him, but we must be good, we must heal ourselves and each other, we must be the people we want our leaders to be. We can't sit around waiting for politicians to heal us, take care of us, or provide for us. Because after all, politicians are politicians; that's what they do every day, all day, all the time.

"Pol-it-ti-cian!"

In the meantime, I will support candidates who value my freedom, our country, and our American Heritage.

Sincerely,
Brother Hall

The Valley of Socialism - A Trump Derangement Syndrome Novel

2020-09-15T10:19:00.000-07:00

In 2011 I wrote a little novel called “Liberal in Nature” about a liberal – Adam – who flees into the wilderness following the election of a conservative President of the United States. The characters were amorphous, meaning that the President was never named, other than to say it was a Republican whom Adam cannot bear to accept as President. He had threatened to move to Canada if this unnamed President were elected, but instead he moved to the wilderness. While there he identifies numberless injustices in nature and seeks to apply his liberal ideology to fix nature.

I thought I was predicting the 2012 election cycle but was four years ahead of my time. After letting this satirical novel sit around for eight years, I decided to bring it to life by inserting Donald Trump and applying the scenario to the 2016 election. Adam still flees to the wilderness and still tries to bring his ideology – socialism now instead of liberalism – to make nature great again. Driven by his hatred for Trump, he sets himself up as the anti-Trump and leads his wilderness valley toward socialist utopia.

As sound and witty as I considered the book to be, I was always troubled by the question: would someone – even the most devoted socialist – really flee civilization to avoid living in a society lead by a President he loathed? The 2016 election answered that question and introduced the trigger: Trump Derangement Syndrome.

There have been plenty of great non-fiction books dealing with the subjects of socialism, Donald Trump, Triggered Leftists (Donald Trump Jr. did a masterful job in Triggered), and even Trump Derangement Syndrome itself. However, this is the first satirical Trump Derangement Syndrome novel in the history of the world, and it is bigly enlightening and entertaining.

Firing up the Blog again

2020-05-11T15:50:00.004-07:00

I was an active blogger between 2008-2013; writing mostly about politics and the Barack Obama Administration. I also wrote a political satire (Liberal In Nature) in 2011. When Obama was re-elected in 2012, I had to find other hobbies to keep my sanity. However, I'm working on a few new projects so I thought I'd start sharing thoughts on here again.

I believe there's a severe lack of fiction when it comes to politics and current events. This is one reason Conservatives have lost the culture war that has been waging for decades. You can - and should - read about the destructive effects of socialism through non-fiction, but my preference is to illustrate the consequences of socialism through witty storytelling and parabolic examples.

My first project is a novel about a character who suffers from "Trump Derangement Syndrome". I can't give too many details at this point, but it shows how Trump is driving people to deny truth and reality to own the Orange Man.

My second project is a novel showing the negative impact that celebrity-worship has on our society. It follows the story of several celebrity activists who come face-to-face with their "causes" only to prove their own hypocrisy and disregard for anything that doesn't involve them. It also takes shots at politicians and media. What more could you ask?

I will provide updates on these projects as they move along. I will also share some thoughts on current events, politics, religion, etc. Hope you enjoy!

Common Core Teaches About Protesting & Activism!

2013-10-10T11:55:00.000-07:00

I recently saw an article about Common Core ("CC") curriculum teaching children about protests and strikes. The CC-approved third-grade teacher's guide presents students with a scenario where janitors - members of the Services Employees International Union ("SEIU") - were not earning what they considered to be a "fair wage". I thought this might be a bit much for a third grader to handle, but then again, when has the Federal government ever given me a reason to doubt its wisdom or motives?

So, I gathered my children around to learn about some underpaid janitors who were allegedly being oppressed by their employers. These janitors went on strike "for more money because their wages [were] too low to be fair." The text book taught kids important vocabulary words like "protest" and "activism". As instructed by the book, I reminded them that a protest is "an event in which people publicly show their strong disapproval of something." I then challenged my kids to use the vocabulary words while speaking and writing.

Now that they had been properly instructed in activism, it was time to act. As instructed, we discussed problems they believe exist in their school. I encouraged them to make signs and organize themselves using examples found in the book.

As I said, I had my doubts early on. I wasn't sure if the message would really sink in or if they would understand, but they really took everything to heart. It didn't take them long to zero in on a big problem they saw in school and to make signs and organize a plan to protest the injustice they had identified. As the fair-minded, objective voice of reason, I may have given them some suggestions, but in no way influenced them in their thinking, much like the state-run education systems are disinterested, non-partisan educators. So, without further ado, let me present you with what they came up with:

Thanks, Common Core! You'll be happy to know that my children are applying the lesson quite effectively. In fact, we reward them every time they shout "Protest Common Core!" or "Stop Common Core Facism!" It's really cute how they've embraced education.

[BTW, you can actually find those fine "Stop Common Core" buttons at Zazzle.com.]

Letter Re: My Concerns With Common Core

2013-10-08T14:07:00.001-07:00

Dear Governor Herbert, Utah State School Board, State Superintendent Menlove, Attorney General Swallow, State Legislators, Local School Boards, et al.:

As an involved parent, I am extremely concerned about the work my children are bringing home as a result of the Utah Common Core State Standards (“CCSS”). Below you will find some of my concerns.

First, my children are NOT merely bricks in a wall. They are unique and wonderful children! They have different strengths and weaknesses. My daughter - like her lawyer father - is more geared towards language, words, reading and logic. My son - like his college-educated mother - is more gifted in mathematics and science. My third son is a healthy mixture of the two. My daughter prefers to learn through practical examples and illustrations while my six year-old son likes to learn through straightforward facts and numbers. We cannot successfully parent and teach each of them the same way, so how do you propose that CCSS can successfully teach them and their unique classmates in the exact same manner?

