Monday, October 27, 2008

Another Obama Video

A lot of people have now seen this video, thanks to the Drudge Report's highlighting of it; I think it's amazing that Obama's past views and opinions are just now beginning to surface. Whatever else happens in this election one thing has become brilliantly clear: the mainstream media did not even remotely do their jobs in regard to Obama and his past; while Sarah Palin has been scrutinized to the microscopic level and John McCain had to present his birth information to show that being born in the Panama Canal Zone didn't make him ineligible for the presidency, information about Obama's views would still be unavailable were it not for the dedicated efforts of citizen journalists who are tracking down these old interviews and unearthing Obama's stated positions on issues.

Here's another video--and audio--showing Barack Obama's view of race relations and reparations, giving an insight into the philosophies of a man who may very well be our next president:

This is scary stuff. Since when do we pay taxes "to" our fellow citizens? Since when has America not been willing to make "sacrifices" to advance the common good? Oh, but we're not talking about the common good: we're talking about a paradigm that still sees African-Americans as being fundamentally unable to get the same educations, make the same choices, have the same careers, and have access to the same success as other Americans, despite years of civil rights successes, mandated diversity programs, quotas in higher education and in jobs, and so on. In Obama's view of America only by taking the wealth of the highest earners, the "white executives in the suburbs," and redistributing it to inner-city children and other "powerless" people, can we truly bring about what he calls on this tape "a new day and a new age."

Why do I get the feeling this "new day" and "new age" are the same old day that hit Russia at the turn of the last century? Why does this sound so wearily familiar, the utopian ideals that we can solve poverty and racism and crime and all other social problems by applying Marxist principles and redistributing wealth?


Irenaeus said...

I'm quote serious when I say I think I will be buying several weapons in the coming weeks, because I got a funny feeling (1) they'll be harder to get real soon and (2) we may just need them sometime in the not so distant future.

Red Cardigan said...

I hear you, Irenaeus. There's an uneasiness in the air I just don't recall experiencing before.

Anonymous said...

From Scotch Meg:

I am nearly done reading Senator Obama's first memoir, and I have to say that I found it disturbing. He is focused on race to the point where everything, every issue, and especially every problem in his life, relates to race. There is no post-racialism that I can see.

And the biggest irony is the long passage on his introduction to Rev. Wright and how he sees Christianity (especially chez Wright) as the solution to his problem because it will support black (as he called it then) solidarity... if the Senator sees the Church as the home of Christ, his God, I didn't see it.

Sad and disturbing stuff. I understand all too well the search for roots, the way life hands us identity problems, the torn feeling when parents are absent, but is race the cause and racialism the solution? Because that's the impression I get from the book.

Anonymous said...

Too bad that election of republicans is equated with 'more of the same' scandalous abuse of power, stagnation, quagmire over the debate that seems to divide Catholics. Why didn't 'they' get it right in their long grasp of American power? That they had to resort to red herrings and tangential issues such as self-righteous attitudes about abortion, innuendo about socialism (especially in contrasting ideas of universal health insurance and bailing out GM-Chrysler and the banking industry, and dirty outright lies about terrorists, evolving Iraqui and Iranian and Pakistanian political changes, Amerian voting machines, class warfare, plus expose of Palinspeak and felony charges against one of the longest 'reigning' republicans in the Senate?

Seems, at the very least, we were due for some changes from the top, by a decent, intelligent, fellow who seems open to listening to all sides, and not interested in foisting a 'maverick' (his own self-description), even rogue agenda on the American tax-payer.

I know this column is dedicated to republican Catholic views, but not all Catholics are republican, and many Catholics didn't vote for the present slate of republicans, nor the previous set, nor those whose licentious behaviors inherently hearken back to their Alexander, the Great roots.

