Another good read:
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:23 pm
http://theweek.com/articles/472965/news ... redibility
——————————————————————————————————————————–
By Matt Patterson
(Newsweek Columnist — Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as
an inscrutable and 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, less 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? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked
for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar.
We have no documentation for any of his claims. He may well be the
greatest hoax in history. 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
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. (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 powerless-ness, 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 an
impostor in the Oval Office.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
By Matt Patterson
(Newsweek Columnist — Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as
an inscrutable and 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, less 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? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked
for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar.
We have no documentation for any of his claims. He may well be the
greatest hoax in history. 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
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. (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 powerless-ness, 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 an
impostor in the Oval Office.
