Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Dee Perez-Scott: Obama's Marxism on Display


Dee Perez-Scott: Obama's Marxismm on Display
Subject: Washington Post looks at Obama
Well! It seems the liberal Washington Post just had an epiphany. It doesn’t matter if the recipients of this are R’s or D’s, the fact remains that this reporter got closer to the truth than anything I’ve seem come out of the Post up to now. I am not thrilled with the gaggle of wannabes being held up for evaluation (ridicule?) by the R’s, but to simply vote this guy back in with another four years f “Hope and Change” isn’t going to do us much good. It’s too bad the D’s don’t decide to go find a more moderate
candidate to run at the conventions. There is a large segment of the population who don’t have a candidate yet, on either of the two extremes. I don’t think any of us want to hear any more of: “I am more conservative, more liberal, or more progressive than he/she is.” Some of us would prefer, “I am
more reasonable in my thought processes. There are progressive and conservative things to look at, but there is an established set of values and practices which should not be thrown out or treated as politically incorrect.” I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind who would want to touch the hem of the garment of these bums.

The Washington Post
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President 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, 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 [and dumbing down] 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 clich├ęs, 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.


(Reader comment: I think too many miss the fact that Obama's intentions are to ruin this country; reduce it to a third-world country level; redistribute the
wealth that it produces and make it suffer. He was taught to hate America.)

No comments: