Can anyone confirm this as legitimate? Great read !

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 24Carat

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 20, 2010
    2,906
    63
    Newburgh
    Newsweek on Obama
    ( must read )
    The liberal Newsweek Magazine is going out of business but not before it attacks the President.
    This is quite an article, even more so when you consider that NEWSWEEK finally had the guts to admit it. WOW
    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...

    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 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 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.

    PS: Please send this article to all family and friends throughout America and ask them to read and distribute this article to others.
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,164
    48
    Indianapolis
    I agree with a lot, didn't vote for him but I think it all points to how little the president actually matters. 7 years later and I honestly don't see where anyone else would have had much a different effect running the country. We're run by an oligarchy, rotating door corporate crony political system. About the worst I can think is that Obama faked his way to the symbolic crown. I don't think how this country is really run changed much under Obama, despite what conservative talk media says. And on the flip side he's not accomplished anything special for the msnbc liberals either. If anything he was simply the manager and chief.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    I'd say he accomplished quite a lot. He has saddled us with Obamacare, made us a laughing stock to the rest of the world. Foisted thousands of cumbersome antibusiness regulations on us, leads the world in pushing the "man made climate change" crap, refuses to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution. Lies to us constantly. Don't think Romney or even McCain would have done near as much damage. That's just for openers. At least Michelle can, for the first time, be proud to be an American.
     

    Drail

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2008
    2,542
    48
    Bloomington
    Almost every single thing he has done has violated his oath and our laws and he should have been tossed into jail a very long time ago. Any President who cannot or will not abide by the U. S. Constitution is guilty of treason and perjury. And it shouldn't be that difficult to get a conviction if only the rest of our Govt. would do their job. He is not the first. I am an old man and our Presidents have been operating with little or no constraint for more years than I have been alive.
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,164
    48
    Indianapolis
    I'd say he accomplished quite a lot. He has saddled us with Obamacare, made us a laughing stock to the rest of the world. Foisted thousands of cumbersome antibusiness regulations on us, leads the world in pushing the "man made climate change" crap, refuses to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution. Lies to us constantly. Don't think Romney or even McCain would have done near as much damage. That's just for openers. At least Michelle can, for the first time, be proud to be an American.

    I think Romney would have just as easily rammed Romney care down our throats, I doubt we can be laughed at more than we were under Bush and regulations get written by big business no matter who's in office. Obama's as bad as the rest we've had but I never see him being that magnitudes of worse hannity and Limbaugh get off to.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,273
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    regulations get written by big business no matter who's in office.

    Yes, that is called capture. All the more reason to have no regulations, or very few, so those doing the capturing do not use government regulation as a fence/barrier to entry to protect their own rice bowls.
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,164
    48
    Indianapolis
    What? Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee years after Obamacare was passed.

    Had Romney been in office when the insurance companies decided to make their product mandatory, socializing medicine has historically been a bipartisan pursuit. Romney is pro universal healthcare on the state level but for freedom on the federal level? Give me a break he just wanted the title and his position on any given issue was whatever the poles said it should be.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Seems like much of this article focuses on his education. What proof do we have that he was "ushered into, and through, the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores"? What proof is there that he was "given a pass?" I'm curious.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    I think Romney would have just as easily rammed Romney care down our throats, I doubt we can be laughed at more than we were under Bush and regulations get written by big business no matter who's in office. Obama's as bad as the rest we've had but I never see him being that magnitudes of worse hannity and Limbaugh get off to.


    You may need to look a little closer.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    According to Snopes:

    The opinion piece referenced above was penned by Matt Patterson and was published (under the title "Obama: The Affirmative Action President") on the American Thinker web site on 18 August 2011. Although the important "who" of the attribution is correct, however, the "where" is incorrect: despite the mention of the Washington Post in the example cited above, this item was never published in either the print or online version of that newspaper (nor, as claimed in later versions, was it published in Newsweekmagazine). A possible explanation for the confusion is that someone viewed the list of publications in which Matt Patterson's work has appeared and mistakenly assumed this piece was syndicated to all of them. (Mr. Patterson isn't a "columnist" for any of the newspapers mentioned, but rather an occasional contributor of opinion pieces.)

    So, it's basically a hit piece.

    Yawn

    I'm not a fan of the current president's "legacy", but facts do matter. This isn't a Newsweek article.
     
    Top Bottom