11 Mar

“Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary” [Reader Post]

                                       

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.

Partial transcript:

“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.”

Hmmm.

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

YouTube Preview Image

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Deception and Lies, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, March 11th, 2012 at 5:00 am
| 2,477 views

66 Responses to “Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary” [Reader Post]

  1. Skook says: 1

    It is interesting, Soledad O’Brien was to be the typical uninformed, political analyst of the Left, whose mission was to defuse the blatant racism of Bell and Obama with charm and demagoguery, but Surprise! oh my, Pollak showed up do battle in the arena of ideas, not relying on a pretty face, a bubbly demeanor, and hyperbole; indeed, he came with a rapier wit, a knowledge of the subject, and the ability to express himself using deductive logic. How unfair of the man, to step beyond the semi-scripted parameters of accepted propaganda; for these shows are designed to lead the vacuous minds of the public, the minds who rely so completely on the intellectually ungifted minds like O’Brien’s. To have Pollak disrupt these proceedings with knowledge and logic, confounds the problem, exposes the public to the rat feces beneath the surface of the Obama Myth, and ruins the effect of careful propaganda programming.

    But more important to us is the inherent weakness of people who express their loyalty to ideas founded on lies; for here is the flaw, the moral fiber is rotten and their loyalty is no more meaningful than loyalty to a sports team. Some on the Left may be passionate about the right of women to kill their children, the rights of livestock and other animals, or the rights of having someone else pay for your condoms, but in the end, it is based on hypocrisy and lies.

    Thus the Soledads, the Bells, and the Obamas can be defeated with intellect, and no, not the effete intellectualism of Bell or Obama, their intellectualism is dubious or suspect at best, but in a deeper analysis, it is based on a rotten foundation of lies and hypocrisy.

    ReplyReply
  2. DrJohn says: 2

    @Skook: Wonderfully said as always, Skook

    ReplyReply
  3. Another 6 Letter Word For Felony... BARACK! says: 3

    This Just In…
    Harvard Trained Detective Bill O’Reilly Says Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Not Presented Any Hard Evidence – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOPW7eCwBM0

    ReplyReply
  4. FAITH7 says: 4

    Great piece…I ventured to do a little research…I read “race traitor” and quite frankly it is Racist [against whites] and it is quite indefensible. And now debunked!!

    I read some stuff by and/about Randall Kennedy since Mr. Sowell talked glowing about him. Mutual assistance is an expression Mr Kennedy should espouse. Teamwork also. It’s a free country and Mr Kennedy can write or say what he wants. But, the man is totally hung up on “race”. Not “Character” of a person. But, “Race”. And, I say this because of what I read [his words] and I put them in italics below… And, I must ask the question….do we or do we not, seek mutual assistance from our peers? No matter what ‘color’ people are? Or am I just a naive conservative on the other side of the so called argument.?

    Mr Randall Kennedy writes:
    “First, it should not be at all surprising. Black America is ideologically diverse, just like other communities. Moreover, as I document in “Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal,” there exists in black America a special anxiety about the loyalties of high achievers,
    especially when their success is largely dependent on whites and others who are not black. Every prominent black in a predominantly white setting faces, at one time or another, claims from fellow blacks that he or she is “selling out.” [ And, I have to ask 'selling out' to what to who? ' Selling out' to something better or worse? ]
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/opinion/kennedy-racial-critique-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    He says more: “Unlike some of Obama’s most vocal detractors, the black rank-and-file have a realistic appreciation of the limits of his authority and the power of the forces arrayed against him, including a large, albeit amorphous, strain of racial resentment. ”

    Is the limits of his authority the congress, the senate or the Constitution? Where is the ‘proof’ of [racial resentment] he is trying to espouse? I love, Herman Cain, Allen West, Condolezza and others… And, see what I mean about “him being all about race”?

    Sorry, but, the man sounds delusional he’s been in academia waaayyy too long. Just like many others of his “I’m on a pedestal” ilk… Does no one see thru this crap???

