I too have become disillusioned. By Matt Patterson


I too have become disillusioned

 By Matt Patterson
Matt Patterson is senior editor at the Capital Research Center and contributor to Proud to be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation (HarperCollins, 2010).

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of barrack 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 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502093021646166.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ): 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 dome 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?

Phosphore 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 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. 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. 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.

Send by Bronia Garteiz

Published by Guaty Marrero

More Patterson’s articles: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html

6 Comentarios

  1. Excellent article and one that should be a must read for all citizens before going into the voting booth this November.

    By the way, just a few minutes ago the Democrats reversed their action and place the word “God” back into their platform as well as “Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel”. They brought the vote to the delegates on the floor, live, and had to do the voting twice because the NO’s sounded louder than the YES’s , but they ignored the “NO’s (twice) and amended the platform. Why… because politically it was creating chaos and taking over the conversation and shadowing their convention, Not because they really wanted to amend the platform.

  2. Exactly, Maggie, The NO’s had it and didn’t want the words God and Jerusalem back in their platform. But they can only push so far, and they don’t want to show their full hand, not just yet. It’s all a sick political game to keep votes and after barely a day they knew removing those words was a big mistake and problematic to most voters.

    And to follow-up, the president was going to speak at the Bank of America Stadium which holds about 70,000 seats, but now, he will speak at the Charlotte Convention Center, which is where the DNC is holding the convention, (with great expectations for the Obama stadium grandstanding). They report that the reason for the change of venue is due to expected thunderstorms in the area; but looking at the crowds showing at the Charlotte Convention Center makes me wonder if they couldn’t fill a 70,000 seat stadium for the messiah this time around. By the way and if you are wondering, The Tampa Bay Times Forum and home of the Republican National Convention is twice as big holding twice as many people as the DNC venue in Charlotte.

Favor de no agregar videos ni artículos completos de sus páginas, gracias

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s