Second, my children are overwhelmed with the amount of unnecessary busy homework they have to complete when they get home from school. To begin with, the kids are awake from about 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. Of those 13 waking hours they are at school from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Then when they get home, they read for 25 minutes and take about 27 minutes to complete homework - and they are in 1st and 3rd grade! I’ll make this really simple using the “Lattice Method”: there are 60 minutes in one hour and the kids are awake for 13 hours, so they are awake for 3x0 + 3x6 + 0x1 + 6x1 / / / hours. They spend 0x7 + 7x7 + 0x0 + 7x0 / / / at school. Then, they spend 25 + (27 + 3 = 30) = 45 - 3 = 42 minutes doing homework. That only leaves 780 (+20 to round to 800) minutes minus 420 (subtract 20 to round to 400) minus 42 (subtract 2 to round to 40) minutes to spend with their family and to just be kids and learn on their own. Yeah, that’s 800 - 400 = 400 minus 20 = 380 minus 20 = 360 minus 42 homework minutes (subtract 2 to round to 40) equals 320 minus 2 to get to 318 free minutes. It would be one thing if the homework stimulated their brains or if the work was preparing them for the real world, but it is full of mindless estimations and backward mathematical methods, as demonstrated above.

Third [I will give you 30 seconds to read this paragraph. If you do not read it in 30 seconds, you are not up to MY standards], there is an over-utilization of timed reading in the curriculum and not enough focus on comprehension. When I was in elementary school, I learned to read and comprehend what I was reading. I don’t know how many words I could read in a minute at each level, but I learned to read at a comfortable pace, while absorbing the material I was reading. Is there some time-sensitive aspect of the “global economy” that I don’t understand? I have lived in Southeast Asia and all over the United States, I have completed 20 years of education and have passed a Bar exam; I do not remember ever benefiting from being able to read something at the fastest pace possible with there being no inherent penalties/drawbacks for lack of comprehension. Why is this so important to state standards? You may have read this paragraph in 30 seconds, but did you comprehend it? It matters.

Fourth, as I mentioned above, I have lived in Asia and I have witnessed many of the school systems there. The students are generally sharp, disciplined and dedicated to their work. The work, however, usually requires almost exclusively memorization and regurgitation. I often hear that the Asian education system is so wonderful and America is way behind in education because the kids in Asia score well on tests, but I don’t see a lot of innovation coming from those countries. Sure, they they produce many great products, but I don’t recall many breakthroughs coming from Asia. Am I wrong? They are generally good at following instructions and reproducing results, but I have found a huge inability to think outside the box, to interpret unique data, and to understand context. In my experience, many of them (but not all) are followers, but not thinkers. Why would you want to create students like that here in America? It’s almost as if you are trying to create a generation of followers and not thinkers…

Fifth, I have an assignment for you. Assume that the Constitution of the United States is outdated and needs to be changed (that shouldn’t be too hard for some of you). You - a Federal government agency - want to develop a one-size-fits-all education system for the entire Nation, but the Constitution does not specifically grant that right to your agency. What would you add or take away from the Constitution in order to make this new standard system of education constitutional? You will need to prioritize, prune and add text to turn your system into a constitutionally acceptable form of education. Then, propose a plan for how to lure the States to go along with your education program. Money is not an issue; you can promise them as much money as it takes, but you must get them signed up. Your proposal will be submitted in its final form as a persuasive presentation to the American people. They have been given the important individual charge - by their Creator - to educate their own children and, having partially delegated that responsibility to local school districts, will judge your proposal based on the validity and veracity of your arguments as to whether you have any right and/or ability to educate their children in the manner proposed. Your score will not be shared with you. We will keep your proposal in our database for future reference.

Sixth, suppose you are the Governor of Utah and in your 2012 gubernatorial election you received 624,678 votes, or 68.4%. Further suppose that during the Republican convention, you received 2,253 votes, or 57.67%. Now suppose that since your election your supporters, who oppose Common Core at the federal and state level, discover that you support Common Core at one or both of those levels. Suppose that these supporters are very serious about the education of their children and do not approve of their elected leaders supporting such a massive, radical form of standardized education. If (let’s put our estimation hats on) half of those supporters become former supporters and choose to vote for one of your Republican challengers instead of you, how many people would still support you in the convention and, if you survive the convention, how many Utahans would turn out to vote for you in the next election? The number is not important. The WHY is everything. As long as you understand WHY, maybe, just maybe you will survive in the Utah - not global - economy.

Thank you for your time and attention to our concerns. As parents of OUR children, my wife and I have the ultimate responsibility for educating OUR children and preparing them for the future. We take OUR responsibility very seriously. You, as public “servants,” work for US. If you do not serve the good of OUR children, we will relieve you of your post or we will remove our children from your collective, destructive influence.

Your Bosses,
The Halls

GOP Voting Pledge

2013-10-07T11:52:00.000-07:00

As the Democrats continue to push a unified statist message in opposition to the GOP, they are also increasingly successful in painting the GOP as a house divided...and they're right. My Twitter timeline is full of "RINOs" and "Tea Party crazies" - all of whom want to defeat the Democrats - but who cannot agree on policies and strategy.

