New (old) Obama "Share The Wealth" Radicalism Clip

[Sir_Galahad]

In an interview with Chicago’s WBEZ radio in 2001, Barack Obama laid out his true socialist desires. In the interview, Obama says that the Civil Rights movement didn’t succeed because it didn’t win to “redistribute the wealth.” He says the Supreme Court under Warren failed because it didn’t break free of the Constitution!

Barack Obama wants to institute communism and wants to eliminate the Constitution of the United States. Is THIS the man you want for president and leader of our great nation? This man is no Democrat. He’s a traitor to the most important ideas of our nation.

This is not fear-mongering. This is truth. Straight from the horse's mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[ne1410s]

sir g:

Barack Obama wants to institute communism and wants to eliminate the Constitution of the United States.

Too late. Federal government has already done the first and Dubya, Big Dick, and Alberto have already disposed of the second.

[Sir_Galahad]

sir g:

Barack Obama wants to institute communism and wants to eliminate the Constitution of the United States.

Too late. Federal government has already done the first and Dubya, Big Dick, and Alberto have already disposed of the second.

Yep. And if Obama becomes president you can flush the rest of the constitution down the drain.

But we still have a chance to derail that train.

[danielh41]

In an interview with Chicago’s WBEZ radio in 2001, Barack Obama laid out his true socialist desires. In the interview, Obama says that the Civil Rights movement didn’t succeed because it didn’t win to “redistribute the wealth.” He says the Supreme Court under Warren failed because it didn’t break free of the Constitution!

Barack Obama wants to institute communism and wants to eliminate the Constitution of the United States. Is THIS the man you want for president and leader of our great nation? This man is no Democrat. He’s a traitor to the most important ideas of our nation.

This is not fear-mongering. This is truth. Straight from the horse's mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

I was just listening to Rush in the car on the way back from lunch, and he was saying that we (as in conservatives) need to quit trying to link Obama to Ayers and start linking Obama to Obama. I agree, and this clip shows Obama for who and what he really is.

[Jeemie]

I have to admit- this part really shook me up.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Huh?!?!?!?

"Break free from the constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?

"The Constitution is a 'charter of negative liberties'"?

"The Constitution doesn't say 'what government must do on your behalf'"?

Um...wrong, wrong, and the Constitution CLEARLY lays out the functions of government "on behalf of the people".

Holy CRAP...that was scary stuff. I don't care "what context" someone tries to put those words in.

[mellytu74]

Gee, for some reason, the YouTube clip isn't nearly as lengthy as the real interview. Guess that's what happens when you take stuff out of context.

Via Ben Smith at Politico (contains the links to both the transcript and the audio):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

I always thought that the CURRENT tax system WAS redistribution of wealth through such things as infrastructure repairs, street paving, clean water, sewage plants, FBI and ATF agents, workers' compensation, et al.

If not, how do those things get done and those guys get paid?

[Jeemie]

Gee, for some reason, the YouTube clip isn't nearly as lengthy as the real interview. Guess that's what happens when you take stuff out of context.

Via Ben Smith at Politico (contains the links to both the transcript and the audio):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

I always thought that the CURRENT tax system WAS redistribution of wealth through such things as infrastructure repairs, street paving, clean water, sewage plants, FBI and ATF agents, workers' compensation, et al.

If not, how do those things get done and those guys get paid?

A progressive tax system is not redistribution of wealth...it's merely good cost accounting.

Why would you believe it was?

[mellytu74]

Gee, for some reason, the YouTube clip isn't nearly as lengthy as the real interview. Guess that's what happens when you take stuff out of context.

Via Ben Smith at Politico (contains the links to both the transcript and the audio):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

I always thought that the CURRENT tax system WAS redistribution of wealth through such things as infrastructure repairs, street paving, clean water, sewage plants, FBI and ATF agents, workers' compensation, et al.

If not, how do those things get done and those guys get paid?

A progressive tax system is not redistribution of wealth...it's merely good cost accounting.

Why would you believe it was?

Sorry, Jeemie. Should have used sarcafont. Was meant entirely tongue-in-cheek.

[ne1410s]

The old saw is correct: America was founded by a bunch of old, rich, white-men who didn't want to pay their taxes. We've come a long way, baby.

[Jeemie]

The old saw is correct: America was founded by a bunch of old, rich, white-men who didn't want to pay their taxes. We've come a long way, baby.

If ever there was a load of BS- this is it.

[Jeemie]

Gee, for some reason, the YouTube clip isn't nearly as lengthy as the real interview. Guess that's what happens when you take stuff out of context.

Via Ben Smith at Politico (contains the links to both the transcript and the audio):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

I always thought that the CURRENT tax system WAS redistribution of wealth through such things as infrastructure repairs, street paving, clean water, sewage plants, FBI and ATF agents, workers' compensation, et al.

If not, how do those things get done and those guys get paid?

