The lesson of the Obama Presidency is that intentional discrimination is perfectly fine...

...when the discrimination is against whites or men.


//During President Obama’s year-end press conference Friday, he took eight questions — all from women.

Obama took questions from the Associated Press’ Julie Pace, Bloomberg BNA’s Cheryl Bolen, McClatchy’s Lesley Clark, Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown, Reuters’ Roberta Rampton, the Wall Street Journal’s Colleen Nelson, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin and American Urban Radio’s April Ryan.

No one from major TV networks — and no men — were called on. No Ed Henry, no Jon Karl, none.

The move was intentional, according to TIME political reporter Zeke Miller, who quoted Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

“The fact is, there are many women from a variety of news organizations who day-in and day-out do the hard work of covering the president of the United States,” Earnest said. “As the questioner list started to come together, we realized that we had a unique opportunity to highlight that fact at the president’s closely watched, end-of-the-year news conference.”

Considering what turned out to be a poor ending for the year in women’s issues — namely campus sexual assault — Obama needed to bring attention back on women.

Obama tried in April to spearhead a movement this year and continue the momentum of the “war on women” narrative, but it suffered a number of setbacks: Due process supporters piped up, a major story about campus rape was exposed as a hoax, Republicans defeated candidates who overdid the "war on women" theme. To put it briefly, the president needed a win, and this is what he came up with.//

Why government doesn't work...

...when we promote people for something other than competence but have to pretend it was because of competence, and we can't admit otherwise because War on Women! or Racism!, then we end up with disasters in positions of power.

Senate Report on Torture did not identify the woman responsible for American intelligence failures.

For the past eight months, there has been a furious battle raging behind closed doors at the White House, the C.I.A., and in Congress. The question has been whether the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would be allowed to use pseudonyms as a means of identifying characters in the devastating report it released last week on the C.I.A.’s abusive interrogation and detention program. Ultimately, the committee was not allowed to, and now we know one reason why.

The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.—a woman who he does not name—appears to have been a source of years’ worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.

Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.”

Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.’s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in “Zero Dark Thirty.”)

According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman—whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold—had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks. As I recount in my book “The Dark Side,” the C.I.A. got wind that one of these Al Qaeda operatives, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had obtained a multiple-entry visa into the United States eighteen months before 9/11. The agency also learned, months before the attacks, that another Al Qaeda operative, Nawaf al-Hazmi, had flown into Los Angeles. Yet the C.I.A. appears to have done nothing. It never alerted the F.B.I., which had the principle domestic authority for protecting the U.S. from terror attacks. Its agents had, in fact, been on the trail of at least one of the hijackers previously, but had no way of knowing that he had entered the United States. Nor did the C.I.A. alert the State Department, which kept a “TIPOFF” watch list for terror suspects.

This also puts a lie to the Senate Democrats claim that they released the report to inform the American people about their government. They were willing to inform terrorists about intelligence gathering, but pointing a finger at a female was War on Women!

Affirmative Action - the game that elite liberals play to screw the rest of us.

What else can it be when Harvard prof. Elizabeth Warren (See picture) is described as a "woman of color."  

What color? Pink?

From Taranto's Best of the Web, which quotes Politico:

Although Warren has denied that she used her ostensible minority status to advance her career in race-obsessed academia, Politico reports that "a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School's 'first woman of color':

The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was "Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue."

"There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries," the piece says. "This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons [sic]. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."