It's simple; if the GOP is continuously divided, the Democrats win. That doesn't mean that either the RINOs or the Tea Party must give up and give in so the other side can take over. The two groups can still fight to be heard, but we have to agree to be unified in our fight against progressivism. In an attempt to work around the difficulties presented by a divided party, I present this voting pledge, which is intended for anyone who considers him/herself to be a Republican - or at least sympathetic to the GOP.

GOP Voting Pledge

I, _______________________________, officially pledge to my fellow Americans that I will observe and keep the terms of the agreement below.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, progressivism is destroying the United States of America,

WHEREAS, the Republican Party - even with its faults - is the most powerful vehicle currently in existence for fighting against progressivism,

WHEREAS the Republican Party has hitherto been divided by well-intentioned ideological groups (who refer to each other as "RINOs" and "Tea Partiers" or some variation), which has resulted in Republican candidates losing to beatable Democrat candidates,

WHEREAS, even a "RINO" is better than a "Liberal progressive",

WHEREAS, the Republican Party will continue to suffer defeats unless its candidates and voters UNITE,

TERMS

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of stemming the tide of destructive progressivism, I pledge to exercise my voting rights as follows:

I will vigorously and respectfully support the primary candidate(s) with whom I agree and will encourage others to do the same;

I will vote in ALL Republican primaries in which I am legally able to vote and will accept the results of such primaries;

I will put my full support behind whichever Republican primary candidates are chosen, even if my candidates lose and even if I continue to have issues or concerns with the nominee(s);

I will cast my vote for Republican nominees in ALL races - local, state, and national - in which I can legally vote, as long as I objectively believe that the Republican nominees are at least as desirable as the Democrat nominees;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Pledge by signing my name in the comments section.

_________________________________

ALTERNATIVE AGREEMENT

If I do not agree to the terms stated above and if I choose not to exercise my voting rights because I am not satisfied with a particular Republican candidate, I agree to waive my rights to criticize, attack and/or complain about the newly elected or re-elected Democrat politicians in races in which I could have voted.

_________________________________

BONUS VIDEO:

"Anyone that is willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if you're not in that bunker because you're not satisfied with this candidate; more than shame on you...you're on the other side." - Andrew Breitbart, CPAC 2012

My Heart is with the Tea Party; My Head is with the GOP

2013-10-06T12:41:00.000-07:00

As Sen. Ted Cruz was preparing to 'filibuster' for 21 hours on the Senate floor, I thought it was a fool's mission. What good could come of it? Did he really think the Democrat-controlled Senate would listen to him and work with him to defund or reform the signature legislation ("Obamacare") of their Democratic leader? Is the fight worth it if you know you can't win? I was not optimistic and I thought it would have negative on the GOP.

A few hours into the "filibuster" I decided to tune in to see what Sen. Cruz was talking about. I missed the famous "Green Eggs and Ham" reading, but discovered something incredibly important that the media missed or - more likely - blatantly ignored. I realized that Ted Cruz is insightful, analytical, focused, amiable, persuasive and willing to debate issues with his Democratic colleagues. Here is a sample:

I admire Sen. Cruz's passion, his knowledge and his willingness to fight for his convictions. As I watched him speak, I was caught up in the 'heart' of what he was saying. In other words, my heart - my fighting spirit - admired what he was doing and how he was doing it. There was no snark or pettiness is what he was saying. When Democratic colleagues questioned him, he was respectful and polite. He may have been engaging in a bit of self-aggrandizement, but he wasn't going for cheap political points and snarky MSNBC-esque soundbites. This was contrasted dramatically when Sen. Harry Reid showed up to take the floor back with all the class and dignity of a Las Vegas casino boss. Sen. Cruz had spoken for 21 hours without making cheap personal attacks and Sen. Reid couldn't go 21 seconds.

I was quite blown away; especially by how much - in my heart - I applauded who Cruz was and what he did. Then, reality set in and I realized that, though he had rallied the Conservative right, he hadn't done much, if anything, to move the needle. He was still arguing from an lose-lose position, no matter how much I actually agreed with that position. Indeed, after skillfully picking apart ObamaCare for 21 hours, the only thing I heard the news report was his reading of "Green Eggs and Ham" and they even managed to find multiple faults with that.

How do I rectify this conundrum? My heart is with Ted Cruz, but my head knows his Republican colleagues in the Senate are correct, at least from a strategic political standpoint in this case. If I let my head - analytical, logical capacities - govern everything I say and do, I run the risk of becoming stale and overly calculating and never challenging the status quo. If I let my heart govern my actions, I wind up fighting everything and becoming overwhelmingly disheartened when I suffer losses that I should have seen coming. Isn't there a middle ground?

Not on Twitter, apparently. According to most tweeters, you were either a Tea Party nut job or a RINO. Even if you liked Ted Cruz, but didn't agree with his strategy, you were deemed a RINO, a sell-out, or part of the "Surrender Caucus." If you were a Conservative then the RINOs called you crazy or "wacko birds" (Isn't John McCain a gem?) if you supported the Cruz strategy. You would expect this type of name-calling between Democrats and Republicans, but it is happening all too often between 'Conservatives' and 'Moderates' both of whom claim Ronald Reagan as their idle. Yes, Ronald Reagan, who popularized the famous 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." My how we've strayed.

This doesn't mean that we have to like everything our colleagues and congressmen/women do, but we have to be united. The purity tests and at-all-costs primary threats are losers for us. Shutting down conservative candidates because they don't do the bidding of the "establishment" is a loser for us. If you are Conservative, vote for the most Conservative candidate you want in the primaries. If you are more Moderate, vote for a Moderate candidate. When your candidate loses, don't whine and stay home like a petulant child. Get out and support the GOP candidate, whomever it is. If your candidate wins, open your arms to accept the supports of the losing candidates and vow to work with them. It isn't that hard.

