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
| 2,488 views

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

  1. johngalt says: 51

    @MataHarley:

    Agree. And Bell’s mistake, and one that is furthered by the race-baiting left, is not that he did, or didn’t, call for an end to the white race. It’s that he noted a bias in a document where none existed. And so what we have today are a group of people who look to government, always, to institute “equality”.

    But that isn’t the real problem here, though. No, the real problem is that the group of people who are looking to government to institute that “equality” are not thinking it through completely. What happens, for example, when a latino, a woman, or even native american, with that same, or similar, viewpoint gets elected. Will we now have, say, an AG who looks the other way when presented with latino, female, or native american instigated crime? Will the bureaucracies have their houses cleaned and the overwhelming majority of their work forces made up of latinos, women, or native americans? Will affirmative action shift in gear towards latinos, women, or native americans, backed up by force of government?

    What happens then, and is happening now under Obama, is that division of we, the people, occurs, separating out groups of people based on skin color, gender, sexual preference, and even religious affiliation. Preferences are given based on the above, and “equality” becomes an entirely arbitrary figure defined by whoever is in power at the time, and that is what those who support Prof. Bell’s “theory” are not looking at. In any given election, with their mode of thought process at work, they may find themselves going from the “have’s” to the “have not’s”, in terms of government handouts.

    Prof. Bell’s CRT is not a means to a solution on racial(and gender, sexual preference, etc.) issues, but rather a means to continue, and even further the division, of we, the people, amongst those lines.

    ReplyReply
  2. johngalt says: 52

    @Nan G:

    Lol! I was, at one time, seriously considering starting a group purely dedicated to “european-mutt american indians”. See, I am 1/8 native american, with mixes of irish, french, polish, german, italian, danish, amongst a smattering of other european and western asia(russian) bloods within. It’s entirely possible that I have a little african blood in me as well, although I’m not completely positive on that.

    I am a mutt of the world. Funny thing though. I’ve never, not once, used any of my heritage for preferences in anything, even my native american roots.

    ReplyReply
  3. drjohn says: 53

    @johngalt:

    And Bell’s mistake, and one that is furthered by the race-baiting left, is not that he did, or didn’t, call for an end to the white race. It’s that he noted a bias in a document where none existed.

    I agree, John, and I pointed that out.

    I think Bell was so full of hatred he lost sight of the truth.

    ReplyReply
  4. MataHarley says: 54

    @drjohn, yes it is quite clear in the first three paragraphs that it’s not an activist genocide of “white people”, but of an institutional racism they see that exists. As they point out, most people are not “white” but a blend of cultural breeding… which is why they call white race “..those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society.”

    Your problem is you have your own definition of “white race” than they do. I don’t agree with them on any level, mind you. But I know what they are talking about with their institutional white supremacy. You are simply taking them too literally for effect.

    And I assure you, this type of approach will be rejected by those on both sides of the political aisle. Most of us find affirmative action offensive, but few of us will equate that with genocide.

    @johngalt: the real problem is that the group of people who are looking to government to institute that “equality” are not thinking it through completely. What happens, for example, when a latino, a woman, or even native american, with that same, or similar, viewpoint gets elected. Will we now have, say, an AG who looks the other way when presented with latino, female, or native american instigated crime?

    Yes, they will because that is CRT’s solution to the institutional racism problem, jg. Fact is, this looking the other way has been done by judges since our nation’s founding – and that includes judges looking the other way because the accused is white. Now we see the tide turned, as aptly demonstrated by that idiot, Holder and our increasingly active judicial system.

    The point is it was no more correct for justice and favors to be doled out via color in the past than it is today. But affirmative action devotees remain stuck in this eye for an eye solution or reparation.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 55

    @drjohn, Bell, Obama and others who find the Constitution wanting are generally described as liberals and progressives. Certainly their attitude toward that document is not unique, nor new. It’s been a battle waged in the nation since the beginning.

