Finally,
Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is
timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a
reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their
editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and
the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this
a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his agenda are
starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around
him by the liberal media.
___________________________
I
Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson
(columnist – opinion writer)
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.(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
powerlessness, 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 a man in the Oval
Office.