Conservatives and Moderate Republicans (and everyone in between) need to commit that they will vote in EVERY election no matter who the candidates are. There's always a better and worse candidate. In 2012, some Republicans/Conservatives framed the race as "Obama vs. Obama-lite". I disagree with that characterization, but even if it's true, wouldn't you rather have Obama-lite right now? There is a lot of distance between Obama and Mitt Romney; important distance that makes a HUGE difference to our personal freedoms and individual rights. To act like there is little difference is patently false and it's a losing attitude. To pretend that a Conservative cannot win a general election is equally false.

We need to fight (fair) during the primaries, but then unite after all of the voices have been heard! If we don't, the Dems will continue to win. And I hate watching the Dems win. There is a way to put our hearts and minds in support of the GOP, but it takes patience, humility and wisdom. We've got to find those virtues, because our current inner conflict is a loser - both in strategy and in policy.

The Obama Administration - A Superseding Cause in the Government Shutdown

2013-10-05T17:55:00.003-07:00

I'm not going to argue the merits of the partial shutdown, because I think both sides are being rather childish. But, I keep hearing that House Republicans are responsible for all things that have been shut down over the past week. To say that closures of the WWII Memorial, Panda Cam, Florida Bay, etc. automatically flow from the shutdown - and are therefore the fault of whomever caused the partial shutdown - is not correct. These are discretionary - high visibility - items, which require someone in the Executive Branch to affirmatively and punitively target for closure.

For example, the administration attempted to close Mount Vernon this week, which is privately funded. That was 100% wrong and 100% unnecessary...it didn't naturally flow from the partial shutdown. Why would anyone do that? Simple: to win the public perception battle by making it hurt Americans ten fold and then use the PR machine to assign blame in an attempt to destroy the opponent. It is actually a good, though callous, political strategy, unless of course you get caught in your callousness. Unfortunately for the admin, Breitbart isn't the only outlet to quote the anonymous park ranger as saying, “[w]e’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” It is.

So, even if you blame the GOP for the partial shutdown, you can't blame them for ALL of the closures we're seeing, because these closures require a superseding cause, e.g. the Obama Administration. Of course, people will believe what they will believe and House Republicans are a good/easy target (and the Obama administration knows this). But, to believe that the closures all flow from the actions of one part of a three-branched government is to allow the Obama Administration to shut down the faculties of our critical analysis. We, like the WWII Veterans, must push through those barricades (or Barry-cades) and demand answers. Whether you believe that President Obama and Sen. Harry Reid own the shutdown, you must agree that they own the barricades.

Silent Night / ABC News (Newtown, CT shooting)

2012-12-15T18:35:00.000-08:00

In 1966, Simon & Garfunkel released a version of Silent Night, which had the 7 O'clock news playing in the background. Here is the background:

"7 O'Clock News/Silent Night" is the twelfth and final track on Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme, a 1966 album by Simon and Garfunkel. The track consists of an overdubbing of two contrasting recordings: a simple arrangement of the Christmas carol "Silent Night", and a simulated "7 O'Clock News" bulletin of the actual events of 3 August 1966.

The "Silent Night" track consists of Simon and Garfunkel singing the first verse twice over, accompanied by Garfunkel on piano. The voice of the newscaster is that of Charlie O'Donnell, then a radio disc jockey. As the track progresses, the song becomes fainter and the news report louder. Matthew Greenwald calls the effect "positively chilling".^[1] Bruce Eder describes the track as "a grim and ironic (and prophetic) comment on the state of the United States in 1966".^[2]

It is indeed chilling, but also a reminder of the peace that comes through Jesus Christ and the evil and tragedy that mankind creates. I thought of this juxtaposition in the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting and decided to put this together. Nothing can erase the pain of this tragedy, but with the Savior, peace is still possible.

Who will protect gun control advocates on THAT day?

2012-12-15T13:01:00.000-08:00

In the wake of that terrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the gun control advocates are out in full force. Liberals are perfectly willing to relinquish constitutional rights for the good of us all. After all, they know better than we do.

This Liberal "logic" makes me think of a great moment from the Robert Bolt play, A Man For All Seasons. The scene takes place between Sir Thomas More and his future son-in-law, William Roper.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

It is frightening how quickly gun control advocates will cut down constitutional rights in a simplistic attempt to fix a complicated problem. Yet, they rationalize and justify cutting down the Second Amendment because it makes them feel they have control of something. It feels safer.

So, we are to relinquish a constitutional right for the benefit of the children. Trade rights for desired safety and security. Liberals tend to make arguments in this manner, because it feels good and it seems like there is causation. There isn't. It is an illogical argument. Laws and bans do NOT stop criminals from acting on their evil plans, thus the reason they are "criminals" in the first place.

Considering we are a nation ready to give up on the "war on drugs" because drugs are so rampant that we cannot enforce our laws, how can we expect law enforcement to keep guns away from criminals and protect law-abiding citizens who are defenseless? Banning guns for law-abiding citizens would likely embolden and enable criminals, making the nation - and yes, children - less safe.

The gun culture in America is a serious problem. There are too many gun deaths. There is too much violence. Our culture is suffering. We have a morality problem. We have an entitlement and envy problem. We have a respect-for-life problem. But, we must have honest, all-encompassing debates about the problems and the solutions. In this case, seeking to cut down the Second Amendment is a knee-jerk reaction which could prove disastrous for all Americans. And if the guns are legislated away, who will protect the gun control advocates on THAT day?