A progressive tax system is not redistribution of wealth...it's merely good cost accounting.

Why would you believe it was?

Sorry, Jeemie. Should have used sarcafont. Was meant entirely tongue-in-cheek.

Well, at any rate, it's not Obama's views on progressive taxes that alarm me anywhere NEAR as much as his apparently warped view of what the Constitution is.

This has seriously got me re-thinking my vote.

[Bob78164]

I have to admit- this part really shook me up.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Huh?!?!?!?

"Break free from the constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?

"The Constitution is a 'charter of negative liberties'"?

"The Constitution doesn't say 'what government must do on your behalf'"?

Um...wrong, wrong, and the Constitution CLEARLY lays out the functions of government "on behalf of the people".

Holy CRAP...that was scary stuff. I don't care "what context" someone tries to put those words in.

I haven't read the transcript, but it's available through the Ben Smith link provided by Melly. Smith summarizes the context, as do some conservative legal scholars (available through the same link). I'm relying on those summaries.

The consensus is that Obama was taking a conservative (in the political sense) position on constitutional interpretation. His point was that the Constitution does not guarantee, say, a minimum income or free health care in the way that it guarantees freedom of speech or freedom of religion. He was criticizing liberal civil rights groups to the extent they tried to achive these goals through the courts rather than through the political process.

Still scared? --Bob

[Jeemie]

I have to admit- this part really shook me up.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Huh?!?!?!?

"Break free from the constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?

"The Constitution is a 'charter of negative liberties'"?

"The Constitution doesn't say "what government must do on your behalf'"?

Um...wrong, wrong, and the Constitution CLEARLY lays out the functions of government "on behalf of the people".

Holy CRAP...that was scary stuff. I don't care "what context" someone tries to put those words in.

I haven't read the transcript, but it's available through the Ben Smith link provided by Melly. Smith summarizes the context, as do some conservative legal scholars (available through the same link). I'm relying on those summaries.

The consensus is that Obama was taking a conservative (in the political sense) position on constitutional interpretation. His point was that the Constitution does not guarantee, say, a minimum income or free health care in the way that it guarantees freedom of speech or freedom of religion. He was criticizing liberal civil rights groups to the extent they tried to achive these goals through the courts rather than through the political process.

Still scared? --Bob

Yes- because he was saying that he WANTED it to...via the legislative process.

That was his entire reason for going on about "forming coalitions of power".

[Bob78164]

I have to admit- this part really shook me up.
Huh?!?!?!?

"Break free from the constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"?

"The Constitution is a 'charter of negative liberties'"?

"The Constitution doesn't say "what government must do on your behalf'"?

Um...wrong, wrong, and the Constitution CLEARLY lays out the functions of government "on behalf of the people".

Holy CRAP...that was scary stuff. I don't care "what context" someone tries to put those words in.

I haven't read the transcript, but it's available through the Ben Smith link provided by Melly. Smith summarizes the context, as do some conservative legal scholars (available through the same link). I'm relying on those summaries.

The consensus is that Obama was taking a conservative (in the political sense) position on constitutional interpretation. His point was that the Constitution does not guarantee, say, a minimum income or free health care in the way that it guarantees freedom of speech or freedom of religion. He was criticizing liberal civil rights groups to the extent they tried to achive these goals through the courts rather than through the political process.

Still scared? --Bob

Yes- because he was saying that he WANTED it to...via the legislative process.

That was his entire reason for going on about "forming coalitions of power".

I don't see that, either in his record or in the language quoted. I think he's talking about achieving these goals through economic activity in addition to legislative activity. There's certainly no reason to think that Obama will govern from the far left -- that's why S-cubed can't stand him (that, and the fact that he had the temerity to beat Hillary).

Here's the whole transcript, conveniently provided by Fox News. I still haven't had time to read it. --Bob

[Jeemie]

I haven't read the transcript, but it's available through the Ben Smith link provided by Melly. Smith summarizes the context, as do some conservative legal scholars (available through the same link). I'm relying on those summaries.

The consensus is that Obama was taking a conservative (in the political sense) position on constitutional interpretation. His point was that the Constitution does not guarantee, say, a minimum income or free health care in the way that it guarantees freedom of speech or freedom of religion. He was criticizing liberal civil rights groups to the extent they tried to achive these goals through the courts rather than through the political process.

Still scared? --Bob

Yes- because he was saying that he WANTED it to...via the legislative process.

That was his entire reason for going on about "forming coalitions of power".

I don't see that, either in his record or in the language quoted. I think he's talking about achieving these goals through economic activity in addition to legislative activity. There's certainly no reason to think that Obama will govern from the far left -- that's why S-cubed can't stand him (that, and the fact that he had the temerity to beat Hillary).

Here's the whole transcript, conveniently provided by Fox News. I still haven't had time to read it. --Bob

I do not share your assessment.

Not in the slightest.