    ReplyReply
  5. Wm T Sherman says: 5

    Based on Breitbart’s description at CPAC of what they have, and based on his familiar “staged release” modus operandi, I don’t think this particular video release is the main event. That is yet to come. For Breitbart, the corrupt media were the primary targets, as the cover and propaganda they provide is the key to everything else. This release is laying the groundwork for what’s to come. It puts the MSM on the record.

    ReplyReply
  6. thebronze says: 6

    Soledad O’Brien is a disgrace as a “journalist”. Her bias is so obvious, as is any MSM reporter’s.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  7. hedy says: 7

    She is far from being a journalist……This is the second worse interview I have seen. The view was the first when John McCain and his wife were on and they were so disrespecful to them and I have never watched the view since….The whole media is discusting…..

    ReplyReply
  8. Wm T Sherman says: 8

    Is Soldedad identifying herself as black? Like anybody else with a pair of eyes, I can see she’s white. Is this an application of the “one drop” rule? That was the rule of old timey white supremacists, not modern people. Ironic that she would continue to cling to it long after the original villains have stopped caring. This strenuous self-identification reminds me of membership in a mutual aid society like the Freemasons, the long ago pre-1830s Freemasons, back before their power in America was neutralized. Secret handshakes and rituals, secret mutual benefit to the detriment of non-members, unequal treatment before the law due to infiltration of the police, juries and and the judiciary, severe penalties for revealing their secrets to outsiders. Secret mutual aid neworks stank then and they stink now.

    I work with and support people, or don’t, based on what they do and say, not their ethnicity. I think she, in contrast, has internalized the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory, maybe without being aware of it as such. She can’t define it but she lives it. The Soledads of this world will not acknowledge someone like Joel Pollak is anything other than a white supremacist. If they learn about his wife they’ll just tell each other he’s an incompetent white supremacist who married an African by mistake.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 9

    Wm T, Soledud is apparently a first generation mulatto. Her mother is from Cuba (which doesn’t mean she’s black). Her father from Australia (doesn’t mean he’s white either). However, since the Wiki history on her personal life mentions “illegal interracial marriage”, one of her parents is black. Don’t know which one. Soledud, like Obama, seems to identify more with that parent since she did the CNN “Black in America” series special.

    Since CRT places most prominent import on “institutional racism” (not necessarily individuals), I’d say that there are many that believe there is an institutional/hierarchy bias against minorities for personal advancement.

    ReplyReply
  10. Bea says: 10

    I am glad you provided a transcript of the video. I tried to watch it earlier, but became so disgusted with the people talking over each other. If you are going to interview someone, at least have the courtesy to listen to what they have to say.

    ReplyReply
  11. Wm T Sherman says: 11

    @MataHarley: I’d say institutionally, she’s doing great.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wm T Sherman says: 12

    @MataHarley: Critical Race Theory and institutional racism. A half-African man is elected President and they still can’t let it go. Practitioners still say it’s obvious and pervasive and they will rip it out by the roots and collapse the entire edifice like Sampson without a thought. The cognitive dissonance in this view is absolute and you simply have to give up on trying to change their minds.

    It’s like the old joke. A man is looking for a coin he dropped. His friend asks where he dropped it, and he says “up the street.” The friend asks why he’s looking here instead of there, and he says, “the light’s better.”

    They search for racism where it’s fading and ignore it where it’s thriving. Now that he’s Attorney General, Eric Holder must implement a program of institutional counter racism, because otherwise this will always remain a country where a black man could never hope to be President, Attorney General, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or CEO of a large corporation.

    They won’t accept you as a non-racist. They insist. It’s like they’re looking at a Penrose Triangle or an M.C. Escher print, and the shape is impossible, it just doesen’t add up, but they claim the object exists in the real world and they’re holding it in their hands.

    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=penrose+triangle&qpvt=penrose+triangle&FORM=IGRE#x0y0

    ReplyReply
  13. Richard Wheeler says: 13

    Dr.J. The smell of despair. Conservatives have botched the Repub. primary once again.Four years ago it was Fred Thompson’s dithering in Hollywood while Mac grabbed the nom. This time it’s the ineptitude of Bachmann,Perry,Cain,Gingrich and the absolutely unelectable Santorum.Add to this the timidity of Palin and you’re again stuck with a perceived RINO as your standard bearer.
    Sucks to be you.How could this happen AGAIN.