What Does Obama Have In HIS Binders?

2012-10-20T22:09:00.004-07:00

The ridiculous "binders" story is not worthy of a post. So, I thought I'd just post a picture instead, just to prove that Obama does indeed know what a binder is, and that he actually uses them. According to Harry Reid, he could have anything in there and until he reveals what is in there, we can assume he is hiding something. So, what does Obama have in his binders? Leave guesses in the comments section...

He could have anything in there!

Obama in 2008 on National Security: "The Buck Will Stop With ME!"

2012-10-16T07:28:00.002-07:00

In light of Hillary Clinton taking the blame for failures in the Benghazi attack while Obama remains in hiding (from reporters), let us take a moment to remember yet another lofty promise Obama made back in 2008:

Obama: Romney Thought GM Should Go Bankrupt!

2012-10-15T14:13:00.001-07:00

Uhhh.....it did on June 1, 2009! (Here's the petition)

Joe Biden: "LIFE Begins at Conception" (But it's okay to take that LIFE)

2012-10-13T07:39:00.001-07:00

Joe Biden carefully carved out his stance on abortion in the Vice Presidential Debate with Paul Ryan. Not wanting to sound "extreme" and likely wanting to pander to women voters, Uncle Joe made the most illogical case a person can make for abortion. Here's what he said:

"With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a -- what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

I -- I do not believe that -- that we have a right to tell other people that women, they -- they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court -- I’m not going to interfere with that" - NY Times

Joe believes it's a life, but doesn't want to "interfere" with a decision between the mother and the doctor as to whether that LIFE will live or die. Once again, he believes it is a LIFE. He said that. I am not taking anything out of context. "Life begins at conception."

I cannot believe a politician - or anyone - can get away with this hypocrisy. Joe, how can you accept that a fetus is a life and not believe you have a right to interfere on behalf of the unborn child? We tell all citizens they cannot murder - except in cases of self-defense - so why can't we tell a woman she can't destroy a life, even if it is inside of her body? Do you agree with the Declaration of Independence that one of the God-given rights is to LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Didn't you swear an oath to defend the Constitution? How can you claim the voiceless, powerless fetus is a life, but then claim you don't have a right to tell the woman she can't kill it? Who speaks for the fetus? Why does the mother's "choice" trump the baby's RIGHT to LIFE?

What's particularly disturbing is that a few sentences before that, Joe said, "Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help." When it comes to abortion, who is it in the equation who can't take of himself/herself? Is it the mother? The doctor? Who needs the most help? Who needs the most protection? Sure, the mother may be in a bad position, but death is usually not on the line (and if it is, most pro-lifers support abortion as an option). Perhaps Joe should change his statement to "taking care of [voters] who can't take care of themselves, [voters] who need help." Votes seem to speak the loudest to politicians!

I am pro-life and I think we have a duty to protect the unborn - who can't help themselves. I think people should make better preventative choices if they don't want to have a baby. I know, that is so self-righteous of me to see that as a viable option. But, discussing the rightness or wrongness of abortion is not my purpose here. I am pointing out the contradiction in Biden's abortion position. I disagree with those who say that a fetus is not a life, but I can at least concede that there is debate about it. And if a fetus is not a life, then I can at least understand how a person could justify abortion. What I cannot accept is someone who believes it is a life and supports a mother's "right" to take that life.

It doesn't work, Joe. You can't have it both ways and given the choice between LIFE and any other "right"...LIFE is the trump card!

Still, while Biden's position is completely illogical; it's not quite as disgusting as Obama's abortion position:

Joe Biden: The Most Obnoxious Candidate in the World!

2012-10-12T14:02:00.000-07:00

Is Biden Too Crazy To Be Defeated in Debate?

2012-10-11T07:17:00.000-07:00

"You can't beat crazy!"

I think we can all agree; Joe Biden is a bit crazy! Some people think he's crazy in the sense that he says things that politicians don't normally say. Some people think he's crazy in the way your crazy uncle is crazy - it's a bit alarming but it's also kind of endearing. Some people think Joe Biden is legitimately crazy - not-fit-to-be-President crazy or not-fit-to-be-employed crazy.

Regardless of the type of crazy or the degree of crazy, crazy people are hard to pin down. They don't play by the rules! When most of society (the number appears to be dwindling) has agreed to use logic and reason in discussions and debates, it puts most of us at least on similar wave lengths. We can still have big disagreements and differences of opinions, but we are still generally able to understand where others are coming from. But, when someone comes from an entirely different wave length, it is so foreign and odd that it is hard to discuss ordinary ideas. You may have logic, reason, facts and style on your side, but a crazy person can put on such a bizarre show that it frustrates you and distracts you from your objectives that the crazy person can actually start to make you think you're crazy.

As a litigator, I have had the unfortunate experience of facing several pro se (people who represent themselves) parties. In many ways it is a great advantage to face someone who doesn't have a lawyer, but it can also be confusing, time-consuming and maddening. Pro se parties do crazy things like filing non-existent, insane motions. You are left to wonder: do I even have to respond to this considering it is insane or do I still have to answer just to be safe? Usually you answer the crazy motion to protect yourself and your client, which is time-consuming and expensive for the client. Then, when you draft the response you have to combat the craziness and sometimes the only way to combat it is with craziness. I admit that sometimes it is fun, but usually it is annoying.

