[Rushtalk] The Press Turns on the White House w/reality?

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Mon Mar 4 12:18:26 MST 2013


><http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/affirmative.asp>http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/affirmative.asp 
>– it was only on-line as a column, not in print of the Wash. Post.
>
>THE WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA!
>
>Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on 
>Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As 
>I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper 
>has 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. At last, the truth about 
>our President and his obvious socialist agenda 
>are starting to trickle through the 
>“protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.
>
>I too have become disillusioned
>
>By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, 
>New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Please pass this on after you read this one. 
>Suddenly people are getting wise to this enemy of our USA
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130304/d6a65d2d/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list