While it is true, as Obama has pointed out in defense of himself, that America has known some degree of social interventionism in its sociopolitical history, Obama´s desire to ¨spread the wealth around¨ has nothing to do with social “fairness.”
Obama’s economic ideology is rooted in Marxism, but his modus operandi comes from Saul Alinsky. Those who espouse Marxist theory but live in democratic societies will likely engage in “social work” as a means of advancing their goals unhindered and with government funding. That is why Obama chose to work as a community organizer, an indoctrination method introduced by radical leftist Saul Alinsky, instead of taking a lucrative corporate job. There is a deeper significance, however, to this job choice in his young adulthood. Obama did not want to wear an “oreo” suit. While Obama is half-white, he chose to reject the white side of his heritage and embrace his blackness in a manner that fit into his radical paradigm. Enter Black Liberation Theology.
Obama did not spend twenty years of his life in Jeremiah Wright’s church because his mentor was an inspiring Christian pastor. He did so because he too is racist; not just racist, but a radical racist. Most of America agrees that Wright and Pfleger were not preaching about racial injustice and inequality. Those sermons were about hatred of white dominance, and they were about black power. This is very evident in one of Pfleger’s remarks on Hillary Clinton:”
‘This is mine… I’m white’… And then, out of nowhere, came ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.” And she said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show…”‘ [bold is mine]
Now let’s review one of Obama’s remarks, in the light of the remarks made by his priest friend and campaign contributor:
So what they are going to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like those other presidents on the dollar bills. [bold is mine]
Although some whites have had the courage – and it does take a lot of guts – to call Obama out on these racist remarks, I have not heard anyone tie them to Black Liberation Theology. Oh, but they most certainly are.
To begin with, it is interesting that at the onset of his presidential campaign Obama sees himself as already seated in the Oval Office, given that he compares himself to other presidents. He states that they would compare him to other presidents, which is a clear reference to whites. After all, why would blacks be scared of a black man? Now, excluding the two-dollar bill, half of the other bills honor great American heroes who were NOT presidents. Why then does Obama refer only to presidents. Here’s why: Obama sees himself as *The One who will succeed at the historical task of legitimizing the black man’s right to power, of overturning the unwanted white hegemony, or as he collectively labels them, “those other presidents”. * That is why he recently boasted with great exhilaration that “We will change America, and we will change the world.” Michelle Obama gives a more precise meaning to that goal in one of her speeches:
“All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
In all fairness, McCain must have unconsciously picked up Obama’s underlying message, because he also slipped and called Obama, “THAT one.” Those of us who feel the racial divide that Obama has spurred by putting his half-black heritage in the face of whites, either with his own remarks or that of his emissaries, and then turning around and accusing the McCain camp of being racist, are both outraged and deeply saddened by this. What makes his behavior even more egregious is that Barack Obama has never significantly improved the lives of needy blacks either in America or Kenya. This is proof that his racist remarks have very little to do with compassion for his people, and a lot to do with power for himself.
I have mentioned only two of several slips that help reveal Obama’s complex ideological makeup. When they happen, Obama always insists that his words were taken out of context. The big mistake his good-hearted sympathizers keep making is that they resort only to the immediate context, to judge the veracity of his explanations. Obama cannot be judged in such a limited context. Rather, the words of a man with a radical and often obscure background should be studied within the context of his entire life. Thus the superficial meaning of Obama’s dollar bill remark is that of a black man playing the race card, while the subjacent text is his claim to be The One whose destiny it is to replace “THOSE OTHER PRESIDENTS.”
In like manner, Obama’s intention to “spread the wealth around” is not about “fairness.” It is about radical justice. Obviously, Obama has not used incendiary language. That would have destroyed his run for the presidency. However, as Jesus rightly observed, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Despite the teleprompter, the campaign advisors, and all the frenzied media spin, it is impossible for a presidential candidate in a democracy not to slip and speak from his heart. Just ask that ordinary guy who caught him off guard.
Like many, I hope and pray that it is not too late; that you moderates who are still undecided or open to reconsidering your initial choice will vote for the moderate candidate, who is John McCain. Otherwise, America WILL certainly change. Obama will not, and the big winners in this election will be racial strife, nationwide community organizing à la Saul Alinsky, and economic egalitarianism à la Karl Marx.