Posted on 04/24/2010 7:15:33 PM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is video of Charles Krauthammer commenting on President Obama's speech on Wall Street Reform. Krauthammer said he was "intrigued and appalled" at the tone of Obama's speech.
"The way - and he's done this before - he tries to denigrate, cast out and to delegitimize any argument against his. Here he's talking about it's not legitimate even to suggest that the bill he's supporting might encourage a bailout....The President has this tic in which he presents himself as having this sort of academic, reasonable discourse, but it really has inside of it a sharp edge of partisanship. Look, he won the Presidency. It gives him a big house, a lot of power and a fabulous airplane, but it does not make him the "arbiter of American political discourse."
Very well put by Krauthammer. Obama, while trying to portray himself as open and tolerant, is thin-skinned and unwilling to deal with any criticism or disagreement. But that's standard procedure for those on the Left.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.com ...
fubo
BTW...here is another interesting "tidbit" if you don't know it:
Alinsky had a dedication to Lucifer at the beginning of his book. In subsequent versions, the dedication was removed, so as not to offend clergy whom Alinsky viewed as a necessary tool to be used and exploited. I didn't believe it, but when I finally got the copy to read from the library (I refuse to have a single penny go towards anything or anyone associated with that hideous man) it actually had the dedication it it.
I was told that in more recent printings, it was put back in because the fear of offending clergy was apparently not a huge problem to liberals. Here is the text of Alinsky's dedication to Lucifer:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer
It is also very interesting that the very FIRST paragraph of his book exposes very clearly what he (Alinsky) and they (liberals) are all about:
(From "Rules for Radicals") "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. 'The Prince' was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for Radicals' is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
It is unrestricted class warfare, pure and simple. And it is the bible of Obama, Clinton, and many MANY others in this country.
“but there was something I found profoundly disturbing about seeing those precepts codified in a book and political philosophy that is praised and adhered to by many if not most powerful liberals.”
It is profoundly disturbing. This is literally the darkness and evil in some men’s souls.
The contrast of Saul Alinsky vs Emma Lazarus is a striking example of good vs evil. Thank you for your informative and thought provoking post. Excellent!
Thanks.
I think he got straight A’s in the Alinski classes.
Yes, great article by James Lewis, wasn’t it?
Wouldn’t he make a child cringe when he ripped them to shreds? Hopefully his wife doesn’t take any guff from him, but his poor daughters!
You're exactly right. She deflates his stature, ad does it while remaining much more composed than him. Despite all the media efforts to make her out as an idiot, and all their efforts to characterize Obama as a genius, in my opinion she displays a much better ability to think on her feet.
And ALL times, his narcissism is in play - that's the wild card even the demRats didn't see coming and can nothing to combat it.
Great Job! I love that format...:)
On a serious note, though, I found nothing at all stupid about that book. I found it to be evil. In the hands of immoral people who justify all means by the ends without question, it is dangerous. And we can see the effects on our nation as it is utilized.
I know the book is evil, but what I’m trying to demonstrate is how president stupid can’t take a dump without consulting the book first. He can’t even be a “radical” without step-by-step instruction...that’s all.
I will be taking your reading advice to heart and will start with Thomas Sowell. Thank you again!
“Yes, great article by James Lewis, wasn’t it?”
Indeed a great article! Where did you find it? Do you ever wonder why individuals fail to see that their discontent is being so horribly abused? I’ve never read “Rules for Radicals” and I don’t intend to. When I read works like that it is just too disturbing.
Got the bumper sticker. I’d like to see 200 million or so more of them.
Actually, Thomas Sowell spends a great deal in one of his books on scapegoats in the economy, particularly the “Middle man”, who is despised by liberals, but is critical to a well functioning capitalist society.
Very good stuff Dr. Sowell writes!
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that you can see it that way. The book just bugged the hell out of me.
I know exactly what you mean.
Thank you!
Oh how you loved obama on election night chucky.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.