Barack Obama has been the beneficiary of Affirmative Action for most of his life. He benefited from Affirmative Action during his academic career and has admitted as much:
“I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.”
And that’s fine, but Obama has also enjoyed the Affirmative Action treatment from the press during his entire Presidency. They have protected him over and over:
The administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned “Benghazi” into a word associated with nutters, like “Roswell” or “grassy knoll,” but Attkisson notes that “the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”
Evan Thomas suggested Obama was a “god” and Brian Williams bows to him.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTaFJJgYftg[/youtube]
Williams might try to blame the brain tumor for that behavior.
Congressman Joe Walsh opined that Barack Obama won the Presidential election because he is black.
“This guy pushed every one of the media’s buttons,” Walsh said in an interview with the Media Research Center. “He was liberal, he was different, he was new, he was black. Oh my God, it was the potpourri of everything.”
Walsh was responding to a question from Media Research Center President Brent Bozell about the “race warfare games” of the Obama administration.
“They are so vested in our first black president not being a failure that it’s going to be amazing to watch the lengths they go to to protect him,” Walsh said. “They, I believe, will spout this racist line if some of their colleagues up here aren’t doing it aggressively enough. There is going to be a real desperation.”
But that needs a qualifier- the press protects him because he is a black democrat.
And Tina Brown pretty much echoed the sentiment:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq88iu2beMw[/youtube]
She notes that being black trumped being a woman.
In dumping Hillary for Obama, Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) said:
“I simply thought that given the opportunity, it was too important that this country elect an inspiring black president.”
This springs to relevancy because of what is happening to Rand Paul and what is going to happen to GOP candidates. The media bent over for Obama. Paul is not so fortunate. To wit:
A day after announcing the launch of his 2016 presidential campaign during a fiery speech in Louisville, Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul got a bit testy during an interview on the “Today” show Wednesday.
Appearing via satellite from New Hampshire, the tea party favorite took issue with “Today” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie’s line of questioning about how his views on several key foreign policy issues seem to have changed over the years.
“Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on,” Paul said, cutting Guthrie off, “why don’t you ask me a question, ‘Have I changed my opinion?’ That would be a better way to approach an interview.”
“Is Iran still not a threat?” Guthrie asked.
This might be expected from a normal media but we don’t have a professional media. We have an Obama worshipping media.
Guthrie never asked Obama about any of his galactic flip-flops in 2012. Neither did anyone else, for that matter.
Obama opposed same sex marriage, opposed the personal mandate, swore it wasn’t a tax and on and on. As you have read here frequently, Barack Obama lies about everything. Dan at Squirrel Hill has collected about 1000 examples of Barack Obama perfidy.
In return for its fawning obsequiousness what did the press get? One of the grandest of lies – the promise of unparalleled transparency.
Obama Administration Has Gone To Unprecedented Lengths To Thwart Journalists, says the Huffington Post.
The Columbia Journal Review issued a scathing report on the relation between Obama and the press:
An exhaustive study of every official exchange Obama had with the press corps in 2014, supplemented by a review of daily press briefings and interviews with more than a dozen current and former correspondents and White House press secretaries, reveals a White House determined to conceal its workings from the press, and by extension, the public.
The CJR asserts that the White House press is more distant than it has been in over 50 years. Obama stuffs the press and all they can say is “Thank you sir may I have another?”
Several questions ensued, about Ebola and CIA Director John Brennan, and Obama again seemed irked. He joked that no one had asked him about his looming birthday plans, then added, “You’re not that pent up. I’ve been giving you questions lately.”
That exchange underscored the grave distance between the press corps and the president many had covered day in, day out, for more than six years. And it raises an uncomfortable question: Is there any point, anymore, to having a dedicated White House press corps, scrambling for any contact with the famously enigmatic president? At what point does spending 11 or more hours a day following around one man become a fool’s errand, better replaced by coverage of the White House and its occupants from afar? If the distance between the president and the press corps is becoming so institutionalized, why bother trying to bridge it?
Perhaps, but why continue the unquestioning obeisance? The answer is painfully obvious and it is the same reason no one dares talk impeachment.
A blind man can see what’s coming. GOP candidates are going to be subject to the grilling that Obama never faced from them and more often than not those questions are going to come from left leaning female “reporters.” The left wing media has begun hunting Scott Walker’s “changes” as well.
One white Republican gets “testy” and another is “walking back beliefs” but the black democrat President who has done all of that and more while throttling the White House press corps dances merrily past unchallenged. Feel free to locate one instance in which CBS News blared “Barack Obama is already walking back beliefs he held just two years ago…” How about NBC?