    I tend to think that most people who believe the document is outdated cannot comprehend simplicity, are those that require more rigid rules for their lives and comprehension. This is evidenced by those who believe that if the Constitution doesn’t say you can’t do it, then it must be okay. Today’s mentality requires a laundry list of do’s and dont’s so that they don’t feel confused. Appreciating the wisdom of simplicity seems to be a lost art.

    ReplyReply
  6. drjohn says: 56

    @MataHarley:

    yes it is quite clear in the first three paragraphs that it’s not an activist genocide of “white people”, but of an institutional racism they see that exists.

    Except that Bell believed white people were irretrievably racist. How does one eliminate racism if racism cannot be removed from the white race?

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 57

    drj, I actually agree with Bell that some white people are “irretrievably racist”. I also think there are blacks, and those of other races, who are also that way. As long as humans walk the planet, you will have racism, hatred, and bias.

    But Bell’s personal opinion that you can’t legislate racism out of the heart of whites (and I would add out of any human) are distinctly separate from the CRT theory that advances affirmative action as a solution to what he views as institutional structure that favors whites. My only debate with you is that Bell was not advocating for white genocide.

    ReplyReply
  8. drjohn says: 58

    @MataHarley: I’m sure you’re right about some being irretrievably racist, but Bell believed all whites were. But I am not as sure as you are about the rest.

    Bell had many interesting things to say:

    “While these guys talk a lot, they don’t do anything. The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 59

    Matta #53 applauds “APPRECIATING THE WISDOM OF SIMPLICITY”
    K.I.S,S. There it is

    #58 Below You’re right again “Conservatives speaking of armed revolution” won’t win any friends or voters.

    ReplyReply
  10. MataHarley says: 60

    Interesting that Podhoretz chose to take that quote, and assume Bell had a gusto for such a vision. Considering the quote, and the fact that Bell did not advocate for killing “a whole lot of white people”, I’ll have to take that as editorial embellishment.

    As far as future leaders and violence, that may be, drj. But I’m sure the socialist left feels the same way about conservatives that speak ominously of armed revolution, too. Every movement has it’s crazy fringe.

    But somehow I’m not envisioning marauders of of black gangs, offing throngs of people just because they are white. In these economic times, I’d say it’s more likely any violent gangs will not care about the color of their targets, but for what they have to steal.

    ReplyReply
  11. GracieZG says: 61

    I have for many years considered that when government quits labeling us by race, we will be able to move much closer to racial harmony. I consider “white” to be an artificial construct, but in the same breath, I consider “black” to be an artificial construct. If people want to call themselves “white” and “black,” that’s their business, but I don’t call myself anything but human, and don’t consider it to be the business of government to divide us up artificially. I’m a Martin Luther King conservative. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Bell is only focused on getting rid of the “white race” social category. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If we abolish the social category of “white race,” then we must also abolish the social category of “black race.” As long as there is an obsession with race from any corner, we miss the point. So Bell, in my book, has a glimmer of the way out, but doesn’t go the distance.

    ReplyReply
  12. drjohn says: 62

    @GracieZG: That’s more like it, Gracie. Bell only wants the white race abolished. He said absolutely nothing about any other.

    ReplyReply
  13. drjohn says: 63

    @MataHarley:

    But somehow I’m not envisioning marauders of of black gangs, offing throngs of people just because they are white. In these economic times, I’d say it’s more likely any violent gangs will not care about the color of their targets, but for what they have to steal.

    I’m not asserting this would happen. All I am saying is that all of this is a glimpse into Bell’s heart, and likely into Obama’s as well.

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler says: 64

    Dr. John You either don’t understand what Gracie said about white race social category or you don’t agree with it.”White race abolished” Ridiculous hyperbole done for effect? I hope

    ReplyReply
  15. DrJohn says: 65

    @Richard Wheeler: Rich

    The words are all there and are as clear as can be. I truly believe Bell was one hateful SOB.

    ReplyReply
  16. Pingback: This was not the first time Soledad O’Brien tried to rewrite history [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

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>