Why Does Main Stream Media Refuse to Vet Obama?


Those who watched Sean Hannity March 7, 2012 know that Sean had as his guest two young men who were editors for the late Andrew Breitbart; Ben Shapiro and Joel Pollack .

Andrew Breitbart planned to vet Barack Obama during this election. Sadly, he did not live to do so. Sean plans to show some of the videos that Andrew had planned to show and he showed one of those last night.

The video had already been shown on Buzzfeed and the video itself did not hold any big surprises. It did confirm that Obama aligned himself with radicals while at Harvard.

Sean Hannity showed the unedited version to prove that Barack Obama did have close ties to Derrick Bell. In 1990, Thomas Sowell described Derrick Bell’s tactics and it is obvious why the video wasn’t brought front and center by Obama’s people during the campaign.

The question that I think needs to be answered, concerns main stream media.

I know why Ogletree and others did not want us to know the radical side of Obama. That is a no-brainer. What Americans need to know is why our own media will not present this story to the public? Why were they invested in the election and now in the re-election of Barack Obama?

Here is what Ben Shapiro said concerning the video and the lack of media coverage prior to the 2008 election:

I think what’s so important, honestly, what’s so amazing about this video in particular, it was open to anyone,  it was not hidden to the media,  if they seriously  wanted to find it, if they wanted to do the leg-work they could have this stuff. They could have tracked down, you know, just what was his association with Derrick Bell, meanwhile they are checking Sarah Palin’s random e-mails.

“IF…If they seriously wanted to find it” – We all know that media could have vetted Barack Obama and they did not in 2008 and still refuse to do so. There is only one way to learn who Barack Obama actually is and that is to by-pass main-stream media and find alternative news sources.

One must wonder how long there will be an alternative. I think there is more to this than political preference. When doors begin to close, they close rapidly.

About these ads

About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in Election 2008, Election 2012, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why Does Main Stream Media Refuse to Vet Obama?

  1. mpbulletin says:

    Well the video was part of a Frontline report back in 2008…so really there is nothing new here.

    And the speech was not in support of some radical… it was supporting a faculty member who was himself protesting Harvard’s decision not offer a black female faculty member tenure.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/the-story-behind-the-obama-law-school-speech-video/

    The attempt to radicalize this is simply a very large stretch of reality and does speak to a level of despiration on the side of the Right since the President’s re-election chances are continuing to improve.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Frontline may be a small part of mainstream media, but I refer to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and newspapers around the world when I refer to mainstream. I think you are right about the president having a good chance to be re-elected, but I am not wrong about him not being vetted. He was not vetted.

      Thomas Sowell, back in 1990, spoke out about Bell and explained that it wasn’t actually about helping women or ‘blacks’ or about diversity but rather about ‘radical feminism’ and ‘idiological conformity’.

      http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/03/08/thomas-sowell-hammers-despicable-derrick-bell-compares-to-hitler/

      What bothers me about what is happening today and about what happened in 1990 is the same thing that bothered Thomas Sowell. People who are behind this movement want to appear to be fighting for the rights of women or blacks or for whatever noble cause, when that isn’t their cause at all. There are a few women and blacks who see this and speak out. I wish more people would listen to them. By the time enough people wake-up to what is actually happening in this country, it may be too late.

      Like

      • mpbulletin says:

        Obama was thoroughly vetted. There is no conspiracy of media that sought to elect him over anyone else. This video and the claims attached to it are not quality journalism. The others in the news media saw the video and saw it as a non-issue…there was simply nothing there. THAT is why they are not going nuts over it. This video illustrates how insignificant those claims are. Those perpetrating such ideas saying, “It’s not about protecting rights, it’s about radical feminism”. Please… They make these claims and offer nothing but personal opinion in support of it. You want to give credence to this Thomas Sowell and his claims that Bell is a radical BUT Sowell only says this because he’s rooted on the opposite end of the spectrum. Anyone who is on one side views those on the opposite end as “radicals” Please put some perspective on this.

        The suffrage movement was considered “radical” back when women were fighting for their right to vote. They had the same names and claims thrown at them that the Right is hurling now. Rush Limbaugh or Thomas Sowell would have called them “radical feminists” if they were around in those times as well. It’s truly amusing how history repeats itself because people don’t pay attention to it. There was no conspiracy then and there is none now. There is no one forcing anyone to believe anything they don’t want to… not those who are able to look beyond the rhetoric that is.

        I know conspiracies against those one perceives as their enemies are easy and desirable to believe but that does not give them credence. This is ONLY a young, Harvard, graduate student taking a position on a LOCAL university issue about the employment future of a female professor. There are NO national or global implications attached to it. Stop allowing your fears to run away on the heals of unrealistic and unfounded speculation.

        Like

      • jlue says:

        After reading your first sentence, it is hard to take the rest of what you write seriously. Obama was not thoroughly vetted. That is a laughable statement. There were those who did attempt to vet him, but it certainly did not come from mainstream media. Actually there was a cover-up carried out by main-stream media. Had he been open and transparent from the get-go there would not have been so much time and effort spent trying to find records from his past.

        As for Derrick Bell, I am not labeling him a radical. Others have. Here are their reasons:

        Derrick Bell, who died last year at the age of 80, is credited with pioneering a concept called “critical race theory.” The theory maintains that the legal system of the United States is inherently biased against blacks and other minorities because it was built on an ingrained white point of view. Thus, it is necessary, as he argued in many books and lectures, that the life experiences of black people and other minorities be considered in hiring decisions and the application of law. For Bell, racism was both a pervasive and permanent aspect of American life. This belief led him to throw his support behind a journal entitled Race Traitor, whose editors stated that “the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of white skin.”

