Pit the have's against the have not's in American society and you have a built-in constituency which Democrats have been living off of for years.
Obama is taking this mindset to another level. He wants to take money away from the have's and give it to those who have never tried getting it on their own.
The dominant media has never pressed Obama about just what spreading the wealth around means. In reality, the junior Senator from Illinois wants to give tax breaks to Americans who don't pay taxes. The press has also failed to seek out Obama's position on reparations to African-Americans for suffering related to the years before slavery was abolished in the United States. But it seems in an interview discovered by Matt Drudge, Obama may have made the linkage between the redistribution of wealth and the need to address the economic plight of the African-American community.
In an interview on public radio WBEZ 95.5 FM in 2001 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck] Obama implied the nation's federal courts were not able to fulfill the goals stated within the redistribution of wealth theory because of the way they were now comprised. In fact, Obama criticizes the Founding Fathers by stating "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." But it must be noted in the 2001 WBEZ-FM interview, Obama was speaking primarily about racial issues in his pitch for the redistribution of wealth narrative.
Obama clearly believes giving money to those without jobs will not only create social equality, but feels such a program would stimulate the nation's economy. The only problem with this fiscal agenda is that it mimics socialism more than it does free market capitalism, the basis of an economy in a democratic republic. Obama has also voiced his support for reparations, besides the inferences which can be taken from the 2001 interview with public radio.
In addition, Obama addressed the issue of reparations during his U.S. Senatorial campaign in Illinois against former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in 2004. Combine this with the fact members of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Obama attended for 20 years, are leaders in the reparations movement and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama's long-time spiritual advisor, have been outspoken about the government's enslavement of the black community, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to believe Obama adopted these views regarding compensation for African-Americans.
During his U.S. Senatorial race with opponent Keyes, Obama said reparations for blacks would be appropriate in funding education [http://video.aol.com/video-detail/edwards-against-reparations-obama-suggest-money-for-education-instead/3126999430]. But, if reparations were suitable for educational purposes, what about blacks who were beyond the age where extending their education would be impractical? Would Obama favor these reparations for African-Americans up to the age of 18 or 22 or 50?
I suppose there would be blacks who would claim, because they were too old to return to school, they still should be entitled to a cash payout. In fact, I agree. Why should one segment of the African-American community receive "damages" when another segment of the same population would not be entitled to reparations for slavery which existed in the American south nearly 150 years ago?
It is easy to understand why Obama hasn't been pressed on the issue of reparations by the dominant media. A vast majority of Americans outside the African-American community strongly oppose any pay-outs to blacks related to the issue of slavery. And, if Obama elaborated on the issue, it could have dire consequences for his presidential bid.
Are the words "spreading the wealth around" code speak for the idea of reparations for African-Americans? Obama has implied it in his words. And, as president, he would have the ability to accomplish this goal by stacking the federal courts with judges who share his radical views. The fact Democrats may control a super majority in both the House and Senate indicates the idea of reparations may be addressed very early in an Obama administration.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
It wasn't even coded, he speaks of taking from those who produce to give to those who do not. If I see someone in need, and choose to give them help, that is charity. If the government takes my money and chooses who to give it to, that is armed extortion.
Posted by: Charlie | October 28, 2008 at 02:34 PM