I dare ya. The closest I’ve got is
“Obama walks to improve his cholesterol”
That’s about as tough as they ever get on Obama despite his spitting on them. It’s almost as though they suffer from collective battered reporter syndrome.
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.
Yes, the country has an affirmative action President. A person that has never accomplished one single thing (unless you count dope smoking) on his own. He has personally made a shambles out of the middle east and is slowly but surely destroying our military services. What does that say for affirmative action?
Hopefully Rand Paul’s approach will serve as a blueprint for the rest of the 20165 hopefuls. Most conservatives know that the MSM hates us. It’s a damned shame more Republicans won’t acknowledge this fact.
The media is definitely a spokes-estate of the Obama administration and an arm of the Democrat party. Just seeing debate moderator (too much) Candy Crowley leap to the aid of Obama IN the DEBATE (and the stunned look on Romney’s face) should be enough, but the examples are legion. Only when Obama is definitely out of the limelight will the media be able to pry its lips from his ass and begin the task of promoting the next liberal failure to be foisted upon the American people.
The behavior of the media is despicable. However, the willingness to accept this performance by the left, never considering how quickly this could be turned upon themselves or how their own interests are being harmed by being lied to on such a regular basis (note the number of liberals who have actually complained about the Obamacare hits they have suffered) is not only inconceivable, but despicable as well.
Imagine the trouncing Obama would have suffered without the full brunt of the left wing media aimed at his opponent. Consider also how conditions now would be different. The media has become an enemy of the state.
The Media
Americans have a very wide range of media to source from. Most Americans choose to get their info from media that the radical right wishes they did not. Most Americans choose to NOT rely on Fox News The Daily Caller or Breitbart. That is their choice. During the prime time news hour about 10% of Americans watch Fox News.
Bills’ post is spot on. The Ideal of a Fourth Estate acting as a bulwark for the people against the tyranny of government is now over. The problem of slanting is grave-the problem of omission of dubious policies by this President is the end of the First Amendment.
@john:
What percentage of people watching the news is that, john? Do you have a response to the assertion that the overwhelming majority of media is far leftist and, as such, corrupt?
@john:
Much of what I would guess you call “news” outlets are really just advocacy services for one side of the political spectrum. A lot of folks just don’t realize it, you are probably in that group.
@Mully: yes, I think liberals think HuffPo is a ‘news site.
Excellent question, Bill.
He used that canard on me a few days ago
So I looked up the answer.
Of ALL Americans 10% watch Fox News.
Of ALL Americans 26% watch ANY evening news at all.
So a HUGE chunk of those Americans who watch evening news at all watch it from Fox News.
More than 1/3rd of them.
Considering Fox News is on ”cable” or satellite that’s an amazing figure.
@Nanny G:
As we all well know, the American public, as a whole, are terribly misinformed. First, as the numbers indicate only 26% care enough about what’s going on to even watch the news. Thats one out of 4 people care. So then 38 out of every hundred that watch evening news watch it on Fox News. Many people listen to commentators on Radio, that is about 90% conservatives, but still only a small percentage of total population listens to radio news. Nobody watches MSNBC, a few watch CNN.
@Redteam:
The Daily Show is one of their “trusted” news sources. This might explain why so many of their policies and candidates are jokes.
@Bill:
Those places are pretty obvious. However I include the major news outlets, the alphabet networks in that group. Recall the Chris Christie “bridgegate” story? The media was all over that story for weeks. Doing their best to take out a possible R presidential candidate. When all the smoke cleared Christie was cleared and how much coverage did the media give to that story? Not much.
They have chosen sides in almost every political story there is. From taxes, abortion, guns, religion, etc.
I get a laugh every time I hear a Dem complain how poorly president Obama is treated by some people. I guess those folks weren’t alive during the GWB years and the HATE that was directed at him.
@Mully: How much coverage did Holder’s investigation of Ferguson and Wilson uncovered nothing? After stirring up racist fervor which caused millions of dollars of damage, deaths and injury, how much coverage was there of just how WRONG they all were?
The media is corrupt. Fully and totally corrupt.
@Redteam: #10
“only 26% care enough about what’s going on to even watch the news.”
You’re wrong. Many of us who don’t watch the news do care about what’s going on. There are other sources of information, after all.
Some of us don’t even have a TV in our homes. Nasty little time-wasters.
Most Americans just don’t want to watch Fox News
Your problem isn’t with what is available, it is what people choose
@Petercat:
If you don’t have a tv in your home, how do you know it’s a ‘time waster’?
Where do you get that information? No, it’s amazing how ignorant the American people are. As I’ve said, a recent poll of these ‘intelligent’ people think that current Sec of the Treasury, Karl Marx is doing such a fine job with the economy he should run for President.
