Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama!

READ ALL OF THIS AND THEN ACT ON THE INDITMENT IN THE LAST PARAGRAGH.

 

THE CONSTITUTION READS AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 6.

 

In case of the REMOVAL of the president from office, or of his ====INABILITY TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SAID OFFICE, The same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the CONGRESS may by law provide for the case of removal, =====OR INABILIITY, BOTH OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT, DECLARING WHAT OFFICER SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT, AND SUCH OFFICER SHALL ACT ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE DISABLITY BE REMOVED, OR A PRESIDENT SHALL B ELECTED. 

 

SEND ALL OF THIS TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE RIGHT NOW.

 

ARNOLD J. NASS

Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama!  This is very brutal,
timely though.   As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper
has a reputation for being extremely liberal.  So the fact that its
editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its
newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of
itself.  At last, the truth about our President and his obvious
socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall”
built around him by our liberal media.
I too have become disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)

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.

What 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.

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.