As soon as this started happening, I recalled in my little noggin the words of straight-shooter Sarah Palin, from back in 2008. She warned that if Obama were elected, Putin might just try to take Ukraine. I mostly remember liberals and their media laughing like hyenas at her about that, as if she were stupid and they were smart — a notion which was actually funny.
Palin wrote this on her Facebook page last Friday:
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
The Washington Post actually came to grips with this fact of life, unlike any other liberal mainstream media, even offering-up that same quote from Palin’s Facebook page. No mea culpas, though, as you might expect. They still think they’re smarter than Sarah Palin. They are not, or they would have agreed back then, instead of laughing.
I also remember the 2012 presidential debates, in which the liberals and their media all laughed like hyenas at what they tried very hard to get you to believe was the equally “stupid” and “insipid” Mitt Romney, when he said, in answer to a debate question, that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical adversary, and Iran the number one threat.
Romney and Palin were both spot on, and the liberals and their media were and are dead wrong. Again. Go ahead and laugh.
What I said, because it’s true:
Geniuses on CNN asking "Well golly, what can we DO at his point?!" Yeah. This is what we warned you about.
— Joel Johannesen (@JoelJohannesen) February 28, 2014
(Typo, yes. I meant “this,” not “his.”) The question they’re asking is really a two-fer. By “what can we do at this point,” I think they mean both America, and themselves in the media. The reality is that the liberal media pushed and pushed, and continue to push Obama as the savior of the new world — the world as seen by what they tried to have us believe was the super-smart, great visionary thinker, and awesome speaker, Barack Obama. Now they fret over that faulty vision, and all the problems it is causing. And they fret that they are complicit. Which we, on the right side, all warned about.
The media cast aside all pretense of impartiality leading up to Obama’s election, and implored Americans to elect him. And yet today they act as if they have always been nothing but passive and objective observers, and earnest reporters on the political scene; like at the Washington Post, which has now offered some realistic analysis — about the past five years since readers took their advice and elected Obama! Here’s the hurt:
By Editorial Board, Published: March 2
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. …
… While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too….
That’s gonna leave a mark. On Obama and on themselves. Which makes me happy.
Obama’s New York Times division is the more insidious rat. Their editorial regarding the Ukraine crisis, headlined “Russia’s Aggression,” is an exercise in the effete. It reads like another liberal academic navel-gaze, without blaming their man Obama — in fact barely mentioning him three times, in passing, and offering only clueless bromides. I won’t even bother quoting it. I’ll just remind you of this instead:
On Twitter, amongst the maelstrom, Buzzfeed.com’s obfuscation was fairly representative. They offered up a jokey picture. Ironically it actually makes a joke of themselves, betraying them as oblivious to reality, too weak to admit their cowardice; or just burying their head in the sand, instead of acknowledging the prescience of Romney and Palin — and the folly of their man Obama and themselves.
Matt Groening was right… http://t.co/Twyo2kBP9o
— BuzzFeed Benny (@bennyjohnson) March 3, 2014
Yeah I guess Matt was right… but so was Mitt. And so was Sarah. And so was most every conservative. So many people were right, and you, media, were all wrong. That’s gotta be worth a laugh or two!
It is all a lot easier than the media are making it out to be. The economy is a mess, still, after five years. Millions are jobless. Americans are divided as never before. Race issues are being torqued by the administration, the race-baiting industry, and all liberals, as never before. Obamacare is a national disaster area. The debt is well over $17 TRILLION. And on the international stage, the world has, as is now blatantly obvious, lost respect for America, to say nothing of “liking” America, which, during the Bush years, was their ever so scientific measure of how the American president was doing.
The media failed.
The difference between right and wrong, good and evil, the right vision and the wrong one, the right instincts and the wrong instincts, fantasy versus reality: Ronald Reagan had it right even before Romney and Palin and most other contemporary conservatives, and the lesson is there for all of us to learn. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, and here we are today with Russian troops literally lining the border of Ukraine with their military poised to take over, possibly sewing the seeds of a new Cold War. Just as Reagan, and a couple others, warned.
Obama hasn’t learned. I hope Americans have.
Left-wing magazine has a miraculous epiphany: Romney was 'exactly right' about Russia==> http://t.co/dGHDWubwf3
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 3, 2014