Now I’d say those are some intelligent, caring people, right?
@john:
Most Americans don’t watch ANY news.
Most Americans that watch any news watch it on Fox News.
@Redteam: #16
“If you don’t have a tv in your home, how do you know it’s a ‘time waster’?”
Because I used to have one. Duh.
“Where do you get that information?”
From friends and family who have also dumped the tube. If you can use a small-sample poll to make broad generalizations about a larger group, so can I.
You really have a great amount of contempt for other people, don’t you? It shows in your comments.
“No, it’s amazing how ignorant the American people are. ”
“Now I’d say those are some intelligent, caring people, right? ”
Broad generalities. I rest my case.
@Petercat:
Research has shown that people that run around saying ‘duh’ don’t usually have enough sense to understand television.
So you get your information about what’s on tv from people that don’t have a tv. Hmmm.
I personally would not put people that are for Karl Marx for president in the ‘bright’ category, but you may do so if you desire.
@Redteam: #19
“Research has shown that people that run around saying ‘duh’ don’t usually have enough sense to understand television. ”
Citation on the “research”, please. Besides, it doesn’t apply to me. I’m not running around, I’m sitting. Duh, again.
“So you get your information about what’s on tv from people that don’t have a tv. Hmmm.”
No, I get it from people who used to have a TV and gave it up.
Research has shown that people who distort what others say and then argue against their own distortions are hate-filled, mentally and socially challenged fools who are so worthless that they can only feel good about themselves by manufacturing reasons to look down on others.
See what I did there?
“I personally would not put people that are for Karl Marx for president in the ‘bright’ category, but you may do so if you desire. ”
I hate to break it to you, but Karl Marx is dead. I personally would not put people that believe that he is alive in the ‘bright’ category,
@Petercat:
Then I would suggest you refrain from doing that in the future. Apparently you don’t care for the image you are creating of yourself.
You form your opinions from persons too dumb to understand tv?
Whoops, you missed again. I was only quoting your friends that don’t watch television that responded to the Survey question: “Do you think that Karl Marx, the current Sec of the Treasury, that has done such a great job with the economy under Obama, would make a good president. Most of them responded that, yes they did think so.
I knew he was dead. Saw it on tv years ago.
Petercat, if you will just go ahead and tell me your objective, maybe I will concede your point, but as of now, you seem to only want a forum to say ‘Duh” on. Is that it? How many ‘duh’s’ do you need a day to feel fulfilled?
@Redteam: #21
Ah, redteam, I so enjoy these little discussions where you so angrily project your own inadequacies and failures onto others, and your own negative (and rather stupid) assumptions about the failures of others: “You form your opinions from persons too dumb to understand tv? ”
Your rather stupid assumption that people who choose not to watch TV are too stupid to understand it, for example.
It is so much fun to witness your rage-fueled descent into blithering nonsense.
However, I have other things to do at the moment, such as machining a set of custom sights for a handgun, so I will have to leave you for now.
But don’t worry, like a dog returning to it’s vomit, I will return to you later to engage you in discourse again.
And, as you seem to have difficulty achieving a precise understanding of what I have said, I will in the future limit my comments to you to words of no more than two syllables.
@Petercat:
Okay, you’ve got a challenge. From this point on you may only use words of 2 syllable or less. Don’t believe you can do it.
don’t believe I’ve shown any anger. But I do notice you refrained from your ‘duh’ usage. You’re benefitting from your conversation with me already.
Sorry, but you’re gonna have to keep that habit to yourself. Doesn’t sound appetizing.
you think I’m ‘angrily projecting”? So now you’re trying to use your sense of humor.
hmm, give me a quote on that. I missed it. (remember you’re limited to two syllables.
yea, tell me again about how you eat dog vomit. I’m not sure you get a lot of pleasure out of that,, but, hey everybody’s got their own kicks. Did you get that from Obama? He eats the dogs themselves.
@Petercat: I figured you’d bug out. Can’t write with only 2 syllable words, I guess.
@Redteam: #24
Of course I can. I’ve just had better things to do for the past three months.
Just because you can’t figure out how to do something doesn’t mean that I can’t.
Now start counting. You may remove your shoes and socks. (Hint: Remove them in that order.)
@Petercat: RT lives in a world that only he understands–truth be told he likes it that way..
Thanks for the laughs RW
@Petercat: What, they let you out to use the computer every 3 months? I see they even let you use a couple of two syllable words. Go ahead and get all your messages out before they take away your computer again.
Did RW invite you to his Gay pride celebrations?
@Rich Wheeler:
Yes, but you are sure trying like hell to get me to invite you in. Sorry, all my invitations went out already. Maybe next time, check after the 1st of the year.