Who Is Obama? Where Is the Press?
- 06-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Who Is Obama? Where Is the Press?
Who Is Obama? Where Is the Press?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.
This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.
For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:
"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.
"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."
Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.
A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?
Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
- 06-15-2008, 11:00 AM
Responsible media is pipe dream. Responsible media would have been in an outcry over Hillary's mistreatment during the DNC Primary's.......but they weren't, because they feared offending Obama and being accused of being racist. Its far more acceptable to be a chauvenist (sp) pig than a racist. Never mind that no one knows anything about BO, everyone who supports him is doing it for one of 3 reasons. 1 - change sounds good to them and they are blinded by fancy speeches 2 - they are as far left and radical as he is or... and this one hurts peoples feelings but its true...... 3- they too are black, and they are voting simply based on skin color.
No - not a Hillary fan either. But not because she's a woman. Its because I disagree with many of the principles and ideas she stands firmly on.
06-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Obama has turned out to be a big disappointment. He talks about change, but it turns out the only change he's talking about is just to change from a Republican president to a Democrat one. After that there's no change. He just wants to implement standard Democrat socialist ideas. Higher taxes on the rich (anyone making over $10 an hour), higher capital gains tax, raise the limit for paying into the social security program, national health care, more federal hand out programs to everyone except me, hand gun bans, windfall taxes, no new drilling, against big cars and suv's. I fail to see how any of this is going to help me.
Then on the other hand we have McCain. He's the lamest Republican candidate to came along that I can remember. I have a hard time believing anything he says. He only acts like a Republican now when he's running for president, but before that it was hard to tell any difference from him and a Democrat.
On a scale of 1 to 10 I give Obama a 1 and McCain a 2. No matter who wins this election, life in America is going to become a lot harder for everyone except the rich.
06-18-2008, 01:10 PM
If you want to know who Obama is, just visit his wesite. I think he is a huge step up from George Bush. I think he is worth a shot. Vote Obama so this country can head in a new direction that is more suitable for our younger generation and not a step back into the past which is what John Mcain is proposing (George Bushes third term).
06-18-2008, 01:30 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Markusrulezzz in forum Training ForumReplies: 14Last Post: 04-19-2011, 02:23 PM
- By Markusrulezzz in forum Training ForumReplies: 6Last Post: 11-09-2010, 09:13 PM
- By Vtaper in forum PoliticsReplies: 76Last Post: 02-08-2010, 11:28 AM
- By RenegadeRows in forum General ChatReplies: 51Last Post: 06-06-2008, 12:02 PM
- By Rock Lee in forum Training ForumReplies: 5Last Post: 03-15-2004, 12:03 PM