        Furthermore, Bell believed this “institutional racism” conferred upon oppressed minorities both the right and the duty to decide for themselves what laws are valid and worth observing. As for law itself, critical race theory also promotes the use of storytelling in law review articles. In many of his writings, and in defiance of accepted legal scholarship, Bell placed legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience.

        That information was found at:http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/08/another-piece-of-obamas-radical-puzzle/

        When you say that Thomas Sowell is on the other end of the spectrum, I am not sure what you mean. If you mean he is as far right as you can go, then are you saying Obama is as far left? Sowell is conservative. For that reason, he is not accepted by many in the black community. I find that very hard to understand. In a free society, all men and women should be treated equal and with respect. Not just those who subscribe to one political ideaology.

        It is one thing to as you say:

        Stop allowing your fears to run away on the heals of unrealistic and unfounded speculation.

        I think you meant ‘heels’.
        It is another to look at reality and the reality is that Barack Obama has associated with radicals such as Bill Ayers and then attempted to deny the association. Nothing unrealistic or speculative about that fact. Denying it doesn’t change the truth of it.

        Like

  2. mpbulletin says:

    “After reading your first sentence, it is hard to take the rest of what you write seriously.”

    I can say the same for your assertion that he was not. He most certainly was and there was and IS NO conspiracy not to vet him. Your hatred of him and his policies make you WANT to believe that but that is just not true at all. Sorry but that’s the case.

    “Had he been open and transparent from the get-go there would not have been so much time and effort spent trying to find records from his past.”

    Let’s look at this statement. You claim he wasn’t transparent and that others felt the need to go and hunt down all this “stuff”. What “stuff” have they found? What “stuff” is there to find? These people want so badly to find “stuff” on him that they are more akin to treasure hunters who say, “It’s here somewhere I JUST know it!” and they spend a lifetime looking for something that never existed. This video is so absolutely insignificant that it only illustrates how desperate those treasure hunters have become.

    “ As for Derrick Bell, I am not labeling him a radical. Others have. Here are their reasons:”

    I didn’t say you did but I did question those who did. Interesting you referenced a highly conservatively biased source. ( I used the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact.com but we’ll come to that later) It just reenforces my point about those on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum believe the worst of each other. And yes Sowell is on the ideological right….conservative libertarian. And those views are on the opposite end of those who may be fighting for minority rights. And to them those people are “radical”. Just because I point that out doesn’t mean I am placing Obama on the far-left. He’s actually left of center.

    “I think you meant ‘heels’.”

    Yes, I did. I apologize profusely for the typo.

    “It is another to look at reality and the reality is that Barack Obama has associated with radicals such as Bill Ayers and then attempted to deny the association. Nothing unrealistic or speculative about that fact. Denying it doesn’t change the truth of it.”

    Uh huh… Well this has been thoroughly debunked many times. Obama was on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Ayers went to a few meetings when Obama was present but ya know what…? SO WERE MANY OTHER PEOPLE!! You’ll find a list of them here;

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/10/john-mccain/not-a-radical-group-and-ayers-didnt-run-it/

    Oh yeah and he went to his house for a fund raiser or something with another WHOLE BUNCH of people. And Ayers donated a whole $200 to Obama’s state legislator campaign, along with ONCE AGAIN a WHOLE BUNCH of other people. You noticing the pattern here?

    And as far as the “facts” well… there are facts and then there are over-speculations about those facts. And this is what I am talking about. Obama may have been in the same room as someone YOU or someone else views as “radical”, based on their own subjective worldview, BUT, and this is a HIUGE BUT, that does not equate to guilt by association. I know it is so very hard to take as reality because you hate Obama so much but these views are just out of touch with reality. Plain and simple and no amount of stretching that reality will make it true.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      I want to discuss this subject with you, but it is difficult when you tell me how I feel and spend more time judging those who disagree with you than you spend on actually looking at the candidates. I already know the talking points on both sides of the spectrum.

      Whether or not I “hate” Obama isn’t the point and I won’t even bother denying the charge because I don’t think you are in a state of mind to hear me, nor does it make any difference. I will try to show you why I say he hasn’t been transparent and wasn’t vetted.

      Katherine Myer has been filing cases for the Freedom of Information Act since 1978. She says:

      “Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”

      In March of 2011, George Washington University reported that there were 544,360 requests for information last year under the Freedom of Information Act to the 35 biggest federal agencies — 41,000 requests more than the year before. Yet the bureaucracy responded to 12,400 fewer requests than the prior year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. They got the information from Knight Open Government Survey.

      Here is what HuffingtonPost says: Rescind Obama’s Transparency Award Now

      As for vetting, the reason I say that he wasn’t vetted properly is because Barack Obama is much further to the left than Americans were led to believe when he ran for office in 2008. Many believed they were voting for a moderate. He is not a moderate. Just how far left he is still isn’t known because he isn’t transparent. If you judge him by what he says, he is somewhat moderate. If you judge him by his associations and his past he is an extreme far-left person who may very well be a Marxist. If we judge him by his actions he is far to the left.

      Like

  3. Pingback: A Message From The Main Stream Media « News Worldwide

  4. Pingback: Hannity discusses Derrick Bell with Thomas Sowell « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

  5. Pingback: Obama ‘Kenya’ Lit Booklet Raises Question MSM Will Refuse to Ask – John Malcolm

Comments are closed.