    F it –Lets bring out the dirt on Obama again you say.That will console us. Well guess what. This guilt by association crap didn’t get you anywhere last time and you can expect it won’t fly this time either.

    Once again you’ll simply be perceived by the majority of Americans as Poor Losers.

    ReplyReply
  14. FAITH7 says: 14

    Wm T Sherman@#12 – “They search for racism…” never thought of it this way – very good! Kind of draws me to think of the jerky Al Sharpton’s, Jessie’s and Ms Waters of the America’s “searching” for that bit of racism to keep their “cash cow” [or job] afloat too… hmmmm… racism – debunked again!

    ReplyReply
  15. Wm T Sherman says: 15

    @FAITH7: Over time, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry have been given more and more broad and encompassing definitions by people who make their livings off ostensibly fighting them, as real bigotry in society becomes harder to find. It’s analogous to the fossil fuel industry – as the easily-mined deposits are exhausted, the grievance industry has to dig deeper and deploy new technology to keep finding the resource. They don’t really want an end to racism and injustice because it would mean an end to their nice livings.

    ReplyReply
  16. DrJohn says: 16

    @Richard Wheeler: I wonder, Rich. This tends to explain why there was no voter intimidation prosecution of the Black Panthers. I expect there to be more.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 17

    @Richard Wheeler, perhaps you need a reality check. The GOP primary is far from over, and I will also remind you that at this stage of the game in 2008, Hillary and Obama were duking it out and the same “the party’s over” predictions were being floated from this side of the aisle.

    But then, you have a tendency to call the game over in the 2nd inning.

    @Wm T Sherman, of course civil rights leaders search for racism. Without it, they are in Obama’s unemployment line and on food stamps.

    ReplyReply
  18. Pingback: everyone barack obama has associated with have been virulent haters of america or racists « rumcrook

  19. Richard Wheeler says: 18

    Mata Re the Repub.Primary The fat lady has sung. Look at the map and give me a scenario,including Newt’s capitulation if you like, that could prevent Romney’s victory.
    Because there were no winner take all primaries in the final stages of Dem, primaries Obama was never in serious trouble after mid March.

    ReplyReply
  20. DrJohn says: 19

    Additionally:

    As Curt’s MW post noted and is noted here, Derrick Bell had his anti-Semitic leanings.

    And lest white liberals think they’re left out of the racist party , they’re not.

    ”Even liberal white scholars … have to imagine that they are not oppressors. Black people have stories and experiences that provide the basis not only for their lives but for their scholarship.”

    ReplyReply
  21. MataHarley says: 20

    Dang, rich… I thought you’d be a brighter lightbulb than DailyKOs. Even they see it’s more likely that Romney is going to fall short of the 1144 needed for a clean nod on the first ballot. Key lies in bound vs unbound delegates, and some media counting in delegates early (i.e. North Marianna straw poll, Iowa etc), giving you false confidence.

    Problem is, Romney is under performing in many arenas… i.e. the NYTs scenario talking about Santorum’s delegate count, and their projection with Romney at 1162 by convention.

    The dilemma is the percentage of the win Romney has to get to take those delegates. For example, in the NYTs story today, they were handing Romney 10 delegates for those Kansas apportions, assuming he’d get 27% of the vote. He only got 20% and 7 delegates. For the remaining races, he’s going to have to take some hefty percentages to secure the needed bound delegates.

    So it seems the fat lady is still parked on your couch, whispering sweet nothings and lies in your ear.

    And nope…. Obama didn’t secure enough delegates for the nom until June 3rd.

