Posted by MataHarley on 9 August, 2008 at 3:06 pm. 3 comments already!


Three stories, all related to the same subject line: Obama and affirmative action. Right up front, it must be said that BHO’s official stand on affirmative action adeptly utilizes his skill of eloquent doublespeak: a mass of flowerly sentences and intents, fraught with such vagary, that it fools both sides – pro and con – into believing he is in agreement.

Fools all but those that are not easily fooled, that is.

First article up, Pilar Marrero, at Feet in Two Worlds, comments on the not so obvious gap between the Father of anti-affirmative action initiatives nationwide, Ward Connerly, and Obama’s public proclamations on affirmative action. According to Connerly, he agrees almost everything Obama says on affirmative action… except with conclusion on the initiatives, that is.

“I’ve read Mr. Obama’s statement that he believes his daughters should not receive preferential treatment over a poor white child,” said Connerly in an interview from the Sacramento office of his Civil Rights Institute. “I agree with him. In fact, I agree with a lot of the things he says about affirmative action, except his conclusion on the initiatives.”


Every policy issue is divisive, that’s the nature of elections”, Connerly said adding about Obama, “if you listen to all the things he says, we agree on everything leading up to its conclusion…he says all the right things.”

All the right things, indeed. Connerly has recently helped sponsor initiatives in Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska to end affirmative action policies in university systems and government contracting. At Obama’s appearance at The Unity ’08 Conference, he stated his opposition to Connerly’s initiatives, calling them “designed to be divisive.”

Note: John “Also Ran” McCain also originally opposed the AZ initiative, using similar criticism, but has since “flipped” on the issue, and now lends his support. This isn’t quite the flip Obama suggests, as JSM has also consistently expressed opposition to hiring quotas based on race while supporting affirmative action in limited cases.

Obama’s approach to affirmative action is to widen the criteria, and increase the beneficiaries.

“I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action if properly structured,” Obama said at Unity, pointing out that “if 50 percent of Latino or African American kids are dropping out, affirmative action doesn’t matter: those kids won’t get to college.”

BTW… as the Obama worshippers will comment in the Two Feet post, they note that Ward Connerly donated to BHO’s campaign. He did… $500. A political token, if not borderline on insulting. Ward donated $2000 to the Bush campaign in the past, and $1000 to TX Sen John Cronyn’s campaign. He is a registered GOP member.

Now fast forward to the second article up: Obama’s comments on reparations… or rather, “deeds” via affirmative action and government programs. As quoted in IBD’s editorial yesterday:

‘I consistently believe that when it comes to . . . reparations,” Obama recently told a gathering of minority journalists, “the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he’s not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will “close the gap” between what he sees as white America and black America.

He says government should offer “universal” programs — such as universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s — that “disproportionately affect people of color.”

Obama slithers his way thru affirmative action debates by emphasizing “universal strategies” over “race-based” policies… an emphasis he calls “good politics”. He is smart enough to recognize that anything called “reparations” would not enjoy national support. Instead, just as he plans to implement a “fairness doctrine” via multiple legislation, he will achieve his “not only words, but deeds” financial reparations the same way.

The IBD editorial deals with Obama’s historic past of these “universal strategies” pretty harshly. His IL Senate accomplishments focus not the on the wide net he claims he supports, but the black constituents in his State. Rather than reinterate those claims here, you can read the IBDeditorial linked above.

Now that we’ve established Obama’s unmitigated support for a widened affirmative action domestically, combined with his plans for reparations via these “universal” govt programs, credits and 401Ks, we can move on to the third article…. his global plans.

Christine O’Donnell at Townhall calls Obama out on his support for a UN “global tax” for their MDG (Millenium Development Goals).

His Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress, is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title, the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the U.N. to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product. That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America (and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years. Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national sovereignty since the War of 1812.

The Obama sponsored bill – along with 23 Democrat co-sponsors – reads innocently enough… until, as Ms. O’Donnell points out… you put this mandated US policy along side the MDGs devil in the details. And considering the rampid corruption in the UN and their “charity work”… from the Oil for Food scandal to the UN workers raping and abusing nationals… why on earth do we want to not only place this money in their hands, but pay them a fee for corrupt mismanagment?

This cure for poverty isn’t limited to just cash for a food bank. From the bill’s summary:

Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

“ preferences for developing countries”. Why I thought that CAFTA might include some of those “developing countries”, but Obama is adamantly opposed to CAFTA, as well as NAFTA. What could he have in mind, then?

It just could be an AFTA instead…. Per the language in Obama’s Poverty Bill:

11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

The US Title 19 Code concerns US policy intents to increase trade and economic benefits for the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Considering that this area is specifically mentioned in Obama’s bill, and combined with BHO’s disdain for NAFTA and CAFTA, the candidate is now extending his “affirmative action” mentality to foreign trade, providing the African countries with support he refuses to our North or Central American neighbors.

Again, as O’Donnell points out, this little ditty has so far stayed under the media radar. Obama introduced the Senate version in Dec 2007. However the House version, was introduced by Democrat Adam Smith (WA), and co-sponsored by 84 other House members – including about 9 GOP members. It was passed Sept 25th, 2007 by a voice vote. Take care not to blink, because this could be law before the end of the year… and you’ll never have heard about it.

And where was the media on this one? Busy following around HRC and Obama’s every waking moment, of course.

The DNC candidate has taken affirmative action to new highs… promising to widen the net not only to a broader constituency, but taking the same attitude towards global trade. And he plans on implementing the latter using the UN as a middle man.

Not only is Obama’s socialist view of the US distasteful for this particular capitalist, but I fear he is taking his “citizen of the world” status far too seriously.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x