Posted on 10/27/2008 7:23:16 AM PDT by pissant
Back in 2001, Barack Obama gave an interview to a Chicago public radio station in which he talked about using the Supreme Court, the most undemocratic of the three branches of government (nonelected, lifetime terms), to "spread the wealth." Some rough excerpts:
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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try 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 and the Constitution.... One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that. You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Me: This should be a Saturday Night Live sketch. Use the court to redistribute wealth? Really? The Warren court was not radical? Really?
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
There will be armed insurrection if this idiot is elected and implements his fascist plans for the country.
And the best way to rearrange the social structure of America. Never in my lifetime have I seen such a clear distinction between the two major parties in just about all areas of presidential concern. It clearly is a vote of capitalisim vs. socialism/marxism.
Personally, I’d like to see Atlas Shrug and have 10 million people decide not to file their taxes.
you seem to misunderstand how the new marxists work. It’s gradual. And it’s not unlike it already exists in our government today so Obama and his marxists he brings to DC will have an existing framework to work with.
No, although O is definitely arguing for redistribution of wealth, his point is that the courts have proven not to be the proper vehicle. Rather, he wants legislation, collectively demanded by "community groups" to bring about the equality of misery.
Per AOS:
Translation [ace]: As lefties are suggesting idiotic interpretations, and even some on the right are getting it wrong, here's what he's saying:
1. The Supreme Court never considered "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice" among the guarantees provided to citizens.
2. Even the Warren Court was not "radical" enough to do so -- to impose real change on the nation.
3. The courts have generally provided negative constraints on the government rather than positive obligations the government owes to its citizens (specifically, here, such as economic justice and redistribution of wealth).
4. Therefore, it is a "tragedy" that the civil rights movement became so courts-focused, because it limited what redress they could actually obtain -- and it took attention away from the "community organizing" efforts which could assemble "coalitions of power" (political power, that is) to actually achieve "redistributive change." Such change simply could not be had in the courts, still laboring under the "constraints" imposed by the Founding Fathers.
5. "And in some ways we still suffer from that."
Give it up, lefties -- that's what the quote means.
A mistake the right is making is claiming he wanted the courts to assume a more radical, wealth-redistribitionist posture -- which I have no doubt at all he does believe, but he doesn't quite say that in the quote.
He is saying that the courts were the wrong venue to seek such change, not being "radical" enough, and that "community organizing" and assembling "coalitions of power" were the right ways to do so.
And so he's done so himself, of course. The courts were not the right vehicle for "redistributive change," but getting himself elected president, with a socialist-friendly supermajority of Democrats in Congress to rubber stamp his agenda, is the right vehicle.
The "coalitions of power" are being assembled as we speak."
Memo to Obama:
We tried welfare. Doesn’t work.
One problem with income redistribution is the government bureaucrats take too much off the top.
Need proof? Take a look at your wife’s pay stub.
How long does it take and what gradual steps happen to “the sad road to socialism?” http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/loeffler/2008/0718.html
Have the seeds been planted and gradually blossom for “change” using a manufactured crisis http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
Scary thought when u look at the “Big Picture”
Don’t focus on courts, Obama in the audio states it needs to be done by the LEGISLATURE and the EXECUTIVE branch.
I think he’s saying you won’t get sharing the wealth thru the courts but rather need to do it thru legislative and administrative means.
This audio is even beyond his wealth distribution exposed by Joe the plumber. That was generic, class orientated redistribution with Joe.
This audio is race specific, it was in the context of racial discrimination being addressed by the courts and the subsequent lack of wealth redistribution being part of the courts decision.
He has jumped the shark, he’s talking about reparations thru carefully crafted set of laws, taxes etc., that he will have the power to enact during his administration.
Nice to ride Reid and Pelosi on a rail out of D.C. too.
The younger voters who would make him President, were informed with socialism in the public schools and in the universities.
Like the song says, “You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
It is also theoretically OK for the people to replace a tyrannical form of government. Academically speaking, of course.
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.