Political Cartoons of the Week

[Warph]

Soildad O'brien as a child:



There is no one on the CNN news rag that is MORE STUPID then Soildad.  Soildad O'Brien is pro-Obama and pro-illegal immigration!  She is no journalist by any means, but more of an racial activist that CNN uses to argue against the conservatives for ratings!  Her pro-illegal immigration stance and racist views has been well-documented.  I wouldn't doubt it that she's also a mouthpiece for La Raza!  In my view, she is a bigot and a racist!  She hasn't been able to use her "white side" for sensational means, so she turned to the "black side" of her despicable self.  

More to come on this ...Warph!

[Warph]

[Warph]

No doggie treat from Barack Obuma:

[Warph]

This idiot that you call a President, talks a lot about raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires," but most of the tax hikes he's mentioned fall on households making $250,000 per year or less.  Even raising the very top rate, something Obuma has been pushing during his entire public life, would be a tax increase on small employers and families with taxable income of around $400,000 in 2013.  This is known as trickle-down taxation at work, and it's coming to a middle income family near you.

...Warph

[Warph]

You know... something just doesn't smell right here.

...Warph 

[Warph]

Soledad O'brien as a child:

There is no one on the CNN news rag that is MORE STUPID then Soildad.  Soildad O'Brien is pro-Obuma and pro-illegal immigration!  She is no journalist by any means, but more of an racial activist that CNN uses to argue against the conservatives for ratings!  Her pro-illegal immigration stance and racist views has been well-documented.  I wouldn't doubt it that she's also a mouthpiece for La Raza!  In my view, she is a bigot and a racist!  She hasn't been able to use her "white side" for sensational means, so she turned to the "black side" of her despicable self.  

More to come on this....Warph!

And here it is:

After Breitbart.com broke the story of Barack Obama's embrace – physically and intellectually – of "Critical Race Theory" crackpot Professor Derrick Bell, editor-in-chief Joel Pollak appeared in a remarkable interview on CNN.

Check this out:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/08/its_happening_cnn_already_freaking_out_about_new_media_vetting_president_obama

The whole thing is hilarious – you will never see a more clear-cut example of panicked liberals with no idea of what to say. One of them, Jay Thomas, couldn't think of anything better than witlessly suggesting that Pollak must be "frightened that black people are gonna do something to you."

Ah, racism. It's pretty much the only kind of argument the Left has. Merely quoting what people of color actually said is now "racist." As it happens, one of the most noteworthy things a black person has done to Joel Pollak is marry him.

The really amazing part comes early, when host Soledad O'Brien tries to jump down Pollak's throat and dismiss his description of Critical Race Theory. When Pollak politely asks her what she thinks it means, the result can best be described as a short-circuit. By the end, she's not even really "speaking" any more. She's just babbling random phrases like "academic theory" and "intersection," and she appears to be in physical pain.

The beginning of her brain lock is a line that should go down in the annals of journalistic malpractice: "I'm going to ask you to continue on. I'm just going to point out that that is inaccurate. Keep going." That's a perfect distillation of the arrogant ignorance that colors the media's desperate protection of liberal sacraments, and Barack Obama in particular. At no point does she come within a thousand miles of successfully challenging anything Pollak has said.

Nothing that O'Brien later complained about "someone talking in my ear, so I couldn't hear what you said" while Pollak was mopping her up, blogger Pinecone at Rebelpundit did a little detective work. He decided to Google "critical race theory," and discovered the first response is its Wikipedia entry. The first line of the Wikipedia text appears in the Google search result, and reads as follows: "Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law, and power."

So, it seems likely that O'Brien's bizarre performance was a clueless TV talking head growing confused, as terrified behind-the-scenes aides realized she just challenged an informed, determined guest on a topic she does not understand at all. They hastily Googled the term and started reading the Wikipedia entry into her earpiece. Since Joel Pollak does understand what Critical Race Theory means, it didn't get her very far.

To add to the black comedy of the incident, when liberals realized O'Brien had been caught parroting lines from Wikipedia, they launched a desperate editing war to re-write the Wikipedia entry so it matched what O'Brien was trying to say. Pinecone provides an after-action report:

Throughout the day, there have been numerous edits to the wikipedia entry for "Critical Race Theory," including the elimination of "white supremacy" as a key element (an element referenced by Joel Pollak during his interview with Soledad O'Brien and the existence of which O'Brien scoffed at throughout their conversation). At the time of this update, there had been 26 changes today alone; up until today, the last edit had been mid-February, and before that, just one in January.

But wait, it gets even funnier. Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller dug up some Twitter messages from O'Brien's account, right after Professor Bell passed away in October 2011, and discovered she claimed to be a fan of his work. She even said she was going to re-read one of his books to honor his passing. It's interesting that she didn't make viewers aware of this during her encounter with Pollak, isn't it?

And yet, it's painfully clear from her disastrous encounter with Pollak that O'Brien doesn't understand the first thing about what Bell wrote and believed in. If she understood his work, but was aggressively seeking to sanitize it, she wouldn't have needed CNN aides screaming lines from Wikipedia into her ear, and she could have obfuscated more effectively. It still wouldn't have worked, as Pollak came prepared to cite the man chapter and verse, but she wouldn't have looked like a self-destructing robot that just lost an argument with Captain James T. Kirk.

This is what talking-head journalism is all about: uninformed actors and actresses reading lines fed to them by spin doctors. This is why public trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low.

