One of many sayings I remember from my grandmother is, “If the hiss doesn’t tell you it’s a snake, then the fact that it slithers on its belly in the dirt should.” And to that point, if the company Barack Obama has kept (read the dirt he has aligned himself with) doesn’t tell you he is a Marxist reparationist, then the words from his mouth, i.e., his hiss, certainly should.

Obama repeatedly told the NAACP, “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where ‘economic justice’ is being served. And as president, we’ll ensure that ‘economic justice’ is served. That’s what this election is about.” (“Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism,” Investor’s Business Daily, July 28, 2008.)

“Economic justice” is just an oblique euphemism for wealth redistribution, i.e., Marxism – “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” IBD theorizes Obama’s intent is a massive transfer of wealth from those who have money to those whom he defines as poor. Worse, he views it as a global obligation.

John Furman, Obama’s director of economic policy, explains that Obama is advocating for “bottom-up economic growth.” He contends, “If we invest in our families and in ordinary Americans, by helping them go to college, with tax cuts for 95 percent of families to reward them for hard work, and give tax cuts to help them save for retirement – such are the ways everyone can have a stake in our economy.” He argues that said actions will result in stronger economic growth.

This is a specious construct steeped in Marxism. Eighty-six percent of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25 percent of income earners, up from 84 percent in 2000. The top 50 percent of income earners pay 97 percent of all income taxes. The top 1 percent of income earners pay 39 percent of all income taxes, up 2 percent from 2000, when President Bush took office. (Data from IRS for years 1986-2005.) Exactly how much more are we expected to pay?

When President Reagan cut the highest personal tax rate from the confiscatory 70 percent rate to 28 percent, it resulted in federal tax receipts nearly doubling from $517 billion to $1,032 billion. The Bush tax cuts resulted in a $187 billion increase in federal tax revenues during the first eight months of fiscal year 2005, a rise of 15.4 percent in federal tax receipts. Federal tax receipts in the first two years of Bush’s tax cuts increased 30 percent. “They resulted in a chain reaction of economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits and more tax receipts.” (See: “Real Tax Cuts Have Curves” by Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2005.)

All of that notwithstanding, Obama purposes to penalize people of all industries, from landscapers to administrators, for daring to be even moderately successful. And by his economic policy adviser’s own admission, it is because we take advantage of “tax cuts and deductions” available to every working person industrious enough to reap the rewards of their labors.

It’s not about people being left out; for Obama, it’s about American wealth, which he views as being in the hands of white capitalists and, therefore, wrongly obtained. His veiled racist and Marxist leanings blind him to the reality that, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, in 1980, when the top income rate was 70 percent, the richest 1 percent paid only 19 percent of all income taxes – today they pay 39 percent of all income taxes. (“Taxes and Income,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 17, 2007.)

Obama is on record as saying, “We [Americans] can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to be OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.” (“Obama’s Global Tax,” Investor’s Business Daily, July 29, 2008.)

Exactly why can’t, or more specifically, why shouldn’t, Americans enjoy the fruits of our prosperity? Why should we be penalized or be ashamed that we live in a country where we can keep most of what we earn? Why should we feel ashamed that foreign governments keep the billions of dollars in foreign aid for themselves, while their people go hungry in the streets? Shouldn’t Obama be advocating that those governments step up instead of advocating that we give more money? Are the oil-producing countries doing anything to reduce global poverty (jihad and solid silver Audis don’t count)? Why isn’t he sending this message to the Saudis?

We should have great concern pursuant to Obama’s position on reparations, regardless of his recent claims of being opposed to reparations for blacks. That position will change as soon as he gets elected. As I have written before, we need to give critical attention to Obama’s relationships prior to his current public incarnation. He is not just a “stealth socialist”; he is a “stealth reparationist and black liberationist.”

Consider Obama’s relationships with the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission, a group demanding $777 trillion in black reparations, with Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after Congress and the FBI began to close in on him for his “subversive and un-American activities,” with the maniacal group ACORN and with Gerald Kellman and Saul “The Red” Alinsky.

We don’t need a black man to be president so badly that it forces us to take leave of our senses. We need a man (or woman) president who is pro-America, pro her citizens, is committed to our Constitution and pro-traditional values.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.