Here is a great read on where Obama stands on a very divisive issue. Are you down with his struggle for slave reparations? http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/2/160940.shtml Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune Nov. 14, 2004). Second, whom does Barry O "hang" with? Well, Obama hangs with the reparations crowd. Now guilt by association is certainly unfair. But if you hang with the reparations crowd, they must see something in you they like. And here, indeed they do. U.S. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is reportedly waiting for Obama to be elected so Conyers can rush a reparations law through Congress (The Hill, March 13, 2007). Hmmm. Does Conyers know something we don't? Finally, the most telling indication that Obama has a secret addiction to reparations is reflected in those who support him and those whom he supports: the most notorious race-baiter on the Chicago City Council, Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman. Haven't heard of Dorothy Tillman? You better learn about Obama's No. 1 supporter. And fast. Tillman has almost single-handedly made a joke of the city of Chicago in the public finance industry over her preoccupation with slavery and reparations. Tillman supports Obama and Obama supports Tillman. Last week Obama endorsed Tillman for re-election. Tillman was forced into a runoff after her opponents failed to agree on a single candidate to oppose her. Tillman was an early supporter of Obama's in his rise to prominence over the past decade. And Tillman is a disgrace. Her favorite pastime is abusing banks and financial institutions that want to do business with the city of Chicago. A regular feature of council proceedings is Tillman flaying banks for "owning slaves" at some remote point in history over 150 years ago. Using a 2002 "Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance" that she authored, Tillman has accused Bank of America of having a predecessor bank that made "leg irons for slaves." Wachovia, J.P. Morgan Chase, LaSalle Bank, Lehman Brothers, American General, and Nationwide Life Insurance were all brought before Tillman's mast and whipped for their ties to slavery, however remote, over 150 years ago. Indeed, Tillman has been quoted as saying her goal is to "repair the damage of 400 years" of slavery. "America owes us," Tillman demands (Sun-Times march 26, 2007). And yes, Obama has endorsed this carnival-style extortionist for re-election. So much for the audacity of Obama; so much for the "smallness" of politics in Chicago. Tillman abuses and opposes anyone who thinks that slavery is not a major issue any more. When the city wanted to refinance $800 million in debt, Tillman was there claiming slavery should be an issue. Last fall, the city tried to lease parking garages for over a half billion dollars: The deal hit a "slavery speed bump." Tillman filed suit because her slavery ordinance was brushed aside (Sun-Times Dec. 1, 2006). "The whole world is watching us just disregard this law for black people . . . We're totally disrespected as a people . . ." (Sun-Times 10/31/06). On and on it goes. Sounds like the race card to me. Tillman accused Morgan Stanley of "getting rich from investments and profits in slavery," (Chicago Tribune, 10/30/ 2006). Morgan Stanley was formed in 1935. Full disclosure: My maternal ancestors arrived in the United States in the 20th century. Unlike Obama's forebears, my grandparents had nothing to do with slavery. Why should I pay for the earlier sins of others? Why should anyone pay for events that took place in history? When Obama's critics attack him for the sermons of his pastor, they are going too far, in my opinion. I am not responsible for what my minister says. Preachers get a lot of leeway in the pulpit. But when a public official files a frivolous lawsuit against a half-billion dollar public finance deal, claiming that blacks are being disrespected because of slavery, and Obama goes on to endorse that kind of nonsense, Obama should be charged with endorsing the antics of the reparations gang. When confronted with the claims of some of his more controversial supporters President Reagan used to say, "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them." In the case of Barry Obama and Dorothy Tillman, he has endorsed her and her unseemly reparations crusade for slavery. Only Obama doesn't want his national audience to know it. I seriously doubt that many of the tens of thousands of people who have succumbed to Obama's pleas for "hope" realize he "hopes" to force them to pay tax dollars to provide some form of compensation to people who weren't alive from people who weren't alive, all for the evils of slavery. They have no idea who Dorothy Tillman is, or what she stands for, or the damage she continues to do to taxpayers in Chicago. All in the name of slavery. And yet ignorant suckers keep on giving, not knowing who Obama is and what he wants to accomplish if he should end up in the Oval Office. Ready to pay reparations for slavery? Obama's your man. He just doesn't want you to know. Yet. He's too busy working to re-elect Dorothy Tillman in two weeks
Hilarious considering he has no slave ancestors. Hell, he probably has more relational ties to slave owners than slaves He'll say anything to please an audience
Give up the hate you two and join the revolution of hope. There's room for you too in the house of Obama!