    ReplyReply
  22. Richard Wheeler says: 21

    Mata Romney will have the needed 1144 on June 5th and tack on the final 40 in winner take all Utah For starters he’s gonna blow up Newt’s “Southern Strategy” in ALA. and MISS. tomurrow. He’ll continue to add to his delegate count on a consistant basis as more and more Repubs realize he’s got the best chance of beating BHO.
    Obama’s run similar to Romney’s. He took the lead in the South Carolina primary (3rd contest) and never trailed till going over the top on June 3rd, Romney took the lead in FLA.(4th contest) and will wrap it up on June 5th.
    BTW Your bound vs. unbound delegate screech will not play a role in preventing a first ballot nom.

    I enjoyed reading Nate Shaw’s NYT projections. Assuming Newt has the good sense and team player sportsmanship to get out after tomorrow’s severe underperformance ( Shaw projects 2 victories for Rick), he gives Santorum a 1%-10% chance of securing nom.
    Fat Lady would have to develop Severe laryngytis

    ReplyReply
  23. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 22

    Right-wing thinking supports the idea that a profusion of words better proves the point. Hopping from idea to idea, without any logical connection—rather, they prefer guilt by association. Making up their story as they go along—as long as it tows the line of their particular belief—regardless of truth. How about reducing all the verbiage, and making a single, logical connection—in the traditional sense: Two premises, and a conclusion—which are syntactically and semantically related—rather than following the dicta, “It’s true because I say so”.

    ReplyReply
  24. drjohn says: 23

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    Making up their story as they go along—as long as it tows the line of their particular belief—regardless of truth.

    Lame.

    I have no doubt this theory influenced both Holder and Obama when they dropped the Black Panther prosecution and Obama most certainly did appear with one of the defendants in 2007 at a campaign function. That’s not fabricated. It’s quite real.

    ReplyReply
  25. Wm T Sherman says: 24

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    dicta, “It’s true because I say so”.

    That’s “dictum.” And it’s yours, not ours.

    From where did you copy that hypocrisy?

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 25

    Well, rich, if your idea is that Romney will sweep AL and MS, it will be against his trend. A week or so ago, he was up over Newt by 5-8 points. Now he’s running second, so he’s been losing steam. Guess he’ll have to open his wallet again….

    But your confidence is not founded on anything but pixie dust, hopes and dreams. Certainly not math and trends. May happen… or not. Tomorrow will tell.

    ReplyReply
  27. Hard Right says: 26

    Dang, rich… I thought you’d be a brighter lightbulb than DailyKOs

    You are too kind to rich. I’d say it’s pretty obvious he’s not very smart.

    Lefties, your messiah is a racist. His associations prove it.
    Contrary to the lies of the left, this isn’t a case where he was friends and admirers of these people, but had a change of heart 20 years ago.
    He admired them and associated with Wright until it hurt his campaign. Bell? NEVER a renunciation or even a distancing.

    ReplyReply
  28. Pingback: Why Derrick Bell matters [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

  29. Richard Wheeler says: 27

    Mata I never projected victories for Romney in AL. or MISS. merely strong performances that will add to his burgeoning delegate count. Newt needs 2 wins in his backyard and that isn’t at all likely.
    Shaw suggests Newt get out for good of the Party if he doesn’t win both.

    ReplyReply
  30. MataHarley says: 28

    @Richard Wheeler: I never projected victories for Romney in AL. or MISS. merely strong performances that will add to his burgeoning delegate count.

    ???? You said:

    @Richard Wheeler: For starters he’s gonna blow up Newt’s “Southern Strategy” in ALA. and MISS. tomurrow.

    hummmm…. so Romney’s grand strategy to “blow up” Newt’s quest to win from GA to TX is to drop 10 points in the past week, and vie with Santorum for second?

    Wow… the brilliance dazzles me, and the explosion from that “blow up” will be HUGE! /sarc… LOL

    BTW, just asking. Is there any veiled racist accusations behind you and your media peers using the phrase – “southern strategy”? After all, that is generally a descriptive term reserved for pols, hoping to incite racism in the south for a win.

    Newt? His “southern strategy” is all about energy, gas prices, and jobs … and how it would affect that region. sooo “racist”, eh?

    Newt needs 2 wins in his backyard and that isn’t at all likely.

