Obama: Let’s Pursue Reparations Through Legislation Rather Than the Courts
Ace of Spades HQ ^ | October 27, 2008 | Ace http://minx.cc/?post=276650
Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 3:46:23 PM by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2116734/posts
Yup:
A caller, “Karen,” asked if it’s “too late for that kind of reparative work economically?” And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.
“Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor,” Obama said. “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.”
“Reparative work.” Seems like the caller understood what Obama was saying, and Obama agreed.
It’s only now that they are furiously spinning that they meant something else.
While Obama isn’t “optimistic” about getting this “reparative work” done through the courts, he hasn’t entirely given up on them:
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.
Obama’s Redistributionist Obsession: Racially-tinged economic justice.
This is astounding stuff from a man who is one election away from the presidency. In politer tones, he is saying things that would make his mentors Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and William Ayers, not necessarily in that order proud as peacocks. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are probably beaming too.
....
I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word “change” from Team Obama, they insert the work “redistributive” in front of it.
Curiously, one of Obama’s ideas for “change” — taxing 401k’s — tracks rather neatly with radical redistributionist Phather Phleger’s call for white people giving up their 401ks in the interest of racial justice.
bttt
Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
By Michelle Malkin October 26, 2008 11:44 PM
The blogosphere is buzzing about this video posted on YouTube Sunday night. It’s Barack Obama musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001.
Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation?
A caller asks The One to explain how he would do “reparative economic work.” Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of “breaking free of the constraints” placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and then burbles about cobbling together the “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/13/spread-the-wealth-swallow-the-crap-sandwiches/
STACLU http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/ has transcribed the choice parts of the interview.
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 people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 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. In some ways we still suffer from that.
The bottom line from Jeff Goldstein: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/
In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”
Well, then. Fine .
But this is not the America I knew?
Yeah, and don’t you dare ask Obama or Biden about this.
You’ll get blacklisted http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/25/best-interview-of-joe-biden-ever/ and bombarded and labeled “combative.”
And who knows what’ll happen to your government records. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/25/will-the-privacy-champions-come-to-joe-the-plumbers-defense/
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth.....he calls it ‘redistributive change’. This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
The audio of the entire program is here:
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram
Transcript: “Barrack Obama: “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and it’s 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 ok.”
“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 I think 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 in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted. And Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties says what the State’s can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t to you 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. And 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 the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
It sounds to me, in the middle paragraph above, that Obama is essentially saying he does not support the U.S. Constitution.
Summation:
Obama says the Warren court is seen as radical because it did much to advance civil rights but it really wasn’t because it didn’t sweep away the constraints in the constitution on redistributing the wealth. Then when asked by a caller if the best way to accomplish “reparative economics” is through the courts or the legislature he goes into a diatribe about what the most efficient means to do it is.