Next thing you know, we'll find out Obama is a supporter of human sacrifice. People, if you honestly think the GOP wouldn't pull every dirty, filthy trick out of their bag if Obama is nominated, this thread should give you pause.
Obama also has 4 wives back in Kenya. They are now in hiding and won't come out until December 2008. Oh, and another thing, Obama is going to give guns to all the N******. (This one courtesy of Jesse Helms vs Harvey Gant).
so there is no actual evidence that obama supports reparations other than the comment that he didn't think people shouldn't get checks.
Traitor and big'neckkk's desperation in the face of Obama's domination is hilarious! Newsmax! Pfffft. Swing and an utterly pathetic miss by two of the three most irrelevent women on the board. Back to cold calling pensioners, ladies.
i'm curious why those disparaging the poster don't deal with the content of the post. i have an open mind about obama, but if true, i'd have a very hard time supporting him.
It's some redneck working out of his double-wide in backwoods Mississippi. Here's their headquarters:
Uh, try checking out the title of this thread as compared to what Obama actually said. There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting someone. I applaud that.
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune Nov. 14, 2004). Well, I think that is understandable. I don't understand why this was even posted. In addition, the original author does a poor job of researching his claims and just editorializes. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1935, but it was a result of the Glass-Steagall Act. It's parent company J. P. Morgan & Co was founded in 1799.
Too predictable. The Bobbsey Twins try to exploit a hit piece, and completely miss the tiny bit that could be a real story. Nit-picking, IMO (remember, I'm a pragmatic Democrat and liberal... I want to win), but revealing. Obama is doing with Tilman what politicians have done since time out of mind. He's paying back a favor to someone that helped him on his way. I don't believe for a second that he supports "reparations" to the descendents of slaves in this country. I do believe he's doing what all politicians do, paying back a favor. This is something his supporters should note while they're busy talking about his message of "change." Obama is just another in a long line of politicians running on "change." Will we have change if he is elected? Hell yes. We'll have a moderate Democrat, with liberal tendencies (I don't think Obama is as liberal as some here think he is), appointing Supreme Court Justices, and other lifetime members of the Federal bench. We'll have a Democrat, thank god, in charge of foreign policy for this country. We'll have a Democrat, thank goodness, pushing through a social agenda that cares more about the Middle Class and those in need than the GOP dreams of doing, except for Romney, who's running away from his record and doesn't stand a chance, anyway. The GOP is too busy carrying water for the rich and big business to really give a damn. And the Bobbsey Twins can spare me the BS about how Bush's policies have helped the country and its economy. And you know what? That will happen regardless of which Democrat gets elected. Impeach Bush.
Yes, I am sure this is a very serious issue. Not only would Obama have to be mind-numbingly stupid as far as his political career goes, but he and his evil black buddy Conyers would have to have some crazy magic powers to get reparations passed in a, what, 90% white congress? Evil darkies want to take over, rape your women, and eat your children. I know it is true, I saw it on TV: I don't understand why some of you people think it is cool to look like complete idiots.
There is no real content. He said he was against reparations, and then said he was against just handing over checks to African Americans. Somehow that means he is no in favor of reparations. Then they try and paint him guilty of supporting reparations because somebody he supports agrees with it. Wow one issue of a candidate supported by him is reparations. Nothing in there shows that Obama supports reparations. I do enjoy seeing the tactics that people will pull on Obama, and I enjoy seeing who falls for those tactics.