    Again, so the downward trends for Romney this past week, with Newt in #1 slot, makes it “not likely”?

    I enjoyed reading Nate Shaw’s NYT projections. Assuming Newt has the good sense and team player sportsmanship to get out after tomorrow’s severe underperformance ( Shaw projects 2 victories for Rick), he gives Santorum a 1%-10% chance of securing nom.

    …snip….

    Shaw suggests Newt get out for good of the Party if he doesn’t win both.

    Apparently what you miss about Shaw’s projections is that he assumed no wins for Newt (supposedly believing he would abandon the run), left Ron Paul in with the usual 13-15%, and requires Romney winning with 45% to over 50% of the popular votes in the upcoming elections. Considering that Nate already overshot the Romney loss in Kansas, and doesn’t allot any delegates to Newt for a win in AL, MS, his projected cushy win for Romney is already a pipedream.

    I’ll have to say it again. I don’t care what liberal you or liberal Nate Shaw “suggest”. Again, it needs to be pointed out that when it comes to bound delegates, Newt is actually in the #2 slot. As for popular vote, there Santorum again doesn’t have much more than Newt. Yet it’s Newt that everyone is trying to finish off for Santorum, and Ron Paul is ignored?

    Gee… could it be that Newt’s very presence, and your inability to prematurely pronounce him dead with bogus delegates and popular votes, still scares the willies out of you progs?

    After all, don’t most of you assume most conservatives will vote for any GOP candidate against Obama? Or does that change if the GOP candidate turned out to be someone other than Romney?

    Personally, “for the good of the Party”, I think Romney should drop out. How about them apples? LOL Couldn’t have a worse representative of the conservative movement at this point in time by that guy.

    But unlike you, I think candidates should choose their own paths, staying in if they choose. I also would like to hear from the entire nation’s primaries and caucus results…. including my own. I’ll take my chances at the Convention after every one has weighed in, because frankly I don’t give a damn about “the good of the Party”. “The Party” is the voters, not the figurehead establishment. And this is our only time to have a say in what we want in a candidate.

    Once again, I will remind you and your liberal friends… at this time in 2008, Hillary and Obama were still duking it out to the familiar refrain of “for the good of the Party”. Obama did not get the needed delegates to win until June 3rd. So mind your own backyard, and quit meddling in the conservatives, merely so you can narrow it down to your two favorite targets to smear in the general. We’ve heard your opinion more than once, and it’s getting tiresome, rich. You need a new and more original act.

    ReplyReply
  31. Richard Wheeler says: 29

    Mata You do love to ramble.Marine Corps taught me K.I.S.S. generally works best.I’ll await your spin after tomorrow’s returns are in. I believe if Newt can get 2 narrow wins on his home court it will keep him in and obviously hurt Santorum’s diminishing chances. I know you’re a huge Newt fan but you’ve previously stated you’re O.K. with Santorum. From very early on I’ve said Romney will be the nom. and be BHO’s toughest challenge.
    Pretty simple. I’ve seen nothing to change my original call made many months ago.

    What’s this racist accusaton? Beneath you I think.

    ReplyReply
  32. Nan G says: 30

    Dr. John’s original story had much in it to commend it.
    CNN’s attempt to hide this story is ironic.
    Why ironic?
    Because Soledad’s show is on opposite wonkish financial show Squawkbox in that AM slot.
    And (I admit to being a regular Squawkbox viewer) while I recommend Squawkbox all the time, the facts are that very few people watch it.
    BUT even fewer watch Soledad’s show, Early Start/Starting Point!!!

    Read it and weep:
    CHANNEL…SHOW….VIEWERS OVER AGE 2…VIEWERS BETWEEN 25-54…VIEWERS BETWEEN 35 AND 64
    FNC ….. FOX & Friends……. 1,040 …… 323 ….. 567
    CNN …. Early Start/Starting Point … 176 … 59 … 91
    MSNBC. Morning Joe …… 498 ….. 175 …. 257
    CNBC … Squawk Box ….. 178 …. 63 …. 112
    HLN…. Morning Express w/ Meade …. 291 …. 178 …. 217

    Yes, Fox News blows wonkish Squawkbox out of the water, but BOTH of them (and all the others) beat Soledad’s show!

