Sometimes I have to try and pat my own back. Despite the names I was called for coining the phrase, it’s now starting to catch on.
Barack Obama may well be our first Affirmative Action president.
Sometimes it’s important to state the obvious, as George Orwell urged in another era of big lies and Political Correctness. It’s obvious that the media are in the bag for Obama for one big reason, and one reason only: his race. The media have adopted liberal race bias as it is practiced on hundreds of campuses, in newsrooms all over, and in corporations galore. It’s “affirmative” race discrimination, but it’s still completely arbitrary favoritism based on skin color.
They got on Geraldine Ferraro’s case big time for making the point, but you know it’s true. If Barack Obama were white (and didn’t have a “BBP” as the women like to mention), we’d be talking about the Hillary/McCain race today.
This is the media, liberal “white guilt” election. If anyone except a black man (who’s only half-black) had as many unknowns as Barack Obama, he would have been laughed out of the race a year ago August. But because he’s black and liberal, the media and many in America are more than willing to look the other way for the sole purpose of saying they were on the visionary side of history.
There’s something profoundly wrong with that. It offends our sense of fair play. When governments behave this way it’s a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Every time normal people get a chance to vote, they vote against it. Even leftwing Supreme Court justices say that affirmative action is only a “temporary” fix for a history of discrimination against blacks.
But that’s a lie. The race industry will never let go; on the contrary, they are including ever-more victim groups. The gender industry came in on top of the civil rights movement, and the sexual minority establishment rode in on the back of feminism. Hispanics and illegals are going to be the next big victim groups. From anti-black discrimination to anti-white discrimination — where’s the progress?
What these people are setting up is not good for America.
We’ve all seen what happens when a team wins the world championship in a given sport. We have celebrations-turned-riots, complete with looting, injury and sometimes death. Given the nature of this election, what can we look forward to, since the guilt-ridden media has whipped up the electorate into this “hope” frenzy?
If Obama wins, there may be riots. If Obama loses, there will be riots. All in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and the elimination of the racial glass ceiling once and for all.
Dr. King would see through this. When will we?
Who is they? Implied where?
CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and any nurmber of pundits on line.
You know what, to hell with race.
To hell with those who use race. To hell with a great deal of things that have been said here in this particular column. To hell with a great deal of things.
Vote (not that it confirms any actual consent) for who you want to for the reasons you want to or do not vote at all. But if you do vote, well, to hell with you to.
I’ll meet you there though.
Who is they? Implied where?
I think the real point is that if someone does not support Obama, it has to be that the person is a racist, or will not support anybody but the old standard WASP.
Nobody’s said anything of the sort.
THey may not have said it but it sure as hell has been implied HEAVILY.
Personally, the constant lies, flip-flops, and his stated policies are what make him unqualified in my eyes.
You are, and I will . . .
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The point is, I will state AGAIN, is that there is an Affirmative Action program in this country for white males.
It’s strictly enforced, and so far the only way to get into the Presidency.
If you want to be President, this AA program says you have to be white.
You have to be male.
And with one exception (Kennedy) you have to be Protestant.
So it’s mighty damn ignorant to say “here’s a black man who has a mere chance to be come president” and start moaning and bellyaching about how Affirmative Action is ruining or meritocracy.
I could do that, very easily.
There are many substantive critiques that can be made of the media’s coverage of McCain.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3369
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3461
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3377
Ohh yeah here’s a goodie:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but to be “qualified” to be president:
You have to be a natural-born US Citizen
You have to be at least 35 years of age.
You have to reside in the US for at least 14 years.
So the 43 white men were “Undoubtedly qualified”
How can you not look at the fluff pieces in network news, CNN, MSNBC, People (front page, not a book review), Access Hollywood, the list continues and not say that he is getting preferential treatment to McCain?
Give America a palatable candidate, and it will not matter what color he/she is.
Nobody’s said anything of the sort.
The real point is that there is a very pervasive yet unspoken form of Affirmative Action that has limited the highest office of the land to 100% white men.
It’s slightly less effective in limiting management positions or Fortune 500 CEO’s and other such highly desired positions but yet if a black guy comes along and *might* buck the trend that has kept EVERY SINGLE BLACK MAN IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA out of the Presidency he’s somehow receiving special treatment!
The 43 white men before him? Undoubtedly qualified.
I think the real point is that if someone does not support Obama, it has to be that the person is a racist, or will not support anybody but the old standard WASP.
Obama is a wasP, or 62.5% WASP. the reason that Obama does not get my support is because he is:
A: A socialist
B: A socialist
C: A socialist
Yet another (boring and trite) ad hominem.
Can you do better? Substantiate your claims at least?
Why not, Blaire, you seem to ignore quite a bit as it suits you.
So you’re ignoring the real point because one part of the sentence was out of order?
“we got 43 White Anglo-Saxon and 42 Protestant male presidents in a row,”
Reread that and tell me if you see ANY falsehood in 42 Protestant presidents in a row.
Small point, but small points are important, like the fact that there are not 57 states, or that the Russians liberated Nuremberg.
The guy in the White House right now beat him to it.
Since it is PURE coincidence that we got 43 White Anglo-Saxon and 42 Protestant male presidents in a row, it’s important to note that when one gets close to note that we can assume he’s not qualified.
1. He’s not white
2. He’s neither Anglo nor Saxon
3. He’s a SECRET Muslim
His only qualification seems to be male. But not a real man mind you – he’d never strut around in a flight suit with stuffed pants nearly as well as Dubya.
Ron, you know the answer to that. You can have a Republican in an SS uniform, killing little black children and that’s ok. But even try to print something negative about the MESSiah, and the mobs come at you with torches and pitchforks.
Will we hear cries that this cover is agist? I mean there is a walker in his hand. Oh and look at W’s ears. Didn’t one ‘expert’ say that because Barack’s characture had big ears it was racist?!?!?
Hmm, and yet, its the left that wants nothing to do with the Constitution….
Is Vanity Fair that desperate for a circulation boost?