King Barry has always hated the United States of America.
Despite being allowed eight years to fundamentally degrade the USA, O the Great and Powerful did do a lot of damage yet he fell short.
The election of the evil hag may have completed his ruinous work, though.

In addition, when confronted with a truth he didn't like, he fired those who brought him that truth. General Flynn and others are examples. He is a narcissist on top of everything else.

Do you know how big Harvard's endowment is? Billions. You'd have to confiscate all their money or just nuke the place to take it down. Not going to happen.

Little known fact: most of the Washington, D.C. elite crowd (which included the Bush family) are Ivy Leaguers - and they hate outsiders.

The end justifies the means for most dem voters.
The mainstream media never scrutinized his background, and if anyone questioned it .The racist label flew and the issue was squelched.
He has a communist family tree and was mentored and groomed to deceive.

Freudian slip there at the end?

Another one who called into question Obama's bon fides was Wayne Allen Root. He was a student at Colombia the same time Obama supposedly was there, but Root interviewed not only staff, but students who graduated from the same college as Obama...

And no one ever saw him.

Again?
Yes I had not heard this story before.This is my mistake, as I was looking at breaking news last night on my ipad and this video of Obama giving his praises to Bell popped up. I was unaware this story was old. You can call me a foxie if you like. I hope it boosts your esteem. Because you are acting pretty high and mighty with your perverse socratic syllogism.

Yes, the term "critical theory" has come to include the post-modernists who deny our ability to know objective reality, sometimes to deny reality itself. (Jacques Lacan was a charlatan from the latter school, perhaps its "dean.") However, as I understand Derrick Bell's work just from Wikipedia, it seems to have been more within the traditional (funny word here) "Frankfurt School" that looked beyond the economics of Marxism to a wider sociological understanding of oppression and liberation. But they did not abandon Marxism. That is important for us here because "objective" to a traditional Marxist means about the same as "objective" means to an Objectivist.

For example, a criticism within socialism against Trotskyism is that objective conditions in America today do not support a workers' revolution. Standing on a platform exhorting factory workers to seize the means of production is just laughable. Any Marxist will agree that morally the workers should seize the factory. Objective conditions prevent that from being a real course of action. (And that is an important departure by Objectivism from other philosophies: the moral and the practical are integrated, not dichotomized.)

One of the best exposes of the bankruptcy of post-modernism was engineered by physicist Alan Sokal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_a.... Sokal prefers being called a "leftist" to being called a "Marxist." But he does firmly believe in the existence of objective reality and our ability to know it.

If it is thick, it's to protect your acuity.Thanks Herb.

That's what strikes me is the ethics of a law professor at an elite law school who would purposely hide the essence, and the character of a future pres. He was either ashamed or felt it was negative. The end justifies the means. Not the justice one would hope and dream for.
No wonder evidence is withheld by the elitist prosecutors to railroad the innocent.

His base didn't need any help. They were trying to hide his radical background and goals from everyone else. In some cases that got out it didn't matter anyway because few paid attention to it and the media intellectuals buried it.