    Maybe she was just after the free publicity.

    ReplyReply
  33. MataHarley says: 31

    Wasn’t a “racist accusation”, rich. That’s why I asked if that’s the way you intended it. Let’s recap how I phrased that, Rich…verbatim

    BTW, just asking. Is there any veiled racist accusations behind you and your media peers using the phrase – “southern strategy”? After all, that is generally a descriptive term reserved for pols, hoping to incite racism in the south for a win.

    Is that an accusation? Or are you just so willing and quick to assume the “victim” position in life?

    Generally I assume that you are more educated (but I guess I’m finding out differently), thus the question… perhaps in the off chance you were clueless to this Dem political slur. Surprises me that you are, but hey… life’s full of surprises.

    The use of “southern strategy” is a liberal term for politicians attempting to play upon supposed southern hatred for anything other than white (predominately aimed at black Americans). I’m quite sure you will find every liberal’s favorite educational source, Wikipedia, backs me up on this.

    So my question to you wasn’t an accusation. It was a genuine query if that was your intent when you used it, or did you just not know that you were repeating a phrase that is intended as a political racist slur.

    Unfortunately, your KISS theory background, which you think is superior, generally reveals your lack of homework and understanding of the processes, rich. So far you’ve said that Romney is unbeatable now, that Newt’s “southern strategy” would be blown up by a Romney loss, and repeatedly parroted that Newt should be the one to drop out when, in reality, bound delegates and popular vote between Santorum and Newt show a much tighter numbers game at this moment in time. And let’s not forget that you say a Newt win tomorrow, when he’s the front runner in those polls and been rising in the past week, “unlikely”.

    Then you really stuck your foot in your mouth when you said that Obama had the nom sewed up by mid March. Were in you a coma in 2008?

    Me thinks you should read and think a bit more before your deliver your erroneous “keeping it simply stupid” observations. Could save you some embarrassing faux pas. And perhaps, now that you are aware that “southern strategy” is indeed founded upon pols using racism for their campaigning, you might think twice before using it again. It’s bad enough to see the ignorant media talking heads, pass this off as acceptable descriptions.

    ReplyReply
  34. Richard Wheeler says: 32

    Mata.mata Again absolutely unnescessary rambling. You are helplessly trying to make a case for Newt’s nomination and I assume the Presidency. I don’t believe you really think he’s got a chance.Please submit a scenario that would give him the nom. so we can look back this summer and evaluate it’s accuracy.If you can’t I’ll understand and we can just let the nominating process play out with no further embarrassment to you.

    I’ll look forward to discussing your strident belief that a Romney/Rubio or McDonnell ticket can’t beat Obama.

    ReplyReply
  35. MataHarley says: 33

    You got a reading problem, rich. But then, we all know that. Perhaps you’re right. You can’t handle much more than a noun, followed by a verb, before you get confused.

    ReplyReply
  36. Nan G says: 34

    Bell’s idea (not really all his, naturally) to abolish the white race would lead to ruin and riot and anarchy.
    Just look at little Harrisburg, Pa.
    It has ~50,000 inhabitants.
    It is sorely mismanaged.
    More than 1/2 are renters.
    Fewer than 1/3rd are white.
    EACH person there, man, woman or child owes the city more than $6,000 if the city is to pay its debt.
    The city is NOT going to bother.
    Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson, a democrat and a black woman, wanted to shoot up the property taxes but her own City Council over-rode her 6-to-1.
    They want her to divest herself of all her highly paid admin. assistants first.

    Think of it.
    We Americans EACH owe the USA $49,482 toward our national debt.
    One little city of only 50,000 has dug its people over $6,000 MORE in debt just through mismanagement.

    How can the people of color make do without white folk?
    Bell, never ever thought this through.

    ReplyReply
  37. Richard Wheeler says: 35

    MATA re#31 As a former Navy wife I assumed you knew what KISS stood for. I was wrong.

