“Relying on divine Providence”

From The Patriot Papers After the Election
Relying on divine Providence
 
Fellow Patriot,

    Despite the appearance that our country is sliding into the abyss by repeating the paths of past extinct governments studied by the Framers, there is hope “relying on divine Providence”. As in all of history, each individual is accountable and responsible for their actions and decisions, and powers and principalities are ultimately accountable to God. The election is over. We have only ourselves to blame knowing that perhaps the greatest con man ever still inhabits the White House! How we respond to what God would have us do next is the question. The fate of future generations rests in our hands. Will this “one Nation under God … conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal … perish from the earth”?

   
August 18, 2011

Obama: The Affirmative Action President

By Matt Patterson

     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 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 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 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 U.S. 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 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.

    But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while.  And really, isn’t that all that matters these days?

See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events

Update:

Author’s Note.  A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action.  Three reasons:

1)  As reported by The New York Sun: “A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors…”  In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law.  Why?

2)  Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man.  As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:

“‘Obama’s book ‘Dreams from My Father,’….the president recalled a time in his life…when he started to drift away from the path of success. ‘I had learned not to care,’ Obama wrote. ‘… Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.’ But his mother confronted him about his behavior. ‘Don’t you think you’re being a little casual about your future?” she asked him, according to the book. ‘… One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven’t even started on your college applications.'”  

3)  Most damning to me is the president’s unwillingness to make his transcripts public.  If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance?  To me it all adds up to affirmative action. 

Mattpattersonline.com

There’s an old expression that many of us have heard……

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day (and create a welfare dependent).

Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself his entire life.

Conservatives love this axiom as it demonstrates that responsible individuals able to deal with the misfortunes and afflictions of life are capable of providing for themselves and don’t need any government bureaucracy to take care of their daily needs. What is needed is for government to do what one cannot do alone as expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Liberals hate it for exactly the same reason that conservatives love it. It is true. Giving something to a person creates a dependency, robs them of the self-worth gained only from working and earning, sustains bureaucracy, and ignores history.

The key point….

Most governments that ignore the realities and lessons of history relative to the constancy and repetition of failed human behavior never last. The  bureaucratic parasite living in the White House is an expert at stealing fish from the productive responsible working American and giving them to those who would rather not work. The parasite knows he can get elected to office by stealing fish, because he only loses the vote of the man he steals from, but gains the vote of two or three other parasites who would prefer that someone else does the fishing for them.

After a while, the parasite is thought of as an “important” man. ‘Treated like a world dignitary’ ‘A man of “power and prestige”‘. He has never created a single job. The bureaucracy that he is a part of does nothing to support itself only sucking from its host. He has no skills to start or operate a company. Every dollar he ever spent in his life may well have been worked for and earned by someone else……

It’s easy to forget a simple fact about such a parasite……..

His only skill is stealing, emaciating, and killing fish.

Leave a Reply