Stunning send to everyone. This is NOT about “socially engineered poverty elimination” as the Kos freaks define it, but it is about SOCIALISM. Make it go viral.
Also a reminder: this story is not about simple redistribution from the haves to the have-nots, which is the norm from Democrats and therefore unsurprising. Obama’s redistribution is in the context of the civil rights movement. In other words, from everyone else to blacks, based on nothing so much except skin color.
Many people will need to be gently reminded: this is not about helping the poor. Many, many, Democrats and independents (and Republicans) aren’t bothered by a little redistribution to alleviate poverty. I think for many it is considered a public good, something that, of course, governments should provide. So when this is couched in those terms, people will think “no big deal, we already do this.”
That’s the way Professor Bernstein went at Volokh:
It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.
Obama’s desires for redistribution are not merely about health care or equalizing educational opportunities or making the rich pay a fair share of taxes or ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college, as Bernstein implies. I’m sure Obama is interested in that kind of redistribution. But his comments reveal that he’s also interested in redistributing wealth based on skin color.
No matter how resigned to redistribution for purposes of alleviating poverty, or educational disparities, very few are ready to embrace redistribution based on race. Go out and remind them!
Obama’s potential Sec of Education from Wisconsin has described the policy as being Reparations using a system of block grants to Black schools and Mortgages, versus payments to individuals. Investor’s Business Daily Reparations By Another Name Friday August 8,2008
He says that redistribution of wealth is an administrative task in 2001.
Joe the Plumber’s objection resonates. Barack Obama wants government to determine what is excessive wealth and confiscate it because government will “spread the wealth” better than the individuals who earned it.
The basic question from Joe the Plumber comes down to who should spend the money people earn. If the answer given is “government”, then that’s the elitist answer. If the answer given is “the earner”, then that is the libertarian, free-market answer that supports self-government and private-property ownership. In fact, it also supports common sense. Why filter wealth through a huge bureaucracy when Joe the Plumber can spread the wealth for no additional cost at all, choosing his own winners and losers instead of a few elites in Washington doing it for him?
Obama has been saying it for a long time. Barack Obama warned us back in 2001:
Thanks ACE:
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.
Entire interview. Thanks Vinnie. [Vinnie] Here’s the entire interview (requires RealPlayer)
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.
The bottom line from Jeff Goldstein:
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 and bombarded and labeled “combative.”
And who knows what’ll happen to your government records.
Here’t the original audio right from the station:
tinyurl.com/6q5rtgLink
The audio archive is here:
http://tinyurl.com/5pqc63
October 27, 2008 at 9:14 am
Sigh. Obama is referring to the redistribution of wealth that was necessary between the time slavery ended and the time the civil rights movement got into full swing. In other words, this is a theoretical discussion mostly centered around the policies enacted over 40 to 140 years ago.
The running yellow commentary in the video is completely misleading and outright wrong at times. It’s pretty hilarious that you are actually taking it as fact, when you can hear how off it is as you’re reading it. The best part of this Youtube clip is that the creator can’t even spell the words he or she is typing. (If your news source didn’t even take the time to use spell check on his Power Point production, he might be a little less than credible.)
What you McCain folks don’t realize is that the wealth has been “redistributed” for years. It’s being taken away from future generations in the form of loans in order to fund a war based on lies. The Bush economy has spent money at a prolific rate, almost unrivaled in the history of the modern world. The debt is now 10.5 trillion dollars, people. That’s $35,000 dollars per head. Instead of taxing you, GW has simply run your credit card up to 35k without telling you. And guess what? There’s interest! YOUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
You’re funding wars with your Social Security and your children’s tax money. Why are you so angry that a small percentage of very wealthy individuals might go back to paying the same tax rates that they were paying 8 years ago? Why are you so eager to fall on your swords so that Exxon Mobile can keep huge profits while you just spend a few hundred dollars a month filling up your tank for an entire summer?
Please take the time to read facts instead of listening to lies and half truths spouted by people who can’t even spell at a 6th grade level.
October 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm
[...] Obama 2001 Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered « Mcnorman’s Weblog [...]
October 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
James, SPIN IT BABY! It is what it is!
He was a law professor at the time. Did you listen to the entire interview??? I bet you did NOT.
October 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.
This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, 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’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, 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.
The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, 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 in some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
We’re just getting started.
THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.
There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.
That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
You’ve earned it.
THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?
PWNED!!
October 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
[...] Ace, Michelle Malkin, Bookworm Room, TrueSolider96, Memoirs of a Young Conservative, Flopping Aces, McNorman, and The Baltimore [...]
October 27, 2008 at 11:02 pm
[...] http://mcnorman.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/obama-bombshell-redistribution-of-wealth-audio-uncovered/ [...]