Paul Ryan is slick, smart and focused. He seems to dislike nonsense and frivolous debate. Well, he's going to get it tonight! Biden is going to be all over the place. He's going to attack Romney/Ryan, he'll make some outrageous allegations, he'll appeal to the working class effectively and he'll try to paint Ryan as a young punk who doesn't know what he's talking about. He will make some good points, but he will also say some crazy things. If Ryan can't bring the debate back to reason, he will open the possibility that Crazy Uncle Joe might appear to have bested him, even if Ryan wins on substance, reason and sanity. In addition, crazy people often gain sympathy because of their plight. Many Americans will have a soft spot for Joe, so if Ryan goes at him too hard, he might come off as a mean bully.

I actually find Joe Biden somewhat endearing, especially when he is making good points for the GOP, but I wouldn't want to have to debate him. Expectations for Biden (and most crazy people) are so low that if he is still clothed at the end of the debate, it will be a victory. Who would you enlist for debate prep as a stand-in for Biden? Leave suggestions in the comments. Here is my pick.

The sh**er will be full when Biden leaves the stage Thursday night

BARACK OBAMA & CRITICAL RACE THEORY

2012-10-09T22:08:00.001-07:00

Critical Race Theory (“CRT”), as defined by one of its most influential and founding advocates, Derrick Bell, is “characterized by frequent use of the first person, storytelling, narrative, allegory, interdisciplinary treatment of law, and the unapologetic use of creativity.” (See, WHO'S AFRAID OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY, Derrick Bell (1995)) He further explains, “We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that the American social order is maintained and perpetuated by racial subordination.” (Id. at 906) Bell, a former professor at Harvard School of Law, explains that two types of CRT members exist: (1) People of color who are “ideologically committed to the struggle against racism”; and (2) white people who are “cognizant of and committed to the overthrow of their own racial privilege.” (Id at 898)

Professor Dorothy Brown - the same Dorothy Brown who appeared on Soledad OBrien's show to criticize Joel Pollak's previous characterization of CRT - adds that “[a]lthough 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.” (FIGHTING RACISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, Dorothy Brown (2004)) Essentially, CRT uses the law to demonstrate a problem that lies within and without legal institutions; that white supremacy and privilege is deeply rooted in American culture and the Civil Rights era of the 1960s did little to bring about equality.

A recent revelation by breitbart.com shows a past connection between President Barack Obama and CRT theorist Derrick Bell. While President Obama’s association with an African-American Harvard law professor in the 1990s does not suggest, by itself, that President Obama was or is a proponent of CRT, it warrants investigation into whether his narratives and/or policies have any grounding in CRT. This article explores this issue by reviewing the President’s books, interviews, speeches, press conferences and actions for any indication that his agenda is based on such a radical theory. Ben Shapiro, of Breitbart.com, has already written a phenomenal article about the ties between Obama, Bell and Critical Race Theory. This article seeks to build on those ties and delve into the words of Barack Obama. As such, it relies almost entirely on the actual words of Barack Obama through the years.

Early Days; Harvard Law

After graduating from Columbia, Barack Obama worked in New York for a brief time and then moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. After working to elevate those in the black community for nearly four years, Obama "became aware that it’s more and more important to understand the intricacies of the system, how money flows and business operates. As more public policy is made by private actors, any strategy for Blacks has to involve the understanding of what is happening in the private sector," he said in a 1990 interview. The LA Times reported that "[a]fter four years, Obama decided it was time to move on. He wanted to learn how to use the political system to effect social change. He set his sights on Harvard Law School, where he quickly distinguished himself as a top student."

While attending Harvard Law School, Obama would be taught and mentored by prominent and controversial African-American professors Derrick Bell, Charles Ogletree and Laurence Tribe. Tribe would call Obama the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." Shortly before Obama's 2008 election, Tribe said that if Obama were to be elected, he would appoint justices "who share his view that the Constitution is a living document that has to be interpreted in light of evolving values of decency."

In 1990, Professor Tribe said that "what truly distinguishes Obama from other bright students at Harvard Law is his ability to make sense of complex legal arguments and translate them into current social concerns. For example, Obama wrote an insightful research article showing how contrasting views in the abortion debate are a direct result of cultural and sociological differences."

Obama gained national attention when he was elected the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review. On why he chose to run for the position, Obama said, "[i]t was another door we hadn't walked through yet." He added, "I wanted the job because it would allow me to have some influence on the course of legal debate in this country."

Barack H. Obama at Harvard Law (Photo: NY Times)

While Obama's election as President of the Law Review was celebrated nationally, according to a 1990 LA Times piece "some of Obama's peers question the motives of this second-year law student. They find it puzzling that despite Obama's openly progressive views on social issues, he has also won support from staunch conservatives. Although some question what personal goals motivate Obama, his interest in social issues is deeply grounded." Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell did not appear to be overly optimistic: "While I applaud Obama's achievement, I guess I am not as hopeful for what this will mean for other blacks at Harvard. There is a strange character to this black achievement. When you have someone that reaches this high level, you find that he is just deemed exceptional and it does not change society's view of all of the rest."

While President of the Law Review, Obama relied on "compromise" and "bipartisanship" to work with fellow Law Review students who might not have agreed with his politics. "These are the people who will be running the country in some form or other when they graduate. If I'm talking to a white conservative who wants to dismantle the welfare state, he has the respect to listen to me and I to him."

As for Obama's own thoughts about his election and his plans for the Law Review, Obama revealed, "'I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.'' Elsewhere he stated that “[p]eople like myself are learning a certain language of mainstream society, of power and decision making. “We have an obligation to go back to the Black community, to listen and learn and help give our people a voice. I’m nontraditional less in my training than in my focus, and my past and my future plans. My background is more concrete and hands-on. Issues of public policy and the Black community are of major importance to me.”

