Or, why Soledad O’Brien is so desperate to quash this story
Not long before he passed away, Andrew Breitbart promised a proper vetting of Barack Obama. It began with the publication of the “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky” post at Breitbart.com. Obama was among several left wing radical panelists to speak following the 1998 play. It seems that a video of the discussion exists but the director of the play has declared
“There is only one archive tape of the play and I have it,” Dickler informed our source. “It is not in Chicago.”
Dickler told our source that she doesn’t believe she’s ever watched the tape, and she doesn’t know if it “can be viewed.” But she added: “No one is going to see the tape.”
Naturally, such a decision leads one to wonder why.
Now Breitbart.com has published a 1991 video of Barack Obama embracing Bell and imploring everyone to
“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.”
Professor Charles Ogletree claims
“We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.”
Of course, left wing lamestream media rose as one in full Obama protection mode
From the Week
Breitbart Obama video fails to shock US establishment
The ever-so-predictable Dylan Stableford at Yahoo:
Andrew Breitbart’s promised video of Barack Obama’s college days at Harvard University was released in full on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on Wednesday night—and unlike the late conservative provocateur’s other video hits, this one appears to be a bit of a dud.
David Graham at the Atlantic
A supposedly incriminating clip debunks the myth of insufficient vetting, proves little about Obama, and distracts from more serious issues.
And at HuffPo
If this is indeed the footage in question, it’s not particularly controversial.
Nothing to see here, folks, move along. The media is trying the suppress this story, as they suppressed the Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers stories in 2008.
Soledad O’Brien reached new heights in journalistic daffiness with her hyper-partisan deflection of this story. And she apparently needed some coaching from her producer to even blather a false assertion. In an interview with Joel Pollak, senior editor of Breitbart.com, O’Brien repeatedly interrupts Pollak as she tries to steer the conversation away from the actual issue. It’s fun to watch.
“What part of that was the bombshell? Because I missed it. I don’t get it,” O’Brien exclaimed. “What was a bombshell?”
“Well, the bombshell is the revelation of the relationship between Obama and Derrick Bell,” Pollak pointed out.
“Okay, so he’s a Harvard Law student and a Harvard Law Professor, yeah.” O’Brien added.
“Derrick Bell is the Jeremiah Wright of academia,” Pollak stated. “He passed away last year, but during his lifetime, he developed a theory called critical race theory, which holds that the civil rights movement was a sham and that white supremacy is the order and it must be overthrown.”
“So that is a complete misreading,” O’Brien interrupted. “I’ll stop you there for a second — then I’ll let you continue. That is a complete misreading of critical race theory. That’s an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that’s not correct. But keep going.”
“In what way is it a critical misreading?” Pollak countered. “Can you explain to me? Explain to your readers (sic) what it is,”
“I’m going to ask you to continue on,” O’Brien quickly replied. “I’m just going to point out that that is inaccurate. Keep going. Tell me what the bombshell is. I haven’t seen it yet.”
“Well, wait a minute!” Pollak interjected. “You’ve made a claim that my characterization of critical race theory as the opposite of Martin Luther King is inaccurate. You’re telling your viewers that, but you’re not telling them what it is.”
“Critical race theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law and as a legal academic who would study this and write about it, he would advance the theory about what exactly happened when the law was examined in terms of racial politics,” O’Brien explained. “There is no white supremacy in that. It is a theory. It’s an academic theory and as one of the leading academics at Harvard Law School, he was one of the people as part of that conversation. So that is a short definition.”
“I’m glad we’ve got you saying that on tape because that’s a complete misrepresentation,” Pollak hit back. “Critical race theory is all about white supremacy. Critical race theory holds that civil rights laws are ineffective, that racial equality is impossible, because the legal and Constitutional in America is white supremacist.”
It’s amusing that O’Brien interrupts Pollak but then tells him to continue when she was asked to offer her definition of CRT.
Rebel Pundit thinks that O’Brien was being coached, as though a producer googled CRT and fed O’Brien a definition through her earpiece. She finally blurted it out:
“Critical Race Theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law.”
RP notes that the Wikipedia definition is this:
“Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law and power.”
In the video O’Brien immediately shuts Pollak down when he mentions “white supremacy” and claims Pollak has completely misread CRT. You can decided for yourself. Here is the link to the original Wikipedia page and the subsequently scrubbed page.
Now let’s have a look at some quotes from Prof. Derrick Bell.
From Bell’s book “Faces at the Bottom of the Well”
“Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color.”
“[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead … and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded.”
“[F]ew whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
“[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.’”
“We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
“Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
“Black people will never gain full equality in this country. … African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
“Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”
From Renew the Legacy of John Brown:
“If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category – in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.”
Derrick Bell was part of a journal called “Race Traitor.”
At the Race Traitor site, at the top of the page it says
RACE TRAITOR – treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity
Under “What We Believe” it reads:
“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race”
and at the site one can also find this nugget:
Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary
This is to what Barack Obama implored us to open our hearts and minds.
Dr. Thomas Sowell had something to say about Bell.
James Traub wrote of Bell:
That’s Derek Bell’s bottom line: if it comforts whites, it’s bad; if it comforts blacks–i.e., Farrakhan–it’s good.
Barack Obama was marinated in some pretty interesting philosophies. And some of them are in him today. He assigned Bell as required reading for his law school students. Obama feels the United States Constitution is a “deeply flawed” document. Obama appeared with Malik Shabazz in 2007 while campaigning for President. It was the same Malik Shabazz whose voter intimidation case prosecution was later dropped by Eric Holder.
Breitbart was right. Barack Obama still has not been properly vetted. He is the radical some of us believe him to be.
CNN also suffered the ignominy of employing stupid, failed actors to act as panelists in their discussions. Jay Thomas railed at Joel Pollak:
Then Panelist Jay Thomas interjected. He asked if Pollak was afraid that a secret black movement was going to rise up and murder him. Pollak responded by saying he was just accused of being a racist and afraid of black people, but answered Thomas’ query anyway.
Meet Mrs. Pollak