Shame, Cubed

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:02:58 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Bill Whittle - a friend of Mr. Whittle found a 2001 recording of Obama, openly describing his hope to avoid the inconvenience of the US Constitution to implement his wealth redistribution scheme. That scheme is what I believe will be the major theme of his presidency, should he be elected, as appears likely, or should the voting machines be programmed to choose him anyway, should enough Americans come to their senses in time. I believe that the purpose of Mr. Obama's presidency will be to do as much as possible to destroy the concept of private property. It will have disastrous consequences. Hopefully, Atlas will shrug and the world will fall on top of Obama's head, crushing him to death.

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American -- or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man's beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

Barack Obama, in 2001:

"You know, 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 a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution 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. 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 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.

"And that hasn't shifted, and 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."

Add comment Edit post Add post