Well Now
jere.chievres
2012/07/31 23:31:41
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
67% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
33% | |||
From: "Rich Spoley" <rvspol@reisenbach.com>
Subject: Washington Post
Date: July 31, 2012 4:38:39 PM CDT
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:10:19 -0500Washington Post on Obama -
FINALLY!
As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a
reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself.
Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to
trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.
Matt Patterson (columnist for the 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 teleprompter 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.
Go back and read it again!!!....and pass it on!!!!
FINALLY!
As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a
reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself.
Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to
trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.
Matt Patterson (columnist for the 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 teleprompter 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.
Go back and read it again!!!....and pass it on!!!!
Huffington Post and MSNBC are just "liberal," while Fox News and The National Review are just "conservative." On the other hand, "The Nation" is extremely liberal, while WND is extremely conservative.
(IMHO)