Obama sycophant Soledad O’Brien got into a tussle with Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com and had her head handed to her as she tried desperately to dissuade viewers of the truth- that Barack Obama was heavily influenced by the radical Bell.
In her conversation with Pollak she at first appeared not to know what Critical Race Theory actually was while at the same time she was sure Pollak was wrong. From somewhere she came up with a definition that happened to be curiously similar to the one found in Wikipedia. Soon after the Wikipedia page for CRT was changed repeatedly and so often that it came under editorial lockdown.
TheDC also previously reported that an editorial lock was placed Monday on the Wikipedia article about Critical Race Theory itself, following a separate “edit war” which followed a CNN debate between O’Brien and a Breitbart.com editor. While O’Brien insisted on-air that Critical Race Theory was not a backlash against perceived “white supremacy,” the theory’s Wikipedia article mentioned white supremacy in two different sections — including a definition of Critical Race Theory from UCLA.
O’Brien was so flummoxed that she invited another liberal professor to attempt to rewrite history at CNN, which caught the eye of Skook.
There is nothing wrong with being a sycophantic fan of a writer, but the problem becomes apparent when the fan is passed off as an objective analyst; unfortunately, for Soledad, she was humiliated and became a laughingstock, along with her employer, the Obama Propaganda Bureau, CNN.
CNN has now decided to do battle with the forces that have no reservations against calling the racist Derrick Bell, a racist, by rewriting or blunting the message of the racist mentor of President Obama and trying once again to repackage the vile message of racism under a pretense of scholarly circumlocution.
The story of our president and the endemic racism of his associates is ongoing with many surprises.
Michelle Malkin asked the question “What’s the Matter with Soledad O’Brien?”
When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”
Not so fast, sister.
Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.
O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.
O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” Oops.
But this wasn’t the first time O’Brien tried to shield her viewers from the truth. Far from it.
In January she flailed away at Newt Gingrich when Gingrich tied Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyiRL_R1-KI[/youtube]
She actually has the audacity (to coin a term) to try to tie Alinsky to the Tea Party.
O’BRIEN: Ok first of all, nothing wrong with getting ideas at Harvard and Columbia by the way. But also people listening are like, “Huh, who is Saul Alinsky?” Well, the Speaker mentions Saul Alinsky often especially when he is talking about President Obama and what Speaker Gingrich believes to be his radical liberal beliefs.
So we wanted to ask, who’s Saul Alinsky? He’s a guy who was born in Chicago in 1909. He was a community organizer, just like a young Barack Obama in Chicago as well. He spent his life helping minorities in poor neighborhoods exert their political force by organizing them to get to the polls.
But Alinsky is probably best known for a book that he wrote which is called “Rules for Radicals.” And he is referring to Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and he wrote this, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the haves to hold power.” “Rules for Radicals”, his book is written for the have-nots on how to take it away.
President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky. In fact, he was 10 years old when Alinsky passed away. And in doing our research, we found this. Alinsky’s organizational tactics haven’t only influenced Democrats. In fact, his practices have been linked to some conservatives and his tactics have been used with great success by the Tea Party.
Former House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey admits he has been influenced by Alinsky, saying, quote, “What I think of Alinsky is that he is very good at what he did, but what he did was not good.” And in an interview with “The Financial Times,” the head of FreedomWorks which is aligned with the Tea Party, said regarding Alinsky’s work, “We don’t organize people to turn up at these town hall meetings, but we tell them about the meetings and we suggest good questions they could asks – ask, I mean, not asks.
Sounds like something Alinsky might do. The problem, perhaps, that Newt Gingrich has with Alinsky and the reason he is trying to link him to President Obama wasn’t really Alinsky’s organizational skills but the book outlining how the have-nots could take power from the haves. So we will be sure to ask the former Speaker that next time we get a chance to talk to him about that.
Did you catch it?
“President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky.”
Obama has never said he was influenced by Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn either.
But the facts tell us otherwise:
• Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel’s website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)
• In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” in which he lamented organizers’ “lack of power” in implementing change.
• Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.
• Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.
• In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.
• Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.
• During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at “Camp Obama,” a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.
• Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky’s vision of a new “vanguard” of coat-and-tie radicals who “work inside the system” to change the system.
• After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama’s legislative agenda using “Rules for Radicals.”
• Obama’s favorite rule is No. 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” You see that in his attacks on “fat cat bankers,” “greedy health insurers” and “millionaires and billionaires.” He also readily applies Alinsky’s fifth rule of “ridiculing” the opposition.
“Obama learned his lesson well,” said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist. “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”
I did not know that Obama was specifically indoctrinated at an Alinsky re-education camp. That’s something people ought to know.
But he’s never said he was influenced by Alinsky, right, Soledad? Nothing to see here, just move along.
Except- if that’s the case, why are they hiding everything?
The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn’t the only evidence that’s been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul “The Red” Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-core Chicago communists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.
So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicago dinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger at Israel and U.S. foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.
Why have Obama’s remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it’s because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.
If there’s nothing to hide, why keep these tapes under wraps? Why not release them?
Obama’s supporters pretend there’s nothing all that radioactive about Khalidi or Alinsky, who authored the Left’s bible, “Rules for Radicals.”
But if Alinsky is not a problem, why did Obama disguise the name of his radical Alinsky trainer Jerry Kellman in his memoir? And why did he also try to shield from readers the identity of his Alinsky mentor John McKnight, who wrote him a letter of recommendation to Harvard?
If his Alinskyite indoctrination is of no concern, why did Obama leave out his weeks-long training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in Los Angeles? This station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes is strangely missing from all 500 pages of his tediously detailed memoir.
For that matter, the late Alinsky is not cited by name in either of the president’s autobiographies, even though leftist activists confess this father of community organizing had a powerful influence on Obama.
Moreover, if communist Frank Marshall Davis wasn’t a controversial factor in Obama’s life, why did Obama also mask his identity in his first memoir? If listening, spellbound, at the feet of a known subversive isn’t a red flag, why keep his real profile a secret?
Obama also couldn’t find room in “Dreams From My Father” to mention the most striking thing about his father’s politics. Obama Sr. was a pro-Soviet socialist, who as a government economist wrote a communist tract for Kenya in 1965.
The folks at Investors.com have it nailed:
Some argue that linking him to this vast underground network of radicals is “guilt by association.” Actually, it’s guilt by participation.
Obama at one point was an employee of the radical shakedown group Acorn, and later trained its goons in Alinsky agitation tactics. He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.
In other words, Obama didn’t just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one. It’s now plain he and his fellow travelers are intentionally suppressing information that could provide the voting public a clearer link between the incumbent and radicalism.
Obama’s new campaign infomercial, ironically titled “The Road We’ve Traveled,” is just another attempt to suspend disbelief before the election.
Darn right. This next election is a litmus test of the intelligence of this country. Soledad O’Brien has already failed.