Posted on 10/27/2008 2:46:13 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Once again we have another story that has been picked up in a big way by the Blogosphere but is currently being ignored by the mainstream media. And this time the story is huge. If you've seen the Drudge Report today you will know exactly which story this is; the audio of a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ FM in which Barack Obama explicitly calls for the "redistribution of wealth." You won't find any information about this blockbuster story in the MSM just yet but as been very typical lately, you can be informed on this topic on the Blogosphere including this report from Steve Schippert of Wizbang who posted it at 1:20 this morning while the members of the MSM were complacently sleeping, comfortable in the knowledge that Obama probably had the election in the bag:
The audio of a Barack Obama radio interview below is stunning. Unfortunately, it will probably stun few. For once the word "Constitution" is mentioned, electoral eyes roll into the backs of voters' heads as memories of a boring high school history class in a hot, dusty classroom emerge in the place of contemplation of the founding principles of this nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I planned on going to bed as well after Fox talked about it, but now I am afraid I may miss something good. Good grief;/
Well, it’s possible, I suppose. I don’t think Hillary actively hates the US the way Obama does; she and Bill have done very well off the US! In fact, so has Obama, but he and the people behind him (also well-off) are true Marxist zealots and they know they’ll continue to do well once they control everything.
Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinsky and probably was more radical in her youth. But I think she’s now more on the Eleanor Roosevelt progressivist-nanny state side, rather than the Marxism red in tooth and claw side. The problem is that more moderate Dems are facing a radicalized party that is going to punish them unless they get in line. I hope more of them try to get the message out.
Also don't count on these so called Moderate Democrats to do anything. Why should they? The Republicans in Congress did nothing and watched this train wreck happen.
While I will vote for the McCain Palin ticket and every other Conservative on the ballot, it has become clear that OBAMA will be the next President and he will try to impose, by any means necessary, a Socialist United States of America.
The only question is this. Will the American People stand against this tyranny or will they become like the Europeans?
I think it would do Obama well to find out what it is like to be an American, age 20-30, working hard, raising a family and trying to save toward a better life. That would be the best education he ever had.
Joe and Mika on Morning Joe just started talking about that Obama audio.
Yep, saw it on Fox a little while ago. The arrogance of it is unbelieveable. Have you heard about the big fancy celebration for election day he is planning? Man I so hope the whole thing crashes and burns.
Thats fantastic:) Maybe this is actually going to go. I have seen nothing from the Obama camp on it yet.
The NB story is the NewsBusters story you get when you click the link at the beginning of the story. Surely you don’t think this short EXCERPT is the entire story? If so, then you missed speculation about the Hillary connection to this story’s release.
LuckyTheDog (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-27-08 07:07 AM Original message Drudge LIES again Advertisements [?]In an interview in 1991, Barack Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the civil right movement became too "court focused" and did not spend enough time (in his view) pursuing policies aimed at improving the economic lot of African Americans. But Drudge lies by characterizing those remarks very differently. While Obama said, basically, that the courts were acting properly and within the law, Drudge's headline says this: "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT" This spin has to be shot down now. It is clear from the context that Obama was not talking about any kind of "forced redistribution of wealth." but merely using the term "redistributive" in a narrow, academic sense, meaning policies that would allow African Americans better economic opportunities than were available in the early 1960s.
There's that "narrow" explanation again!;0)
Lol, all I can say is I am glad I have arms on my chair. It keeps me from tumbling to the floor when I dose off;/
My son was listening to Opie & Anthony before school. I don’t know who’s who on that mix but BO’s redistribution agenda was lambasted finally. And one of them said he’s voting McCain. A black caller was told off because he’s just voting BO because of race. Finally.
how about some one his own age too, peeps in their 40s, working hard, closer to retirement, college tuitions to pay... this man has never lived as a American, never lived a average life. he is not “new and shiny” he is the same old elitist, out of touch, politics as usual dem candidate. he is just a shade different, if you get my drift, and dressed up with some ribbons and bows of hope and change... the dems are “re-gifting”...open at your own risk;)
They send me Time and Newsweek without me ordering it, hoping I’ll put it in my waiting room. After shredding them I told the ‘rats at Time to stick their marxist rag
This is the transcript of the 2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth audio, courtesy Perdogg on the Sean Hannity board (I haven’t proofread it but it looks like it’s an accurate portrayal):
TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
**************
In a nutshell…this discussion is about the best way to bring about economic justice through redistribution of wealth.
This is not about the merits of redistribution…but rather the best way to make it happen.
We need to remember that in this audio if was not IF to redistribute wealth, but HOW. If had already decided as a done deal.
sorry the first if should have been it. Thats what you get after an all nighter.
Thanks, I was able to view it under another title. Seems a lot of the ‘popular’ videos get overloaded. I hope the voters get the message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.