    Think you made the right choice in not trying to provide a scenario that would facilitate a Gingrich nom.

    Do you now believe Romney can beat Obama? That would be a welcomed flip.

    ReplyReply
  38. MataHarley says: 36

    I know what “Keep it simple, stupid” is, rich. I revamped a new version for you.

    It’s never been about a “Gingrich nom”. It’s about letting the process run it’s course, and the partisan agenda by attempting to sacrifice Newt to prop up Santorum, who isn’t that far ahead (or, in reality, behind). The only ones that should pick the winners and losers is the 50 state primaries/caucus. oops… that may be too many words for you.

    Never said Romney could beat Obama. You’re hallucinating again.

    ReplyReply
  39. Richard Wheeler says: 37

    Mata says Let the process run it’s course. O.K
    Romney can’t beat BHO Do not concur
    KISS

    ReplyReply
  40. MataHarley says: 38

    Chew on this numerical reality for awhile, rich…

    According to RealClearPolitics, fewer than a third of all GOP delegates have been awarded to date, leaving more than two-thirds still to be won. So, delegate-wise, this contest is still early in the second quarter — or, if you prefer, in the bottom of the third inning. Has Romney run up such overwhelming tallies in the early part of the game that it’s time to invoke the mercy rule? Hardly.

    First, this is a contest to win the Republican presidential nomination and take on President Obama in perhaps the most important election since the Civil War. There is no mercy rule.

    Second, across the 22 GOP primaries and caucuses to date, Romney has won 40 percent of the popular vote. (That’s not counting the non-binding Missouri primary, in which Romney lost to Rick Santorum by 30 points.) That’s netted him 55 percent of the 733 delegates awarded to date (including the 2 that were awarded to Jon Huntsman). If Romney keeps winning at this clip, he’ll clear the necessary 1,144 delegates that a candidate needs to win the GOP nomination. But if he wins only 47 percent of the delegates from here on out — not that much of a decline from 55 percent — he won’t hit 1,144.

    There’s no guarantee that Romney will continue to win at the same rate. Despite the fact that he won a whopping 72 percent of the votes in his home state of Massachusetts, he still managed to win only 38 percent of the overall popular vote on Super Tuesday. In nearly half of the Super Tuesday states (four of ten), his percentage of the vote was in the 20s. He still won 55 percent of the delegates on the day, but his popular vote tallies might have been somewhat worrisome for his campaign. Perhaps that’s why they don’t seem too eager to play the game for four quarters.

    Maybe that fat lady, still sitting on your couch and warbling in your ear, needs directions to Tampa.

    ReplyReply
  41. Aqua says: 39

    @Nan G:
    I have to confess that I often times switch over to HLN. I’m pretty sure most of the folks that watch Robin Meade aren’t interested in the morning headlines. I don’t even think I’ve heard her speak. :-)

    ReplyReply
  42. Richard Wheeler says: 40

    Mata Bottom of the third,early 2nd quarter,a run chase of 316(cricket).Whatever the sports metaphor,one thing is clear. On June 26 when Utah casts its winner take all 40 votes, Romney will have a substantial lead over whoever remains. Looking at the individual results, from here to finish,is only slightly easier than filling in your NCAA brackets. Tourney starts Thurs. Go Kentucky Wildcats.
    Assuming Newt,Rick,Ron and Mitt (he’s ignored your request for him to drop out) are all in till the convention, Romney will ASSUREDLY have between 1000 and 1300 votes with 1144 needed to win.
    Number 2, be it Rick or Newt, will be at least 300 behind and a deal needed to broker a nominee to jump frontrunner Romney.Will the delegates to the convention do this? Maybe,but I doubt it.

    I believe it a moot point,as Romney will go over 1144 with wins in Cal and N.J. on June 5th, and finish with 40 in Utah, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing beautifull back up to the Fat Lady.

