Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut1
The author...

Kool aid runs in her veins.

3 posted on 05/03/2009 7:41:31 AM PDT by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: raybbr

Upon seeing that pic, I was sure she was a transsexual. However, doing a search for “Jodi Kantor” online and reading her bio, other pictures of her look (slightly) better, and I see that she is married and has had a pregnancy. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alumni/Magazine/Fall2005/Kantor.pdf

Still a leftist loon though.


8 posted on 05/03/2009 7:48:24 AM PDT by Screaming_Gerbil (The light at the end of the tunnel might be an oncoming train...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: raybbr
The author is either delusional or lying.

Here's what Obama said during the interview cited by Rush:

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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- 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.

RUSH: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues such as political and economic justice in this society." He went on to say, "To that extent..." Well, here. He went on. Rather than me read it to you, let me let you hear this in his own words.

OBAMA: As radical as I think 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 has been interpreted -- and 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, 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. ... 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 redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.
The push is on to make Obama's radicalism normal. He'll appear to move slowly and deliberately--after all, as he told us in one of his bios, you must appear polite to white people. Don't make any "fast moves." Zero will appoint some neo-Marxist like himself and it will be portrayed as a moderate, sensible, reasonable move.

I'm really beginning to hate the people who support the Zero. The taste of Stalinist adulation makes me ill.

12 posted on 05/03/2009 7:53:11 AM PDT by ishmac (Lady Thatcher:"There are no permanent defeats in politics because there are no permanent victories.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson