What is CRT?

There are three links that relate to this subject within this post.  Each is important to understanding what this CRT/Professor Bell issue is about.  It is quite fortunate that the video from Obama's days at the Harvard Law School came to light (thank you Andrew Breitbart!), otherwise the CRT issue may never have seen the light of day.  It is now clear exactly how radical Obama is, and how he became so.

CRT is explained well here, in the words of Elena Kagan, SCJ.  It is important to understand this poisonous concept, brought to light recently by the video of Obama at the HLS while introducing Professor Bell who dreamed it up in the first place.  In a nutshell, the concept is racist in its most virulent form.  Professor Bell, a tenured member of the HLS faculty, believes thereby that American jurisprudence is illegitimate,  racist and does not apply to those who are discriminated against by existing laws, namely blacks.  This is all "off the page" crazy talk, until one factors in Obama's on-the-record critique of the Constitution, and his many policies that essentially ignore the limitations imposed on government by the Constitution, and the radicals he brought into his administration, i.e., Jones, et al.  Obama ignores the Constitution with impunity, as though above it, when it serves his interest.  As is pointed out in the comments accompanying this article, if you think his disregard of our founding document has been bad so far, wait until he's reelected and knows he doesn't have to face the voters again.  As for how the MSM, a.k.a. Democrat-media complex, deals with this issue, here is proof positive they are in Obama's hip pocket.

The genesis of this pernicious doctrine is explored here in this article "TheBlacks: a clown show (revisited as an American tragedy) by Clarice Feldman.  This off-Broadway show dates from 1961 and clearly was instilled with the CRT virus that Professor Bell elaborated on from his position on the Harvard faculty.  That very same Professor Bell, and his motivation and philosophy, are deconstructed here by Thomas Sowell.  Anyone reading these articles who does not think Barak Obama has internalized and thoroughly believes in CRT is willfully ignoring the evidence.  Of particular importance is the quote from Obama on the Supreme Court's decisions relating to race matters during the Warren Court years.  There's the evidence that he believes the Brown decision and the Constitution, for that matter, are seriously flawed.  It is not surprising that he has no respect for the limitations placed upon the courts by the Constitution, and why he acts extra-constitutionally when it suits his interests.  None of us, blacks or whites, are well served by this "agent of change" politician.

Why is Corzine not in jail?

That's a question surely many investors in MF Global are asking themselves these days, same as Roger Kimball here in this sickening accounting of the havoc this crook wreaked on all MF's stakeholders.  It is really disgusting that these guys are free to run rampant on Wall Street fleecing trusting investors who mostly think they are protected by regulations and laws from being taken advantage of like this.  Corzine reached the pinnacle of the finance "profession" as well as government and yet underneath it all he's just a crook.  No he's not been convicted of anything at this point, however when your company loses 1.6 billion of your clients' money and you don't know where it went, you are guilty of gross negligence or worse and should go to jail.  Truly makes one wonder about the kind of people attracted to Wall Street.

Limbaugh, the Catholic Church, and Ms Fluke

For anyone interested in the brouhaha now going on over the Rush Limbaugh's crude and perhaps intemperate put down of Sandra Fluke over her testimony before a p.r. stunt masquerading as a committee hearing held by democrats, this op ed by a former female student of Georgetown Law School, puts the whole issue in perspective.   Ms Cathy Ruse makes the point that after stripping away all of the peripheral and largely inconsequential side issues, e.g. Limbaugh's description of Ms Fluke, Ms Flukes age and political affiliation, the setup committee hearing by democrats, you are left with the larger point of Fluke's testimony: she wants the government to insure that her school's insurance policy includes contraception pills in order that she can have consequence free sex while attending law school.  Georgetown Law school belongs to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, does not want to pay for some product that flies in the face of their religious beliefs which contraception or birth control pills do.  Pretty simple issue, made unusually complicated by the introduction of the words "slut" and "prostitute" by Rush Limbaugh, and the political posturing by democrats.

Stockman takes Bush & co. to the woodshed

Reagan's Director of OMB, David Stockman, was the Paul Ryan of that administration.  A really good numbers man who sounded the alarm about the dangers of the deficits to be caused by the massive tax cuts that were the centerpiece of the Reagan plan to get the economy out of the Carter funk.  He was right about the deficits back then largely because Reagan was sandbagged by Tip O'Neil's democrat house and got none of the cuts in government spending he thought he was promised.  Stockman is sounding off, as a private citizen, in this speech about the current state of the economy.  He sees no hope for a "soft" landing, in fact he owns no stocks and expects the worst.  Since he was an important player at a time when the credit machine was cranked up, what he saw back then and sees now is quite relevant.  Paul Ryan sees the same problems but thinks we can manage our way out providing we make the necessary reforms in entitlements now.  The big question is can we make the reforms he proposes in time?  The short answer is, probably not unless the republicans get control of the House, Senate and WH this fall.  Otherwise the gridlock will continue until we pass the rubicon and are in the muck.  At that point the reforms will happen but there will be no choice because things will be so ugly.  Not a pretty prospect.