Unite Our Nation
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 560
“I will change the world.” Cal Thomas reminds us that he means it:
Is socialism too strong a word [for Obama's end goal]? Consider one of its definitions from dictionary.com and tell me it is something other than Obama’s economic philosophy: “A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.”
A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station. According to Politico.com, in that interview, Obama, “reflecting on the Warren Court’s successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights, said, “I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.” He has it backward. The Creator already endowed African-American people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr. Any rights that are “vested” in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people. Endowed rights are “unalienable” and what America did was to finally recognize those rights. The distinction is crucial because it also relates to abortion and many other social issues. If a court can take away the right to life, then no endowed right is safe.
Obama continues with a comment that the “Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.” Does he mean that for real “justice” to have been achieved, the Warren Court should have taken from the rich and given to the black poor? Obama never said what would happen once the redistributed money ran out. Perhaps this was not to be a one-time event, but a lifetime of “reparations” for slavery, as some other left-wing black leaders have proposed.
My question for you: Is the socialist dream really the world we want?
Victims of Nazi Germany would say no. Victims of Soviet Russia would say no. Victims of Communist Poland would say no. Victims of Communist Eastern Germany would say no. Victims of Communist Czechoslovakia would say no. Victims of North Korea would say no. Victims of Communist Bulgar would say no. Victims of every foul Marxist regime in Africa would say no. Victims of Communist China would say no. Victims of Castro Cuba would say no. Victims of Chavez’s Venezuela would say no. Those watching Europe turn into Eurabia as the socialist dream turns into zero population growth creating a vacuum filled by radical Islam would say no. Victims of Canadian socialized medicine would say no. Victims of British socialized medicine would say no."
Is socialism too strong a word [for Obama's end goal]? Consider one of its definitions from dictionary.com and tell me it is something other than Obama’s economic philosophy: “A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.”
A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station. According to Politico.com, in that interview, Obama, “reflecting on the Warren Court’s successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights, said, “I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.” He has it backward. The Creator already endowed African-American people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr. Any rights that are “vested” in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people. Endowed rights are “unalienable” and what America did was to finally recognize those rights. The distinction is crucial because it also relates to abortion and many other social issues. If a court can take away the right to life, then no endowed right is safe.
Obama continues with a comment that the “Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.” Does he mean that for real “justice” to have been achieved, the Warren Court should have taken from the rich and given to the black poor? Obama never said what would happen once the redistributed money ran out. Perhaps this was not to be a one-time event, but a lifetime of “reparations” for slavery, as some other left-wing black leaders have proposed.
My question for you: Is the socialist dream really the world we want?
Victims of Nazi Germany would say no. Victims of Soviet Russia would say no. Victims of Communist Poland would say no. Victims of Communist Eastern Germany would say no. Victims of Communist Czechoslovakia would say no. Victims of North Korea would say no. Victims of Communist Bulgar would say no. Victims of every foul Marxist regime in Africa would say no. Victims of Communist China would say no. Victims of Castro Cuba would say no. Victims of Chavez’s Venezuela would say no. Those watching Europe turn into Eurabia as the socialist dream turns into zero population growth creating a vacuum filled by radical Islam would say no. Victims of Canadian socialized medicine would say no. Victims of British socialized medicine would say no."
