There are two soundbites out there, one by each of the two main candidates for our nation’s highest office. One is Mitt Romney discussing what is the cornerstone of conservative criticism of economic liberalism; that the Democratic strategy has been, in recent decades, to create dependency upon government to facilitate the continued re-election of those who are willing to promise government money in exchange for votes.
The other clip is a discussion by Barack Obama, espousing his fondness for the redistribution of wealth. While the Obama Campaign rattles on endlessly about the surprising revelation that a Republican believes what a Republican typically believes, the question remains: Why are we overlooking Obama’s socialist admission?
Sure, it was lightly discussed for a bit. But I can’t help but feel that evidence that a sitting president believes in redistribution of wealth- an essential cornerstone of all collectivist ideology- is far-and-away more relevant to who should lead us in fixing the economy that a tape that espouses mainstream fiscal conservatism.
For those who did not hear the audio tape of Obama speaking, as it was only “news” for 15 minutes, the audio is of Barack Obama speaking at Loyola University in October of 1998. In a matter-of-fact way, Obama discusses how to structure government systems to “pool” resources. He stated,
“The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution? – Because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make to make sure everybody has got a shot.”
Of course, the second the audio was released, the typical cries from the left came out- “That’s being taken out of context!” Ironically enough, the media’s willingness to accept Romney’s out-of-context “47%” remark was, “Yeah. That’s what the man said. So what if there are minutes missing and the source is Jimmy Carter’s grandson?- Run with it!”
In Romney’s speech, he noted,
“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
But it turns out that despite Loyola’s refusal to release Obama’s speech, the entire 102-minute speech has been obtained by The Daily Caller, and the “out-of-context” remarks appear to fit in quite nicely with the rest of the speech.
In his speech, Obama claimed he viewed welfare recipients as “working poor,” and voiced his willingness to court welfare recipients as they are a “majority coalition” that, if properly mobilized, could continue to help elect those that will continue to give them handouts.
So, Obama said that he panders to welfare recipients to continue to get elected, and there’s nothing but crickets coming from the liberal media. Romney said that Democrats pander to welfare recipients to get elected, and CNN has been running the audio in a loop like a skipping record.
Obama’s declaration of support for redistribution is the kind of rhetoric that has Joe McCarthy spinning in his grave saying, “Ah ha! I knew it!”
A few years back, I got into a discussion with a counter-protester at a Tea Party rally in Salem. He took offense to a friend’s sign, denouncing our socialist president, and he wondered how we could make such a claim. My answer was roughly, “I don’t think we will ever catch Obama on tape saying, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist.’ But if he behaves as a socialist and advocates socialism, then he can call himself whatever he wants, but he’s a socialist. If it walks like a duck…”
I have come to expect precious little from the mainstream media in recent years. However, they still manage to disappoint me. It is up to everyone in the alternative media and readers everywhere to spread this audio and share what kind of radical we have leading us. There are 43 days until the election. We cannot afford another four years of an Obama regime.