re: ALTER: Taking a Punch

norash — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:18:57 GMT

It seems the final days of this primary are almost here, and Obama is getting closer to winning. Regrettably, I feel that I still don't know much about him. Today, we were talking about reparations and I realized I don't know where Obama stands on this subject. I googled this issue to get some information.

According to an article I found, CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR APRIL 4, 2007, "His position always depends on who is asking and who is listening. And who is watching." This behavior is similar to the behavior he showed during 'Bittergate' when he criticized Pennsylvanians for their relationship with guns and religion while speaking in California. The CONTRARIAN article seems to gain some credibility here as it accurately predicted his tendency toward this type of two-faced behavior a year before it actually happened.

Further, the article states, "Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004)." Here, he seems to be waffling.

The CONTRARIAN elaborates on a relationship he maintains with Chicago City Council Alderwoman, Dorothy Tillman. who “has almost single-handedly made a joke of the City of Chicago in the public finance industry over her preoccupation with slavery and reparations.... Tillman was an early supporter of Obama's in his rise to prominence over the past decade.... Tillman supports Obama and Obama supports Tillman."

According to an Accuracy in Media article, Obama and the Drive for Slavery Reparations, by Cliff Kincaid, April 21, 2008, “In 2001, Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ,[which he gave $22,500 to in 2006], passed a resolution declaring that: WHEREAS: The institution of Slavery is internationally recognized as crime for which there is no statute of limitations, AND WHEREAS: Uncompensated labor was demanded from enslaved Africans and their descendants for more than two centuries on U.S. soil; AND WHEREAS: The principle that reparations is the appropriate remedy whenever government unjustly abrogates the rights of a domestic group or foreign people whose rights such government is obligated to protect or uphold has been internationally recognized…”

To further understand the reparations position, AIM reports, “The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission, is demanding an astronomical $777 trillion.” This is not a trivial amount. Our frail economy will most definitely collapse with a strain like this added to it.

AIM also reports, “Dr. Conrad W. Worrill, past national co-chair for the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N‘COBRA) and “Minister of the Interior” of the Provisional Government / Republic of New Afrika (RNA), was a delegate to the United Nations World Conference Against Racism. The RNA seeks the creation of a black nation in the U.S. in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.” [I have to assume this idea is so far out that no one takes it seriously, but it does show some individual’s yearning to destroy the fabric of America to satisfy their pursuits.]

Other articles report different proposals such as eliminating income taxes for African Americans for one or two generations and some form of spiritual or psychological help for black victims of the slave trade.

These excerpts should illustrate the gravity of this issue. I can’t understand why the media considers such a serious debate off-limits. When I hear Michelle Obama say she has not always been proud of America, Barack vaguely suggest that some sort of reparations may be appropriate, while some state that $777 trillion are owed, I believe this country needs to have this debate now. When will the media stop repeating the same innocuous stories over and over again, and embark on some pertinent journalism?