Community Organizing: Power and Redistribution – Reason #62

Only 105 Days Remaining!

Community Organizing: Power and Redistribution

In a 2001 interview on Chicago’s WBEZ radio, Obama unveiled his belief that economic justice in America can only be achieved through the redistribution of income – a concept not unlike that voiced by Karl Marx many years earlier.  He also appears to have suggested that the way to achieve redistribution was not through the courts, but in the streets – through agitation and community organizing.

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth – and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society – and to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted – and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

“It says what the states can’t do to you.  It says what the federal government can’t do to you.  But it doesn’t say what the federal government, or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted – and one of the – I think – tragedies of the civil rights movement, I think, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.  In some ways, we still suffer from that.”[i] (emphasis added)

In little more than a sound-bite, Obama provided us with a very important insight into his view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it.  Here, he seems to be touching on the argument for bigger government (“what…government must do on your behalf”), while chastising the Warren Court for upholding the Constitutional constraints written by the Founding Fathers.  Then, as if echoing these words from Karl Marx – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”[ii] – he talks about both the redistribution of wealth and the ability of community organizers to put together coalitions capable of producing “redistributive changes.” [iii] 

That line produces instant images of ACORN pressuring banks and nonbank lenders to adopt a financial paradigm in which loans could be made to people regardless of their credit worthiness and ability to pay.[iv]  Indeed, history strongly suggests that Obama’s formula here, would result in coercive, disruptive, “in your face” practices.  Was this his intention as an expert Organizer?


[i] Odyssey, WBEZ 91.5FM , Chicago, (2001) audio contained in story by Steve Schippert,(October 27, 2008), Wizbang blog.com, Wealth Redistribution An Unattained Civil Right: Obama Interview, retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php

 

[ii] David Lane, Politics and Society in the USSR, (New York, 1978, New York University Press), 8

[iii] Odyssey, WBEZ 91.5FM , Chicago, (2001) audio contained in story by Steve Schippert,(October 27, 2008), Wizbang blog.com, Wealth Redistribution An Unattained Civil Right: Obama Interview, retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php

 

[iv] Steven Malanga, Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer, (Chicago, 2010, Ivan R. Dee), 133-151

Obama and “The Same Rules?” – Reason #57

Only 114 Days Remaining!

“When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules”

How many times have we heard President Obama say:

“I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them.”[i]

It is a fitting illustration of this Administration’s hypocrisy to note that as of September, 2010, Obama and his Administration were “reclaiming” these American values as follows:

41 White House Aides owed $831,000 in back taxes

1,971 members of Holder’s Dept. of Justice, owed $14,350,152 in overdue taxes

4,856 members of the Dept. of Homeland Security, owed $37,012,174 to the IRS

In all, federal employees throughout the U.S. owed one billion dollars in back taxes[ii]

Obama rails against so-called “millionaires and billionaires” (he really means everybody making over $250,000 per year) not paying their fair share.  Obama preaches the need for redistributing America’s wealth, in order to give everyone a fair shot.  But, at the end of the day, it appears that Obama and members of his Administration mean to promote American values only with our money – not theirs.


[i] President Barack Obama, (Dec. 6, 2011), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president-economy-osawatomie-kansas

[ii] Andrew Malcolm (Sep. 10, 2010), LA Times Web-site, Political Commentary, Top of the Ticket, 41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes — and they’re not alone, retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ready to Gift Your Job?” – Reason #53

Only 118 Days Remaining!

Freedom of Speech a Distraction

Mark Lloyd, often dubbed the “Diversity Czar,” is actually Obama’s Chief Diversity Officer, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission.  In his book, Prologue to a Farce, Lloyd makes a comment that may not place him so far from Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein.

“At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a DISTRACTION from the critical examination of other communications policies.”[i]

He also has some disturbing views of interracial relationships and affirmative action in America, that make his appointment as “Diversity Czar” somewhat troubling.  In one statement, the “Diversity Czar” tells us that – at least in his eyes:

“There are few things I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark skin black men.  Here I am.” [ii]

As to Affirmative Action, Lloyd tells us that:

“…we have really, truly, good  white people in important positions – and the fact of the matter is, that there is a limited number of those positions – and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color – gays, other people in those positions – we will not change the problem.  We’re in a position where you have to say ‘Who is going to step down, so someone else can have power?’”[iii]

Is this the Obama administration’s interpretation of equal opportunity, or is this simply a sugar coated approach to class warfare?


[i] Mark Lloyd, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, (Chicago, 2006, University of Illinois Press), 20

[ii] Mark Lloyd, (May, 2005), Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice, audio sound bites posted by Breitbart TV web-site, FCC ‘Diversity Czar’: Few Things Frighten Americans More Than ‘Dark Skin Black Men’, retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://www.breitbart.tv/fcc-%E2%80%98diversity-czar%E2%80%99-few-things-frighten-americans-more-than-%E2%80%98dark-skin-black-men%E2%80%99/

[iii] Ibid

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are You Using “Low Value” Speech? – Reason #52

Only 119 Days Remaining!

First Amendment Threatened

Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, reflects the radical nature of the Obama administration in several ways: In his beliefs that:

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives…”[i]

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be “…a two-tiered First Amendment with a distinction between high-value and low-value speech,”[ii]

In mocking conservatives on the 2nd Amendment, as believing a “trigger lock interferes with his efforts at self-defense against criminals,” [iii] and

In his belief that “There is no liberty without dependency…That is why we should celebrate tax day…” [iv](Emphasis added)


            [i] Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner, ed., (Washington, DC, 2009, National Republican Trust PAC),  Shadow Government: What Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About His Czars, 143

[ii] Kevin W. Saunders, Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media’s First Amendment Protection, (Durham, NC, 1996, Duke University Press), 150

[iii] The Washington Times, (Sept. 9, 2009), Editorial: Sunstein Flunks Gun Rights Test, retrieved March 8, 2012 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/9/sunstein-flunks-gun-rights-test/

[iv] Stephen Holmes and Cass R. Sunstein, (April 14, 1999), Chicago Tribune web-site, Article Collection, Why we Should Celebrate Paying Taxes, retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-04-14/news/9904140015_1_tax-day-property-owners-installment

Enhanced by Zemanta