Reparations Disclaimer on Slavery Apology Stirs Backlash Among House Dems

A disclaimer at the end of this month's Senate resolution offering an apology for slavery deals with the touchy issue of reparations, and is causing some dissension among House Democrats that may prevent the two chambers from coming together on the measure.

The disclaimer says: "Nothing in this resolution (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States."

That means the resolution cannot be used by descendants of slaves to sue the government for reparations or payments to compensate for slavery.

"I would not want to have any language in place that would deny anyone, any citizen, the right to address a grievance," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

"I feel that some method other than just an apology should be made. People should be made whole," Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said.

Obama: Let’s Pursue Reparations Through Legislation Rather Than the Courts
Ace of Spades HQ ^ | October 27, 2008 | Ace http://minx.cc/?post=276650

Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 3:46:23 PM by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2116734/posts

Yup:

A caller, “Karen,” asked if it’s “too late for that kind of reparative work economically?” And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.
“Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor,” Obama said. “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.”

“Reparative work.” Seems like the caller understood what Obama was saying, and Obama agreed.

It’s only now that they are furiously spinning that they meant something else.

While Obama isn’t “optimistic” about getting this “reparative work” done through the courts, he hasn’t entirely given up on them:

You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Obama’s Redistributionist Obsession: Racially-tinged economic justice.

This is astounding stuff from a man who is one election away from the presidency. In politer tones, he is saying things that would make his mentors Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and William Ayers, not necessarily in that order proud as peacocks. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are probably beaming too.
....
I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word “change” from Team Obama, they insert the work “redistributive” in front of it.

Curiously, one of Obama’s ideas for “change” — taxing 401k’s — tracks rather neatly with radical redistributionist Phather Phleger’s call for white people giving up their 401ks in the interest of racial justice.

bttt

Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

By Michelle Malkin October 26, 2008 11:44 PM

The blogosphere is buzzing about this video posted on YouTube Sunday night. It’s Barack Obama musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001.

Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation?

A caller asks The One to explain how he would do “reparative economic work.” Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of “breaking free of the constraints” placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and then burbles about cobbling together the “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/13/spread-the-wealth-swallow-the-crap-sandwiches/

STACLU http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/ has transcribed the choice parts of the interview.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The bottom line from Jeff Goldstein: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”
Well, then. Fine .
But this is not the America I knew?

Yeah, and don’t you dare ask Obama or Biden about this.

You’ll get blacklisted http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/25/best-interview-of-joe-biden-ever/ and bombarded and labeled “combative.”

And who knows what’ll happen to your government records. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/25/will-the-privacy-champions-come-to-joe-the-plumbers-defense/

In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth.....he calls it ‘redistributive change’. This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

The audio of the entire program is here:
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram

Transcript: “Barrack Obama: “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and it’s litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be ok.”

“But the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent I think 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 its been interpreted. And Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties says what the State’s can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t to you 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 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 the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

It sounds to me, in the middle paragraph above, that Obama is essentially saying he does not support the U.S. Constitution.

Summation:

Obama says the Warren court is seen as radical because it did much to advance civil rights but it really wasn’t because it didn’t sweep away the constraints in the constitution on redistributing the wealth. Then when asked by a caller if the best way to accomplish “reparative economics” is through the courts or the legislature he goes into a diatribe about what the most efficient means to do it is.

“I can’t help but think about certain countries in Africa, and how whites have property (and sometimes their lives) taken from them because of grievances held by blacks.” ~ jacquej

June 25, 2009
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama’s skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.

Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign “isms”, instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.

The tropes of America’s racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.

Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970’s from the country now called Nigeria.

I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to but at the same time it does.

My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel.

Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself those of us who know our history have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:

First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.

Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa’s long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe’s complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.

The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC’s have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC’s use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama’s Muslim heritage).

On the other hand, AC’s strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It’s when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.

The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the “will of the people” becomes completely irrelevant.

Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father an eloquent piece of political propaganda Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father’s legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama’s African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of “progress”. (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an “ancient loyalties”.)

Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led oftentimes to their own slaughter.

Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.

Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:

Convince the people that “clinging” to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of “unity”. British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. “Tribalism” made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many “educated” Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a “fair shake”. Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today’s Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can’t find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer “progress” (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60’s. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.

America, don’t be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.

L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.