Better late than never (I guess-
Better NEVER than late, but nobody cared in 2008)
Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is
timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for
being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the
following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest
Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of
itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are
starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by
the liberal media.
___________________________
I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson ( columnist –
opinion writer)
Years from now, historians may regard
the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing
phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps
to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man
so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking
he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most
powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining
Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League,
despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy
non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator
devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his
attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an
unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of
which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in
academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then
there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating,
America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual
mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague
and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking
at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the
incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the
Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close
associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and
an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single
day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes
of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American
injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let
that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard -
because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case,
what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and
elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which
gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and
thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on
the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in
the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment
behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed
primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good
about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer
so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit
minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no
responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out
rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail;
liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated
self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.
Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of
the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but
why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough
for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told
he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in
Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no
record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama
was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample
evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort
of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many
who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved
about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those
people – conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the
hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front
of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.
Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all
warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for
100 years.(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost
word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is
constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.Bush
did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the
job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so
willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could
have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a
small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to
handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand
that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It
could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Original Version Of eRumor:
The Washington Post speaks out on
Obama, finally!............very brutal......timely though.
As I’m sure you know, the Washington
Post newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal,
so the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about
Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story
in and of itself. Finally, the truth about our President and his obvious
agenda is starting to trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by
our liberal media.
By Matt Patterson (columnist -
Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Government & Society:
Years from now, historians may regard
the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing
phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps
to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man
so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking
he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most
powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a
future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into
and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores
along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in
fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present");
and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate,
the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in
academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then
there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating,
America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual
mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague
and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking
at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the
incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the
Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close
associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and
an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single
day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes
of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American
injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let
that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard -
because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case,
what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and
elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which
gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and
thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I
think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative
action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the
motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations,
which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white
liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer
so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit
minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no
responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out
rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail;
liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated
self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.
Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of
the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but
why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough
for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told
he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in
Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no
record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama
was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample
evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort
of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many
who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved
about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those
people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the
hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front
of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.
Not one original idea has ever issued
from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has
failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is
constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush
did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to
see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so
comfortable with his own incompetence.
But really, what were we to expect?
The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him
to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and
small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to
handle his job.
When you understand that, and only
when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and
prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man
in the Oval Office.