[Warph]

                                  


Soledad O'Brien is such a phony. In April 2008, Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave a speech in Detroit to the NAACP. One of the things that he said in this speech was that black and white children learn with different parts of their brain, and then gave an "unflattering imitation of the way white pastors speak." People's comments were that he gave a racial speech. Soledad O'Brien, on CNN, was quoted as saying, in a gushing manner, that the speech was a "home run" and "really funny." When questioned about the things he said in the speech, she would say things like, what he really meant was... or what he wanted to say was... Once again she's covering the truth and being racist. Just as with the Henry Gates incident.

In an appearance on Anderson Cooper, the night or so before CNN's "The Moment of Truth" she appeared enraged that it was a racial profile against Gates. She said that she got calls from her FRIENDS saying it was all about Gates being black. She went on that show with the purpose, at all costs, to destroy the credibility of the white police officer and throw him under the bus. When Cooper was talking she wanted to make the point that Gates said "Thank You" to the police officers. By mentioning that, she was purposely misrepresenting the truth by playing down Gates' belligerence and racial remarks, which she didn't even mention. Even Gates' attorney and friend, said to the media that he used very strong language.

Colon Powell and President Obama both said he should take blame in the incident. I have seen this in many occasions with her, where she doesn't speak the truth and hides the true facts. Another time on Anderson Cooper, Cooper said to O'Brien that Senator John McCain hasn't brought race into the campaign, like he said he wouldn't. You would think her response would have been something like, that's great because he shouldn't. Instead she strongly insinuated that he would, even in the last week of the campaign. Also, her questioning style, in interviews is completely different with a white person than it is with a black person. Like in her interview with Henry Gates in "The Moment of Truth" She just went along with his lies. I have seen several comments on various websites about her racism. There are many other examples I could give of her racial bias, dishonesty and hypocrisy. She seems to consider herself to be black. She mentioned in an interview that her parents made it clear to her "you're black" and that's all there is to it.

She's all about being #1, she wants the world to revolve around her. She comes first, before her family. She wants to be a celebrity figure and a star. In interviews she says she works 6 days a week, mostly out of town, and on some holidays. She goes to gala events, concerts, lots of entertainment events, as a single woman, leaving her husband and kids behind.

I think Soledad O'Brien is a very poor journalist. Whatever happened to the days of CNN with Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff? They were honorable journalists. You could believe what they said.

...Ann Coulter

[Warph]

Update: I'm told that some other bloggers and Twitter users were instrumental in digging up Soiledad O'Brien's Tweets of affection for the work of Derrick Bell, with special credit due to the online spade work of @Mermaz on Twitter.  For more details, take a look at this thread on Michelle Malkin's excellent new Twitchy website:

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/08/mermaz-digs-up-soledad-obriens-derrick-bell-love/

Nothing's more FAKE than a Soildad O'Brien!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What's the Matter with Soledad O'Brien?
By Michelle Malkin
3/14/2012

CNN's Soledad O'Brien isn't used to criticism. In the world of media elites, she's a beloved figure and an award-winning news anchor. But last week, she revealed her true, decidedly non-neutral colors. And she's not happy about the hoi polloi questioning her hallowed journalistic objectivity.

On Thursday, O'Brien interviewed Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief of the late Andrew Breitbart's online empire. Breitbart's BigGovernment.com released a 1991 video of Barack Obama (then a 30-year-old law student) at a Harvard rally embracing radical racialist Derrick Bell and his push for more aggressive race-based hiring at Harvard. Bell is a proponent of critical race theory (CRT), which posits that America remains a hopelessly racist country dominated by Jews and white supremacists.

O'Brien lost her cool when Pollak shed light on Bell's fringe legal theories. Acting more like an Obama campaign surrogate than a disinterested host, she angrily jumped on Pollak's mention of CRT. "That is a complete misreading of critical race theory," she shrieked. "That's an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that's not correct!"

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.

O'Brien is entitled to her opinions, of course. The problem is that she masks her political activism under the banner of corporate media "diversity." Of multicultural heritage, O'Brien has won countless accolades for her "Black in America" and "Latino in America" documentaries for CNN. The medical school at historically black Morehouse College created the "Soledad O'Brien Freedom's Voice Award" to honor "outstanding catalysts of social change." The first recipient of the activist award? Soledad O'Brien, of course.

O'Brien is also a card-carrying member of two racial/ethnic-centered journalism lobbying groups: the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. These organizations are inherently politicized entities that enforce a skin color-deep ideological solidarity and push a social justice agenda of advocacy journalism. I know because I've fought their collective herd mentality for the past 20 years.

Liberal minority journalists have themselves acknowledged their slavish fealty to Obama and his progressive agenda. During the 2008 campaign, the NABJ, NAHJ and Asian American Journalists Association held a "journalists of color" confab where then-candidate Obama was welcomed with Justin Bieber-style mania. One journalist squealed, "He touched me!" after Obama's address, which was interrupted multiple times with standing ovations, cheers and whistles by the press.

Organizers were so concerned about public displays of Obamedia affection that they issued several warnings to their news professional members that the speech would be broadcast live on (Soledad O'Brien's) CNN. "Professional decorum" was encouraged. One wire story even fretted: "Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?"

Nope, liberal minority journalists simply can't resist carrying water for Obama. That's because their journalistic unity demands political unanimity. If you don't accept the left-leaning agenda of "social change" journalism, you're enabling racism. If you don't support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic and academic goal, you're selling out.

Now you know the reason for O'Brien's thin-skinned reaction to Obama's critics. When you vet the president, you vet the media. And they don't like the narrative table-turning one bit.

[Warph]

[Warph]

.