The New York Post Hits Obama

[Kathryn Ball]

 

FINALLY.........however, too little? TooLate?

 

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.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

We've all been screaming about this presidential "FRAUD" ever since he became the democrat candidate in 2008!

And now 3 years into the "disaster" we're supposed to all of a sudden get hit in the face with this news flash???

Guys like this Washington Post columnist should be hung by their dangling participles!

[Kathryn Ball]

Deborah...I generally validate these things before posting......I am sorry to say that it appeared in "The American Thinker" on 18 August, 2011. Thank you for reminding me not to be lazy in the future!

Kate

[Deborah Moore]

Do you have the link for this? Great read.