Posted on 01/28/2009 9:44:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obama articulates his socialist vision for the United States. He muses about a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts (Ctrl-Click Image to hear interview).
Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution
In a radio interview given in 2001, Barack Obama finally articulates his philosophy on how social engineering (socialism) should come and be established here in the United States.
What the junior Senator from Illinois would like to see is a Supreme Court that would legislate (from the bench) transfer of earned monies from citizens that work to the citizens who do not.
The more one reads these statements of philosophy, one is left to wonder … exactly what about this country and its constitution does Barack Obama like? Judging by the proposed projection of action he had wished the Warren court missed at taking on … not much. He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the document that allowed this country to become the most productive and powerful on Earth – how flawed can this document be?
Personal freedom and the right to one’s earned wealth are two items that Barack Obama would like to have in the total control of the federal government – ALL BRANCHES.
This excerpted and edited from Morningstar –
Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview) Beliavsky - Morningstar - 10-26-2008
Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples".
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. ---- 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.
So, does anyone here think that Barack Obama would restructure the Supreme Court system so that they can legislate changes on how much money we earn can be confiscated for redistribution purposes without the opportunity for a vote by the people in this democracy?
One week ago....ONE WEEK...he stated under oath that he would "preserve, protect and defend The Constitution."
How does he reconcile that with his latest statement regarding The Constitution?
Grounds for impeachment. I'm sure our MSM media will demand he retract the statement.
Keep sending cases up to SCOTUS over the BC & usurper with military plaintiffs - active, reserve and retired. Let SCOTUS tell the military personnel they have no standing or are denied.
Next, let the entire military know that they have no rights and are serfs. They are risking their life to defend the Constitution that SCOTUS will not uphold. It is not over yet but SCOTUS needs to act on one of the next 5 cases there.
Conservative talk show host should have been kicking in money for helping attorneys like Orly, Pidgeon, Berg, Kreep and others. I guess spending av gas for the jet to go see the Steelers was a higher priority.
Posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2166819/posts?page=33#33
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2166819/posts?page=34#34
Another item of interest:
Obama once backed full gay marriage [in 1996]
Windy City Times ^ | 2009-01-13 | Windy City Times
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:25:12 AM by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165041/posts
“One week ago....ONE WEEK...he stated under oath that he would “preserve, protect and defend The Constitution.”
How does he reconcile that with his latest statement regarding The Constitution?”
He had a do-over in the Oval Office. The second time around he didn’t swear to preserve, protect and defend the Consititution. He swore to kill babies and free terrorists and turn the United States of America into a third world nation.
“One week ago....ONE WEEK...he stated under oath that he would “preserve, protect and defend The Constitution.”
How does he reconcile that with his latest statement regarding The Constitution? “
He is a DemocRAT, that’s how.
Same thing with Hollywood actors/actresses. I'm surprised at how tiny some of those people are.
I call the Communityorganizer-in-Chief a deeply flawed individual...
“...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.”
none of this is new (it has been discussed numerous times) but people need to know what an unAmerican president they have elected (one who will most certainly violate his oath to UPHOLD the Constitution). He sees it as an obstacle to his agenda.
"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."
He's also a moron with no clue as to the nature of the document.
And you know that he (or they) do not send money to this and other conservative causes how? Real conservatives do not make a point of announcing their donations but do it for the proper reasons.
“Same thing with Hollywood actors/actresses. I’m surprised at how tiny some of those people are. “
Reptilians masquerading as humans.
But, but, but, isn’t THE ONE a CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer and knows the document inside and out?
The biggest flaw is that it doesn't place term limits on legislators.
If that's the case, he's worse than a moron...he's a liar.
Personally, I suspect both.
To be fair to Obama this is a sickness that many politicians at all levels, and in both parties, have. Whatever it is they want to accomplish, they see the Constitution as only a hindrance to get around, not as something that defines the hard limits of their power.
Sedition.
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.