I recently had a conversation with a good friend of mine regarding the 2012 presidential race. As we broke bread, he shared his political philosophies and why he believed that the more liberal, almost socialistic programs of Barack Obama are good for the country’s long term health. In essence, his argument boiled down to the Orwellian idea that the masses should be treated equally. Thus, the more education and opportunity a larger number of people have, the greater competition will eventually evolve. Therefore, the country would prosper.
OK. I suppose I can follow the logic.
But that’s when he said it:
“The truth is we have probably never had a president that loves the poor the way Barack Obama does. And I respect that.”
Huh? Love the poor? Was he serious? Do other Americans, especially in the inner cities, believe that?
Mother Theresa loved the poor. So did Martin Luther King. Clarence Jordan, the KKK resistant theologian, loved the poor.
But to say Barack Obama loves the poor is akin to saying Bill O’Reilly loves Barney Frank.
Take for example the current battle between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. Under the provisions outlined in the president’s health care plan, Catholic hospitals will be forced to cover all methods of contraception, sterilization services, and the ‘morning after’ pill. As New York’s Archbishop Timothy Dolan noted, “This is not a Catholic issue, it’s an American issue.” While religion is at the front and center, there is an underlying current to this story – the one where the church has proclaimed it will close these hospitals as opposed to complying with the mandate. They argue the ‘right of conscious’ would not permit such activities.
Where are the Catholic hospitals located in mass? The inner city.
Who utilizes the inner city hospitals for the most part? The poor.
Realistically, the Catholic Church will not be able to close the doors of their hospitals.States and counties will offer up legal petitions and block any closures. However, it seems absurd that the administration is willing to play the ‘white knight’ in this debate when it is strangling religious freedoms and ultimately hurting the poorest of people.
This is just one example of the hypocrisy of the administration and it’s never ending quest for equality. A thesis could be written on the errors of attempting to redistribute wealth or social programs that truly don’t help the poor, but act as catalyst to trap them into poverty for generations.
Believing President Obama loves the poor is, in itself, radical thinking. In referencing Mother Theresa, Doctor King, and Clarence Jordan, it’s important to note that each of these individuals had a kinship and identity with those less fortunate in society. They were individuals who lived and walked with the poor.
How many pictures have you seen with President Obama embracing the poor on those his trips to Martha’s Vineyard or while golfing in Hawaii?
No. President Obama does not love the poor. Perhaps, he feels for them or wants to help, but ‘love’ is not even a consideration. His world view of economic justice stems from the belief that everyone, if given equal opportunity, is capable of equal production. It’s a Pollyanna view of social structure that has Europe in economic ruins and our country further down the road to bankruptcy. Those in power can get perturbed at Standard & Poor’s for lowering the United States’ credit rating, but in the wake of massive government spending on social programs designed to change our American way of enterprise, it’s counterproductive. But it is a sign that the world is watching and seeing a much weaker America.
A weaker America is bad for all of us – rich and poor alike.
Sourses: Yahoo! News
fownews.com
dailymail.co.uk
Robert Watkins is former investment professional and partner. He lives with his family in Glen Mills, Pa., and is a frequent contributor to Yahoo! News