    ReplyReply
  43. GracieZG says: 41

    “Abolish the white race”? Now there is a quote taken out of context. Bell said: “Abolish the white race as a social category…..” Kind of like when I cross out “white” on the census form and put “human,” which I always do–and I am a conservative. Who are we anyway? Leftist propagandists who need to alarm and mislead? I hope not. This dude didn’t make a call to abolish the white race. To make that claim in a headline is to purposefully conjure up visions of paramilitary organizations and race wars. Now who’s acting irresponsibly? I think we should have more self-respect than to write such a blatant, propagandist headline. I expect more of us.

    ReplyReply
  44. Richard Wheeler says: 42

    GracieZG Well said. Spoken like a True Conservative. Good for you.

    ReplyReply
  45. drjohn says: 43

    @GracieZG: Gracie

    Go to the Race Traitor site. I’ve even linked it for you. Then return here and we’ll accept your apology.

    ReplyReply
  46. MataHarley says: 44

    That’s funny, rich…. not one professional number cruncher see’s the Romney promised land as the coronation and inevitable. Were it an unstoppable runaway train, it would have been proclaimed from the mountaintops by all.

    Me thinks your KISS mentality doesn’t mathematically function when you put your shoes back on.

    ReplyReply
  47. Richard Wheeler says: 45

    Mata “Professional number crunchers” in politics about as reliable as professinal stock analysts.You know how I feel about them. Dow breaking through 13000 and 3 major indiciis at multi year highs as we speak.
    As you say.Let it play out.Enjoy the contest and in your very limited spare time enjoy some March Madness.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  48. MataHarley says: 46

    drj, somewhere between you and Gracie is truth. Your quote can be considered in context to a small degree, but does leave out further clarification elsewhere on Race Traitor. i.e.:

    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”

    Technically, under “What We Believe” is a few paragraphs that preceded your selected quote:

    The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

    The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

    The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

    RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

    But Gracie is also correct in that representing Bell or CRT as a form of white supremacy genocide is not an accurate portrayal. CRT is a theory not founded on individuals who are racist, but addresses an institutional structure that was created by whites (correct) with the result (not necessarily intent) that oppresses black Americans. This is born out on Race Traitor’s “Renew the Legacy” page on their site.

    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.

    Please note, this is where Gracie is spot on the money with the “as a social category” addition to the “abolish the white race” phrase you chose for the headline. So I think you are correct when you say there are spots in the pages you reference that do stop right after “abolish the white race”, but it’s also made clear that the movement is not advocating a genocide of whites, but an end to a system they view as white supremacist in construct.

    I disagree, of course. I believe the founding of the Constitution never considered race or gender. johngalt had an excellent comment on this… and how so many attribute bias and racism to a document that, instead, demonstrated none.

    However states, and individuals, did apply their own views and attitudes over our history. Take voting and slavery, for example. The Constitution never endorsed slavery, nor prohibited voting based on race or gender. The criteria for voting was left to the states. Because the Constitution’s obvious “for all mankind” rights were diluted by a culture that considered some races sub-mankind, Congress had to come behind with Amendments clarifying what should have been abundantly clear to begin with… that even the states are not allowed to trample on the rights of citizens based on race or gender.

    But I do agree with Gracie that Bell wasn’t advocating for white genocide, but for affirmative action, social and economic “justice” as a poor solution to what he considered n institutional flaw. And I also agree that the GOP has this death wish, shooting off it’s own foot by using tangents like this, that ostracize even other conservatives.

    ReplyReply
  49. Nan G says: 47

    This debate has led my hubby to claim he is going to start referring to himself as a ”high yellow,” or perhaps an ”octaroon.”
    LOL!
    His mom was swarthy but that was from her Native blood (HER mom was full-blooded from one of the tribes living in the Missouri area).
    It was his dad, who was ruddy-skinned with blue eyes who had a black grandmother.

    Maybe I will play up my Asian blood, too.
    My grandmother on mom’s side was Asian but married a rich Russian in 1897.

    See how easily we could all kill off the ”white” race, if we all chose to?

    ReplyReply
  50. drjohn says: 48

    @MataHarley:

    Mata

    It’s as clear as can be

    Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary

    “by any means necessary”

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>