Barack and Hilary: It only gets worse.
Posted verbatim, URL at the bottom.
quote:Recently, the two most powerful Democrats in the world issued some truly frightening statements about how they want to change the United States. And yet the media in this country have barely reported on what they had to say. Let's see if we can change that.
First, consider Barack Obama's remarks at a summit on poverty at Georgetown University last week. After blasting how the poor are portrayed in much of the media (especially by his favorite target, Fox News), the president said: "We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues."
You heard him. The president of the United States says he isn't happy about how some of the media in this country portray the poor. So, by golly, "We're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." Isn't that a frightening thought?
Exactly what is it that has Obama so upset? Earlier in his remarks, he had this to say:
"I think that the effort to suggest the poor are sponges, leeches, don't want to work, are lazy, undeserving, got traction. And look, it's still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it's a constant venue."
How would he know how the poor are portrayed on Fox News? You can be sure he never watches it. Nor do the liberals who love him. But they'll never challenge his biased distortions.
Obama wasn't done with his bigoted caricature. He continued with this doozy:
"They will find folks who make me mad. I don't know where they find them. They're all like, 'I don't want to work. I just want a free Obama phone, or whatever.' And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up."
Oh, really? I watch a lot more Fox News than Obama does. And I have never seen anyone say, "I don't want to work. I just want a free Obama phone." Have you? I'm not saying there aren't some people out there who feel this way - maybe a lot of them. Several generations of welfare have produced a whole bunch of folks who have a frightening sense of entitlement. But they don't often go on TV and talk about it.
If you think Obama's goal of changing how the media in this country reports on poverty is ambitious, just wait until you hear what Hillary Clinton said in a campaign appearance last month. Many thanks to Glenn Beck, who posted this verbatim quote from the Democratic candidate for president on his website:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
So Clinton wants to change our "deep-seated cultural codes," does she? And our religious beliefs? And, of course, all those "structural biases" that stand in the way of how she would remake this country. Even Obama, who said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, was never this blatant - or this ambitious.
I shudder to think of the kind of laws the lady will propose to achieve this. Or how many people will support them. After all, the crowd at the speech I've just quoted burst into applause when they heard the lines I just quoted.
So there you have it. Our current president wants to change how the media reports the news. Clinton, who wants to succeed him in the White House, is even more ambitious. She wants news laws that will change "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases."
All in all, it's a pretty frightening vision of how these two want to transform America. And the most frightening thing of all is that a whole lot of people will vote for them to do it.
Let's hope it's not a majority.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
-Chip Wood
http://personalliberty.com/barack-obamas-and-hillary-clintons-most-dangerous-goals-yet/
quote:Recently, the two most powerful Democrats in the world issued some truly frightening statements about how they want to change the United States. And yet the media in this country have barely reported on what they had to say. Let's see if we can change that.
First, consider Barack Obama's remarks at a summit on poverty at Georgetown University last week. After blasting how the poor are portrayed in much of the media (especially by his favorite target, Fox News), the president said: "We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues."
You heard him. The president of the United States says he isn't happy about how some of the media in this country portray the poor. So, by golly, "We're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." Isn't that a frightening thought?
Exactly what is it that has Obama so upset? Earlier in his remarks, he had this to say:
"I think that the effort to suggest the poor are sponges, leeches, don't want to work, are lazy, undeserving, got traction. And look, it's still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it's a constant venue."
How would he know how the poor are portrayed on Fox News? You can be sure he never watches it. Nor do the liberals who love him. But they'll never challenge his biased distortions.
Obama wasn't done with his bigoted caricature. He continued with this doozy:
"They will find folks who make me mad. I don't know where they find them. They're all like, 'I don't want to work. I just want a free Obama phone, or whatever.' And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up."
Oh, really? I watch a lot more Fox News than Obama does. And I have never seen anyone say, "I don't want to work. I just want a free Obama phone." Have you? I'm not saying there aren't some people out there who feel this way - maybe a lot of them. Several generations of welfare have produced a whole bunch of folks who have a frightening sense of entitlement. But they don't often go on TV and talk about it.
If you think Obama's goal of changing how the media in this country reports on poverty is ambitious, just wait until you hear what Hillary Clinton said in a campaign appearance last month. Many thanks to Glenn Beck, who posted this verbatim quote from the Democratic candidate for president on his website:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
So Clinton wants to change our "deep-seated cultural codes," does she? And our religious beliefs? And, of course, all those "structural biases" that stand in the way of how she would remake this country. Even Obama, who said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, was never this blatant - or this ambitious.
I shudder to think of the kind of laws the lady will propose to achieve this. Or how many people will support them. After all, the crowd at the speech I've just quoted burst into applause when they heard the lines I just quoted.
So there you have it. Our current president wants to change how the media reports the news. Clinton, who wants to succeed him in the White House, is even more ambitious. She wants news laws that will change "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases."
All in all, it's a pretty frightening vision of how these two want to transform America. And the most frightening thing of all is that a whole lot of people will vote for them to do it.
Let's hope it's not a majority.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
-Chip Wood
http://personalliberty.com/barack-obamas-and-hillary-clintons-most-dangerous-goals-yet/
0
-
wish these b
d politicians would get off of social engineering and cultural crap and work on the real problems before America is irreversibly lost to history0 -
I wish the general public would finally wake up and see what's going on. 0 -
the disconnect from reality is practically a requirement to be a democrat. 0 -
We have to change the amount of power a president can abuse it seems. 0 -
The part that scares me is that as bad as I think Hillary would be as President (I don't even think she will get the nomination.) I don't think she would be as bad as Obama. My opinion is that Obama is so bad, Hillary could not be as bad as Obama.
With Obama, really negative public opinion wont cause him to change his stance. The Clintons lead by focus groups. They want to be popular!! So if they lay a clinker that turns the bulk of the public against them, flip/flop time!![:D]
Remember when Bill was against welfare reform?? After his veto got over rode and he saw how popular welfare reform was he publicly took credit for welfare reform. That old boy's got a real set of brass ones on him!! Hillary's are bigger than Bill's!![:D]0 -
What would our founding fathers have done if there was a tyrant that got elected and was trying to destroy this country? 0 -
Why you be talkin' smack 'bout our next Prez.? [:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost
Why you be talkin' smack 'bout our next Prez.? [:D]
Because if it's the Hildebeast then we have a very compelling case that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments