Obama: a leftist who seeks to redistribute wealth, appease America’s enemies, and weaken America at home and abroad

Most conservatives understand this by now, but Powerline’s restatement of it is worth quoting:

The underlying theme in the various domestic moves made by the Obama administration so far is the appropriation of resources by Washington for redistribution to favored constitutencies.

Of course Obama in seeking the redistribution of wealth to his friends is only enacting the anti-white, anti-production of wealth philosophy he lapped up at the feet of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In his 1995 memoir, Obama quotes the first sermon he heard Wright give, which changed the direction of his life:

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.

Powerline also points to an appalling and revealing comment Obama made about Iran at his press conference:

[I]t’s important that, even as we engage in this direct diplomacy [with Iran], we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country, that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we’re clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing. [Italics added.]

Powerline comments:

But the fundamental problem with Iran developing nuclear weapons is not that it would produce an arms race (that would be the problem with, say, Saudi Arabia developing nukes). The problem with Iran developing nuclear weapons is that Iran, our arch-enemy and the arch-enemy of our main ally in the region, would then have nuclear weapons.

Obama’s failure to understand this almost certainly means that he is not very serious about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. On the other hand, even if Obama understood the real problem with Iran having nukes, it is highly doubtful that he would be all that serious about preventing Iran from obtaining them.

- end of initial entry -

Joseph C. writes:

It is clear that Obama—like all liberals—sees nothing too troubling about Iran having nuclear weapons. It was quite clear during the campaign that Obama was never campaigning to be President of the United States, since he does not regard America and American interests as predominant (despite the oath he took to protect our Constitution). Obama seeks to be president of the world, just one among many leaders of nations in a “global community.”

A few months back I saw a television interview with Warren Buffett, another obnoxious leftist. When the interviewer asked Buffett his opinion of the trend whereby a greater portion of the world’s wealth was now being shared by previously underdeveloped countries (e.g., China and the Middle East), the Sage of Omaha laughed and replied that it wasn’t the worst thing, considering how these countries have the capability to create trouble on a grand scale.

While some no doubt saw this as pragmatic—even reasonable—my perception was more cynical. Buffett does not think it is good that poor countries share the wealth because they have the capability to create trouble. Rather, I suspect he believes it is a good thing they have the capability to create trouble, because that forces the richer countries to pay attention to them and thus bribe them with international transfer payments. That is probably the real reason why leftists like Obama and Buffett see nothing wrong with Iran (or China) getting a bomb. How else are we to be blackmailed into not developing our own oil (and thus buying theirs), into transferring our manufacturing jobs to them, or into giving them foreign aid?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 10, 2009 12:46 PM | Send