One of the presidential candidates threw his hat in the ring early on running on an agenda of change to result in more equality in access to education, healthcare, jobs, and getting the boys home, whereas the other's mantra has been to see which way the wind is blowing after the other candidate states his solid, well-thought out strategic positions, and then attempts to state something new and soothing to republican ears. Never mind, conservative; more like 'greedy' 'selfish' and 'self-seeking'.

By the way, one has to wonder why Marxism and Leninism as well as Nazism were widely accepted at the time they were introduced. Could it have to do with flagrant and conspicuous displays of consumption served up prior to the situation of national low economic morale, as well as the fear mongering stirred up by those that felt that they'd not be able to continue a cushy, wealth-beyond-imagination lifestyle? Perhaps, there's more to the issue than just tossing out the inflammatory words, of utopian, cold war, 'socialism' and 'wealth distribution'?

eulogos said...

I note you posted anonymously.
How about a name?

And I notice you don't say anything about the killing of the unborn except to characterize it as "self-rightous attitudes about abortion." Would you speak of "self rightous attitudes about slavery" or "self righteous attitudes about the final solution to the Jewish Problem" ? Because this is an issue right there with those two in value and weight. It involves the judgement that certain human beings do not deserve the full stature and rights of human beings, and that they can therefore be (enslaved or)killed at will.

But I suppose your post was a drive by shooting and you are not here to read this.
Susan Peterson

Anonymous said...

It's a wake-up call, Susan, not a 'random' drive-by arrow. I have a habit of reading three main blogs on the internet--one of them pertains to my healthcare-related career, another has to do with the chosen profession of my sisters as nuns, and this one by Red Cardigan. I don't choose to identify myself because 1) I don't care to reveal my gender, 2) nor do I have to reveal myself in a code word reflecting any particular frame of belief. (I suppose I could call myself 'N'.)

I believe every life is sacred, especially and specifically when a room at the Inn has been prepared. A person choosing to have sex, should prepare themselves for caring for the infinite measure of G-D's love. I don't believe in snuffing the life of a being whose nervous system has developed to the point that it would suffer cruelty, nor one whose cardiovascular system has developed to the extent that makes it a distinct life separate from its mother. I believe that until our society can provide equally for all children born of rape or incest, that a choice can be made by the victim especially in the form of something called an abortifacient in the morning after; 20% of all abortions result from miscarriage.

I believe that G-D gives life and takes it. I have been present at both occasions more times than I can count, as well as the netherworld between. The Catholic Church promotes something else besides the actuality of life and death in its liturgical definition. The Catholic Church is not infallible. This factor was borne out very well when a priest in my youth was arrested for soliciting young men in downtown Denver. He did not receive public reprimand by the Church, nor be required to apologize to his flock.

Though it may not be appropriate to respond to other bloggers on someone else's blog, Susan, I think that the attitude promulgated by the American Catholic Church is SELF-righteous toward abortion.

As for Jews, I'm afraid I don't fully understand the reference to the 'Jewish solution', but one cannot argue that in the 1930s, 1940, in Europe many Catholics assisted Jews in retaining dignity, self-respect, and life. Many who called themselves Catholic DID not. I don't know the actions of the Pope and how it ameliorated the outcome. He was in Europe and presumably knew what was going on.

Slavery was recently outlawed in Nigeria. Did I do anything to stop it? Did you? The slave trades continue in third world countries, as well as in prostitution rings in the US. We can be self-proud that we're not involved in the denigration of our society.

One who bands with others to support a position against a political candidate based on a definition of abortion colored with the image of a late-term fetus is shortsighted.

Every day in healthcare, I see what is going on in how the current government initiatives have played out. Making a law by the Supreme Court is not the answer to save fetuses beyond development in what is considered pre-babyhood is not going to solve economic issues such as access to healthcare, avoiding wars, opening dialogues as well as promoting responsible societal attitudes for governing, and caring for natural resources. (And, our greatest natural resource is human PEOPLE--live people, for starters.)

And, no I do NOT expect this opinion to be understood or even considered on the basis of its pragmatism.