Obama would continue to work with his mentors, Tribe, Bell and Ogletree throughout his career at Harvard Law. Charles Ogletree was a senior advisor to Senator Obama in 2008 and has continued a close correspondence with the President. Ogletree gave a three-part lecture at Harvard entitled "Understanding Obama", he now teaches a class at Harvard with the same title and plans to publish a book about Obama...but will wait until after the 2012 election. Ogletree, who has written heavily about race in the law, has warned colleges and universities that admitting mostly foreign-born blacks to meet the goals of affirmative action is insufficient, stated: “Whether you are from Brazil or from Cuba, you are still products of slavery. But the threshold is that people of African descent who were born and raised and suffered in America have to be the first among equals.”

Community Organizing in Chicago

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1992, Barack Obama spent some time at a law firm in Chicago before heading back to the streets to engage in community organizing. According to a Crain's Business Article in September 27,1991, Obama's two aspirations were: "political reformer and entrepreneur for social justice." In the article, Obama says "[t]emperamentally, I'm more suited to the latter. Practically, it's very difficult." He also stated that, because of his time in Hawaii and Indonesia, he was in a "unique position" to impose his world view on racial issues.

One of Obama's major goals in community organizing was voter registration. In 1992, he told the Chicago Sun-Times "Our biggest problem is the young, the 18 to 35 group. There is a lot of talk about 'black power' among the young but so little action. Today, we see hundreds of young blacks talking 'black power' and wearing Malcolm X T-shirts, but they don't bother to register and vote. We remind them that Malcolm once made a speech titled 'The Ballot or the Bullet,' and that today we've got enough bullets in the streets but not enough ballots."

In an appearance on NPR's All Things Considered in 1994, Obama said, "it's time for all of us, and now I'm talking about the larger American community, to acknowledge that we've never even come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children. Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people's lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should pay off handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It's not the result of an intellectual deficit. It's the result of a moral deficit."

Eventually, Obama became discouraged by the limiting factors of community organizing. He wanted to effect more social change and have a bigger impact, so he entered the political arena in 1995. He told Charlie Rose, "I saw the law as being inadequate to the task. It’s very difficult to bring about social change at this point through the courts. [And] community organizing was too localized and too small."

Many years earlier, Professor Derrick Bell had expressed a similar frustration, stating "[p]rofessor Leroy Clark has written that the black community’s belief in the efficacy of litigation inhibited the development of techniques involving popular participation and control that might have advanced school desegregation in the South…A lawyer seeking social change, Clark advises, must “make clear that the major social and economic obstacles are not easily amenable to the legal process and that vigilance and continued activity by the disadvantaged are the crucial elements in social change. (Derrick A. Bell, Jr., SERVING TWO MASTERS: INTEGRATION IDEALS AND CLIENTS INTERESTS IN SCHOOL DESEGRATION LITIGATION, 85 Yale L. J. 470, 471 (1976).”

Interviews about Dreams From My Father

In 1995, Barack Obama wrote his first book; Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. He told Charlie Rose, “I originally got the idea of writing a book while I was at Harvard Law School, where I served as president of the Law Review. In listening to a number of the debates going back and forth about affirmative action and voting rights and all the controversies surrounding race issues in the country, I thought that I might be able to insert myself into the debate and hopefully clarify it." About the same time, at his friends' urging he also entered into the political arena, because, as he says, "I saw the law as being inadequate to the task. It’s very difficult to bring about social change at this point through the courts. [And] community organizing was too localized and too small."

More to come soon...

Obama Plagiarizes Lincoln's Condolence Letter

2012-10-09T21:09:00.002-07:00

A recent story broke about the father of a fallen Marine who was upset by a condolence letter received from Barack Obama...four months after the death of his son. The letter is a form letter, which the Administration has sent to the families of other fallen soldiers. Impersonal and delayed form letters to the parents of fallen heroes are bad enough, but it looks like Obama has actually ripped off much of the language, tone and sentiment of Abraham Lincoln's 1864 letter to Mrs. Bixby.

Below you can find each letter in its entirety. Similar phrases and/or sentiments are highlighted. You be the judge.

Lincoln Letter

"Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln"

Obama Letter

"Dear _________,

I am deeply saddened to learn of the loss of your son, ____________, USMC. Our Nation will not forget his sacrifice, and we can never repay our debt to your family.

A simple letter cannot ease the pain of losing a child, but I hope you take solace in knowing that his brave service exceeded all measures of selflessness and devotion to this country. We honor him not only as a guardian of our liberty, but also as the true embodiment of America's spirit of service to a cause greater than ourselves.

Michelle and I offer our heartfelt sympathy, and pray that God's grace gives you comfort as you grieve. In life, your son was a shining example of all that is best in our land. In rest, may he find the peace we all seek.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama"

While Lincoln's letter was unique to Mrs. Bixby, Obama's letter is sent as a form letter to families of fallen soldiers - 4 months late, apparently. Lincoln's letter has heart-felt sentiment and is backed by the historical context of Lincoln's love of this country and its soldiers. Obama's letter is betrayed by his seeming apathy and lack of respect for our military. Lincoln hand-wrote his letter; Obama simply signed his. One can dispute these points, but on top of all of the disrespectful aspects of this form letter, Obama didn't even write it; Lincoln did (and much better than Obama).

Obama's Strategy For Next Debate

2012-10-04T13:58:00.003-07:00

Obama: "Give it to him, Big Bird!"

