New York Times fears a 1980-style presidential ‘shellacking’

8
2408
Enablers of terrorist Iran, presidents Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

WASHINGTON, April 12, 2015 — It’s never been a secret that the politically regressive “progressives” on the New York Times editorial board hate freedom. And so, in last Sunday’s lead editorial, they came out full square for a totalitarian state under the iron boot of Supreme Leader Barack Obama.

The Times is concerned that, as the failed Obama presidency heads into the final stretch and his policies become a  greater concern to voting Americans, frightened citizens, especially those that have never voted before, will continue replacing tangential establishment Republicans in Congress with robust conservative-libertarian-tea partiers.

That is why the Times finds the return of a vibrant GOP opposition party “disturbing” and fears it will “undermine not just Mr. Obama’s policies, but his “very legitimacy as president.”

The process by which the American people undermine Obama’s policies (executive amnesty, job-stifling government spending and debt and Obamacare) and his legitimacy as president are called elections. You know, it’s all part of that pesky and sometimes messy course of action called democracy.


America is prone to radical shifts in direction because its people are not stringent ideologues like the frightened editorial writers at the New York Times. The same people that elected Jimmy Carter president in 1976 sent him packing four years later in favor of Ronald Reagan.

It’s a president’s foolish and dangerous policies that “undermine” his “very legitimacy” with the American people.

As you may recall, it was Carter’s dismal handling of the Iranian hostage crisis that turned Americans away from him and paved the way for the rise of the first and only modern conservative president.

The Times obviously fears Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran, which legitimizes the possession of nuclear weapons by the globe’s foremost exporter of Islamic terror, will backfire, affecting the president’s legacy and the electoral prospects for Democrats (read Hillary Clinton) in 2016.

In defending the indefensible, the Times contends that conservative Republicans are “blatantly racist” and that it is “impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role” in their opposition to Obama’s policies, domestic and foreign.

“Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy,” said the Times, “was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran, saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

Actually, the open letter simply reminded Obama and his new-found friends in Tehran that “under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.”

The Times, Obama and Iran’s ruling mullahs see the U.S. Constitution, with its clear separation of powers for its described coequal branches of government, and mandated elections, as a threat to the legitimacy of, well, totalitarian evil.

And nowhere in that founding document does it say the Senate must relinquish its role of “advice and consent” based solely on the pigmentation of the nation’s chief executive. That would indeed be racist.

The Times’ ham-fisted use of the race card, to borrow a phrase from its editorial, “is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion” that the flaky left’s pulp disseminator of dangerous notions fears a continued electoral backlash that began with the tea party “shellacking” of 2010 and the Republican sweep of 2014.

And no one is more aware of that continuing backlash, and its parallel to a feckless Jimmy Carter and Iran’s criminal leadership, than GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz.

At a 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference round table with reporters and bloggers, Cruz said, “I think the parallels between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are uncanny and I believe 2016 will be an election like 1980.”

And, apparently, so does the New York Times.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Gary Miller

    This is a joke, right?

    • James Brown

      Hardly.

    • Mark Moore

      Read it again. No joke

  • “The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated.” –Thomas Jefferson

  • jlord37

    Not to worry New York crimes, we all know what the real outcome of the next ” election ” will be. Whatever the power structure wants it to be. Rest assured that whoever gets into power Will continue to follow orders like the good little shills that they are . The elections are there to serve as a means to keep the deceive the sheeple into thinking that that they actually have va say in their own government.

  • Daniel Omell

    President Obama got a lot of flack for not stepping into formation with congress and the status quo; am I right? What would happen if a President was elected who did? What ramifications would there be, if a congress that had the interests of other than the American people, was unified in power over the American people with a President who supported the interests’ of a global elite? What degree of legally binding power, might this unified political ‘beast’ hold? I think the bankers’ and financial markets are an entity that can be mollified and modified globally….but to wield absolute power over the United States of America…irreparable! Just saying….

  • ParkerShannon

    The writer should have a link to “last Sunday’s lead editorial.”
    I, for one would like to have read what the Times had to say.