Whenever liberals in the media who are blatantly biased in support of Pres. Obama encounter some truth or fact that tarnishes their cherished image of either the President or the First Lady, they descend to obfuscating or accusing people of “racism.” Two cases come from CNN’s Soledad O’Brien. In January, when New York Times writer Jodi Kantor promoted her book about the Obama family, O’Brien seemed ready to reach into Kantor’s personal space. (Kantor’s book, by many accounts, was not entirely positive of the Obamas.)
More recently, O’Brien and company tried –unsuccessfully– to dismiss the research and videotapes Andrew Breitbart, his editors and reporters are unveiling at the “Big” sites. On Sean Hannity’s program at Fox News, Joel Pollak, Editor in Chief and Legal Counsel at Breitbart, and Editor Ben Shapiro, began the “drip-drip-drip” strategy that Andrew Breitbart so masterfully employed when uncovering, for example, scandals with ACORN and former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner. It’s akin to a Chinese water torture: revelations come out bit by bit over time driving the person mad.
After that interview, CNN interviewed Pollak. Here, Pollak deftly handles O’Brien’s obvious shallow understanding of “critical race theory” –a radical teaching promulgated by Harvard Professor Derrick Bell, a man President Obama respected, admired and defended while at Harvard Law School. As Pollak explains:
“‘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 system in America is ‘white supremacist.'”
So if racial inequality is impossible because of the Constitution, it makes sense that Barack Obama would harbor negative views of the Constitution (as he said in a radio interview with Chicago’s public radio, WBEZ in the 1990s). By extension, his disregard for the Constitution can be seen through his Administration’s policies and actions that are circumventing the Constitution.
Pollak continues to explain, after CNN’s O’Brien tries and fails to derail the connection:
“This is critical. You can’t derail this, Soledad. ‘White supremacy’ is the heart of “critical race theory” and Obama knew it. And by the time Obama embraced him at Harvard Law School, Derrick Bell had already given a speech in Chicago just two months before that caused a sensation which was about how white supremacy was still the order of the day and that black people were fooling themselves if they thought civil rights and equality were achievable goals. He said this and one of the people who came to his defense, by the way, was Jeremiah Wright, with whom Bell had correspondence over the years. This is a connection that is very important.”
Breitbart.com also uncovered a 1990 CSPAN interview with esteemed Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell. In it, host Brian Lamb asks Sowell his opinion of Prof. Bell. He basically compares Bell to Hitler:
LAMB: What did you think of Derrick Bell’s whole plan?
SOWELL: Well, his chances of success will depend on whether or not he has overestimated his importance to the Harvard Law School. I think it would be a tragedy if they caved in, and I was very pleased to see that they seemed to show some backbone, which is quite rare among academics.
LAMB: Now, what do you think of the press treatment of him?
SOWELL: It’s been quite gentle.
LAMB: You mean, is he a hero?
SOWELL: To me?
LAMB: No. Basically, I mean, from the press coverage, you’ve seen, is he a hero to the …?
SOWELL: Well, he’s looked at as an idealist who is self-sacrificing and so on. I suppose one could, if one wanted to look at it that way, have seen Hitler that way in his early days. It’s just a question of where that kind of idealism leads. He has launched a despicable attack on a young black professor at the law school who doesn’t go along with this. A young man named Randall Kennedy, who has written a very thoughtful, intelligent article last June in the Harvard Law Review, questioning some of the assumptions that people are making, people like Derrick Bell and doing it in a very gentlemanly as well as very logical way, empirical way, and that’s not what they want. They want the conclusion to be that — they want him to march in lock step and he won’t do it, and they’re doing their best to make life impossible for him.
Pres. Obama was 30 years old at the time, a graduate student and President of the Harvard Law Review. He embraced Professor Bell and his ideals. He was not a mere 18-year old college kid fresh out of high school. (I take note of this because MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell has tried to emphasize that the President was a “very young” college student. He wasn’t.) In fact, by Barack Obama’s own words, he was firmly convinced of his world outlook. In his book Dreams From My Father, by 1991, he had already been a community organizer, working on behalf of progressive agendas:
“I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed… becoming an organizer was a part of that larger narrative, starting with my father and his father before him, my mother and her parents, my memories of Indonesia with its beggars and farmers and the loss of Lolo to power, on through Ray and Frank, Marcus and Regina… That was my idea of organizing. It was a promise of redemption…I wrote to every civil rights organization I could think of, to any black elected official in the country with a progressive agenda, to neighborhood councils and tenant rights groups.”
He would go on to tout that experience in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. His distaste for the Reagan years makes it laughable that he ever proudly compared himself to the former President.
The President’s relationship with and mutual admiration for Prf. Bell continued as recently as the last few years of Bell’s life.