Romney vs. Empty Chair, Empty Suit, Empty Podium

2012-10-04T13:00:00.000-07:00

Suburban Roads Lead To Middle Class Swing Counties, Mr. Obama

2012-10-03T11:45:00.001-07:00

The Daily Caller video that surfaced (Not "re-surfaced" as reported by the Mainstream Media, because the most controversial portions never surfaced before) of Obama speaking in 2007 has some fascinating aspects to it relating to the middle class. I couldn't care less what voice or cadence he used, because the substance is what is important to me.

Among other divisive things, Obama said: "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs. We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don't have to travel from miles away."

Here is a small list of assumptions in that short excerpt:

1. Minority-owned businesses aren't in the suburbs;
2. "We" shouldn't be investing in non-minority-owned business (in the suburbs or not);
3. "Our" neighborhoods aren't in the suburbs;
4. "People" currently have to travel from miles away to visit businesses; and
5. The highways in the suburbs are in good shape or the state of highways in the suburbs isn't important.

There are more, but that will suffice for purposes of this article. Obama's use of the word "our" suggests he is speaking collectively with his audience. Since the audience is made up of almost all African-Americans, it is quite reasonable to assume that Obama is speaking about African-Americans and their situation. And since he differentiated between the suburbs and "our" neighborhoods, it is also reasonable to assume that Obama is referring to the suburbs as "their" neighborhoods (whites or non-blacks).

Obama was generally correct in his assessment of the suburbs. According to articles (here and here; and there are many more) "the average middle class white household lives in the suburbs" and "the average middle class African-American household lives in the center city." Recent articles note that the percentage of African-Americans in the suburbs is actually growing - nearly 33% as of 2011. Do those African-Americans need roads out there in the suburbs with those people? Are those African American suburb-dwellers still part of the "our" that Obama was talking about?

What is most interesting to note is that the suburbs are made up of almost all middle class voters, whether black or white. If Obama were a true man of the middle class, it seems he would want to build roads (literally and figuratively) to the suburbs. So, why wouldn't Obama want to build more roads for these middle class citizens? Why wouldn't he want to encourage minority-owned businesses to migrate to the suburbs?

There are about a dozen counties in the United States that could swing the 2012 election to one side or the other. In almost every case, the suburban middle class voters are key. For example, Chester County, PA, Jefferson County, CO, Wake County, NC, and Hillsborough County, FL all have significant populations of middle class voters living in suburbs. President Obama has tried to paint himself as the man of the middle class for nearly six years, and yet the middle class has been the hardest hit during his Presidency. Under Obama the median household income fell to $50,054 (8% drop since 2007). And now (or then) he is telling the ones in the suburbs that they don't need more roads. Let us celebrate the unity of that notion.

Could it be that Obama doesn't see people in the suburbs as "middle class"? According to Charles Ogeltree, one of Obama's mentors, political advisors, when Obama says "middle class" he really means "poor", but doesn't like to use the term "poor" because it's demeaning and not politically popular. Are most people in the suburbs poor? No. So, when Obama talks about the middle class, is he talking about the people in the suburbs? Probably not. Have Obama's policies been aimed at the traditional "middle class" or the "poor"? You decide.

And, those swing voters in those swing counties out in the suburbs should decide whether Obama really has their best interests in mind as they drive to the polls on those suburban roads Obama doesn't think "we" need.

An Economy That Works For Everyone?

2012-08-01T13:40:00.003-07:00

I recently received the following email from Michelle Obama:

"Garrett --

I'm always amazed by how Barack balances his responsibilities as president, a husband, and a dad.

But sometimes even he needs a little help. And this campaign is going to take all of us pitching in.

All of the things we've poured our hearts into -- from passing health care reform to fighting for an economy that works for everyone -- are on the line.

I know I don't want to wake up on November 7th wondering if I could have done more. So I'm doing everything I can between now and Election Day to make sure we can keep moving this country forward for four more years.

We've only got a few more hours before an important fundraising deadline. Please support this campaign by giving $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Midnight

From all of us, thanks.

Michelle"

Even HE needs a little help, huh? Well, as nauseating as that statement is to me, it is the "fighting for an economy that works for everyone" comment that has me wondering. What kind of an economy does work for EVERYONE? Does that kind of economy exist? Is it even conceivable, desirable or attainable?

I think not. Is the President spending all his time chasing Nirvana? Yep. Is that going to actually help the Country? Nope. So much for the bring the great Pragmatist.

UNDERSTANDING OBAMA By Charles Ogletree (Harvard Lecture)

2012-04-17T16:25:00.007-07:00

In February of 2011, Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree gave a three-part lecture at the W.E.B. Du Boise Institute for African and African American Research. The title of the lecture series was "Understanding Obama" - focusing on Obama's life from Hawaii to the White House. You may recognize the setting; that's because this is the series of lectures from which Breitbart.com unveiled the video of Obama embracing Professor Derrick Bell after which Professor Ogletree admits to hiding the video during the 2008 election. You can see that portion of the lecture in its entirety in Part 1 below. Evidently, Professor Ogletree will be teaching a new course at Harvard entitled, "Understanding Obama." He is also set to publish a book about Obama, which he will not release until after the 2012 election.

Because each lecture is roughly 90 minutes long, I have clipped portions that I think people will find interesting. You can, however, see the lectures in their entirety here and I would encourage you to do so. You can also click the headings to see my individual posts about each lecture.

UNDERSTANDING OBAMA

PART 1: FROM BARRY TO BARACK

PART 2: THE EMERGENCE OF RACE

PART 3: THE CONUNDRUM OF RACE