It's About Reparations, not Socialism

Based upon Obama's ties to radical Afrocentric leaders, I have long thought that he would revisit the issue of reparations for slavery if elected President. Of course, his campaign would never bring up this issue for fear of alienating vast groups of independents and even democrats, but a good look at his record and associations makes this claim not hard to imagine. I am apparently wrong on this issue, however, as Obama has been asked his thoughts about reparations and the answer he gave was that he did not believe in them because, in his words, "reparations do not go far enough". Exactly what does he mean by that?

Well, now we know, as a radio interview from 2001 has surfaced, when Obama was a part-time professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an Illinois State Legislator. In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.
Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of 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," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

So now we know that Obama's agenda is NOT just about redistributing the wealth, in a socialist fashion similar to the European model. It is driven by his Afrocentric belief that whites must "pay back" blacks for the horrible injustices done during the time when this country allowed slavery. No matter that the bloodiest war in our history was fought by whites to free the slaves 150 years ago. No matter that government has attempted to unright these wrongs via social policies such as affirmative action, welfare, the push for sub-prime mortgages, etc. No matter that the ancestors of most whites in this country today did not own slaves, and were not even Americans at the time. In fact, many whites were, at the time of the Civil War, oppressed in their own countries of origin, resulting in their ultimate journey to this land of opportunity.

Nobody dares utter Obama's real agenda for fear of being called a racist. What's incredible, is that he has uttered the words himself, and in 2008, half the country appears to be suffering from an incurable case of deafness.