[Rushtalk] The Press Turns on the White House w/reality?
wbbanjo at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 5 09:03:28 MST 2013
Excellent article that exposes this big national mistake using only bare bones information easily available in the MSM. The back story on this travesty suggests this mistake is a national disgrace.
From: John A. Quayle <blueoval57 at verizon.net>
To: Rushtalk <rushtalk at csdco.com>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: [Rushtalk] The Press Turns on the White House w/reality?
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
>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
>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 clich��s, 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
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk