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[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByAIUOmQzeM&[/youtube]
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.
@Skook: Wonderfully said as always, Skook
This Just In…
Harvard Trained Detective Bill O’Reilly Says Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Not Presented Any Hard Evidence –
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? ]
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???
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.
Soledad O’Brien is a disgrace as a “journalist”. Her bias is so obvious, as is any MSM reporter’s.
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…..
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.
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.
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.
@MataHarley: I’d say institutionally, she’s doing great.
@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.
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.
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!
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”.
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.
That’s “dictum.” And it’s yours, not ours.
From where did you copy that hypocrisy?
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.
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.
???? You said:
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?
Again, so the downward trends for Romney this past week, with Newt in #1 slot, makes it “not likely”?
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.
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.
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
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.
Dr. John’s original story had much in it to commend it.
CNN’s attempt to hide this story is 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mata says Let the process run it’s course. O.K
Romney can’t beat BHO Do not concur
Chew on this numerical reality for awhile, rich…
Maybe that fat lady, still sitting on your couch and warbling in your ear, needs directions to Tampa.
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. 🙂
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.
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.
“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.
GracieZG Well said. Spoken like a True Conservative. Good for you.
Go to the Race Traitor site. I’ve even linked it for you. Then return here and we’ll accept your apology.
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.
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.:
Technically, under “What We Believe” is a few paragraphs that preceded your selected quote:
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.
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.
This debate has led my hubby to claim he is going to start referring to himself as a ”high yellow,” or perhaps an ”octaroon.”
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?
It’s as clear as can be
Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary
“by any means necessary”
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.
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.
I agree, John, and I pointed that out.
I think Bell was so full of hatred he lost sight of the truth.
@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.
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.
@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.
Except that Bell believed white people were irretrievably racist. How does one eliminate racism if racism cannot be removed from the white race?
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.
@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:
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.
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.
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.
@GracieZG: That’s more like it, Gracie. Bell only wants the white race abolished. He said absolutely nothing about any other.