[2ndDivisionVet]

But they're almost never honest, of course.

“As government grew [by itself? did someone grow it?], the antigovernment right mobilized. This produced the Tea Party Movement — a characteristically raw but authentically American revolt led by members of the yeoman enterprising class.”

Good description.

[driftdiver]

Hey DUFUS (David Brooks), BO and his captive media told you what they wanted you to hear. They lied, manipulated, cheated, played you for a fool.

[AdaGray]

David’s Dilemma: How do I keep getting invited to the right cocktail parties?

[dforest]

David Brooks has comdemned himself to be forever stuck on stupid.

Everyone else, well, we have moved along.

[riri]

Hey Brooks, it’s a lot worse than you realize. We are in the midst of a worldwide communist coup, the likes of which Lenin could only dream of. If the United States goes down, and it’s looking dicey, it’s a new dark age for the entire globe.

[Scotsman will be Free]

“but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.””
Impression? What a complete and utter fool.

[AlexW]

Is David Brooks REALLY that stupid, or does he just play a
stupid reporter for the LSM?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

David and millions of others who voted for the ‘magic negro’ are suffering from buyer’s remorse. The Kenyan was a radical socialist thug in Chicago, in the US Senate, and as a presidential candidate. There was no reason to think he would be any different as president.

The 2008 election was a perverted form of reverse racism whose consequences may take a generation or two to unwind.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

What a dope

---

Here’s WHY:

Our national nightmare is:

I think after 9 years with Frank Marshall Davis, the guy with the 601 page FBI file, that Obummer was a full fledged red diaper baby even in Hawaii, and more so at Occidental.

Ask Dr John Drew, PhD, who knew him well .....

(Even Obama’s grandpa had a FBI file !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGBszZ2Qw0

http://www.wor710.com/pages/6350883

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-b-cast-interview-was-obama-a-committed-marxist-in-college/

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/13/marxist-obama-why-the-media-has-been-silent/

We now know the full details of Barry’s Occidental years.

He was an avowed and committed Marxist.

He looked forward to the revolution when the Marxists would overthrow our government.

His love for Marxism was unusually strong .

He was in passionate agreement with the most radical Marxist Leninist professors.

The full interview is devastating.

Too bad Fox News ignored Dr Drew in 2008 when he contacted them.

And:

He wants his own army:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

And

The First Time I Heard of Barack Obama

http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3

By Tom Fife

[rae4palin]

Brooks alter-ego:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/t-coddington-van-voorhees-vii/page/5/

[combat_boots]

Sarah Palin: “Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism”
Sarah Palin’s Notes.
Thu at 7:28pm

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=382303098434

[Moonman62]

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

A link in this piece takes the reader to an earlier Brooks column where he wrote this:

“But “they’re always nice,” Brooks said, adding, “It’s never, ‘You’re a complete asshole.’My line is, the Clinton people would tell you you’re a complete and total asshole. The Obama people say, ‘We love you. You’re a great guy. It’s sad you’re a complete and total asshole.’ They’re always very mature about it.”

Brooks sounds like he accepts their description of him. So, who are we to argue?

[BobL]

“The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.”

I can really help Mr. Brooks with his problem. Mr. Brooks, one does have to look at a candidate’s PAST if one wants to see what the future will be with him. WE HAD THAT PRESIDENT you dream of - it was Bush-43 - Bush invited Kennedy and Clinton and everyone else that hated him into the White House to work with him. Bush was a genuinne NICE GUY, who got along GREAT with Democrats - in TEXAS. But he got along great with them (just ask the Democrats here). Bush was about as post-partisan as one could get. Of course in DC the Democrats are a different bunch and more interested in jailing you for not agreeing with them, rather than working together...so Bush never had a chance.

Obama, on the other hand, HAS ZERO RECORD of working with Republicans and he DESPISES them. No one should be surprised how this presidency’s going - if one simply looked at his past.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine

no

he staffed his administration with thugs and thieves

just like he himself is.

And those punks Ayers and Dohrn, his BFF

take a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRg9il_V328&feature=related

[nathanbedford]

David Brooks cannot honestly claim ignorance in exculpation for getting "history" is so flagrantly wrong. Brooks surely is not unacquainted with with Saul Alinsky neither can he conceivably be unacquainted with Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a manifesto written as a primer for acolytes such as Barack Obama became, to accomplish the deconstruction of America so that the radical leftist revolution can be put in place. The primer explicitly exhorts his followers, among whom Barack Obama became such an enthusiast that he was commissioned to train others, in the arts of revolution and the virtues of lying, deception, demonization and and many other black arts, calculated to cheat Americans out of their birthright.

By virtue of his standing as a pundit for the holiest of holies, The New York Times, Brooks was charged as part of his profession to be aware of all this. Anyone who rises to the belfry of that exalted, elitist tower is charged with knowledge of how communists historically have worked and with knowledge of their disdain for honor. There is no honor to them because they reject the system which runs on honor. Just as there is no Constitution for Barack Obama because he believes that the Constitution has produced an inequitable system. To produce equity, he believes, one must junk the system and to junk the system one must junk the Constitution and all of the expectations and assumptions honorable men infer from that document, the rule of law, the Judeo-Christian culture, and simple decency.

To someone like Barak Obama who was so committed to the radicalism of Saul Alinsky that he would rise to the level within an affiliated organization of tutoring others and then would rise even higher to train those who would train others, there is no decency beyond the "rules" of the radicalism themselves. To believe otherwise is so naïve that it could be embraced only by the anointed Rino of the New York Times.

Mr. Brooks, if you want to understand Barack Obama, either read Saul Alinsky or contemplate Aesop's parable of the scorpion and the frog. David Brooks, you are the frog.

[9YearLurker]

And the little twit calls Palin stupid?

[freeangel]

Brooks has yet to figure out that his american idol is nothing more than a common LIAR whose mission all along was to bring this country down.

[DH]

Well David, you stupid idiot...Obama was a community organizer and never held any type of productive endeavor in his whole life. What would you expect from a person that built their life upon lies and deception?

Nothing went wrong. It was wrong from the start but you liberal Americana haters took wrong for right.

Now, you wonder????????????

[reasonisfaith]

Could be that Brooks was aware all along of Obama’s far left intentions.

Could be that Brooks has been as dishonest as Obama.

[Big Mack]

Was Brooks born stupid or did he receive massive head trauma in later life?