is President Obama’s re-election in the suburbanites’ interest? The answer emphatically is no.As many Americans do not know, in the eyes of the leftist community organizers who trained Obama, suburbs are instruments of bigotry and greed — a way of selfishly refusing to share tax money with the urban poor.
Kurtz continues to explain how the left is promoting a concept of "regionalism", which is "spread the wealth around" applied to geography. Suburbs would be taxed higher rates to subsidize neighboring urban areas.
Limbaugh, in his review, posits a rhetorical questions:
Why doesn't Obama, why don't the Democrats close these disastrous inner-city schools? They don't want people leaving them. They don't want the parents of students in those schools to have any options. They want those schools open. They want those neighborhoods as is. They want to force people back into them. That's why they don't get rid of the teachers there. That's why they don't close down the schools. That's why Obama opposes vouchers. It's why he opposes school choice, or practically any other human free choice that people want to make. Because he has a plan, he and his leftist buddies
aka, if the Dems want suburbanites to move back into the cities, why don't they offer carrots (e.g. reduced crime, better schools etc) versus just sticks (e.g. increased taxation and regulation)? The answer is "RACISM"! Since progressives assume all emigration out of the cities was entirely due to intolerant, narrow-minded "white flight", they conclude that "evil" suburbanites don't deserve any enticements to be lured back into urban areas and must be compelled to return, against their will, if necessary.
So, it seems that Obama is not only angry with people who cling to their guns, god and religion, but to people who follow John Locke and cling to their private property, as well: