This is all over the net, now making it’s way into talk radio and has now been addressed by McCain. Unearthed this weekend, here is the September 6, 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview where Barack Obama laments the “tragedy” of how the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts to get what they wanted, because “redistributive change”, i.e. “spreading the wealth” could only be accomplished through political efforts and “community organizing.”
First, here’s the complete audio:
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has an excellent analysis, and here is the McCain response:
“The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change.’ In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the Court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,” McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.
While this is a good statement from the McCain campaign, they miss one of the major points about this Obama revelation–he recognizes what they Founding Father’s intended as enshrined in the Constitution: a limited, small government, certainly not one that had the responsibility of redistributing wealth. Yet, despite acknowledging what the Founders wanted, and that the Courts, via their commitment to the Constitution, won’t do (i.e., allow the unconstitutional ‘spreading of the wealth) Obama wants it anyway. He knows with control of both congress and the White House you don’t need the courts to eradicate the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Why would he want to do this? Because he’s a Marxist, has contempt for the bitter, clingy, racist, red-necked rube crackers of America and this is for your own good.
This also dispels the notion that his ‘spread the weralth’ comment to JtP was some sort of freakish, gaffish slip that he really didn’t mean and was simply possessed by aliens for a second. No, this is a deeply rooted political agenda, and it is exactly what he intends to implement if elected.
Clearly, for me, anyway, posting the lynching of gay teenagers should give rise to the thought of who Obama would like to sit down and talk – without pre-conditions. Don’t think for a second that gays are anything more to Baraq than massageable statistics.
Also, has anyone noticed the angry face and authoritative determination of the Illinois Senator when he’s on a roll.
Look at a picture or a clip of the Austrian-born Leader of Germany at a Nuremburg rally. His “Happy Brownshirts”, many of whom were queer -not just Roelm – but – Horst Wesel (according to his family, too, were dispathed only because they were homosexuals and had earned influence (rightly or wrongly).
Goebbels ashes must be dusting-up in admiration.
By the way, Tammy, that show wasn’t originally aired on September 6, 2001, but on January 18, 2001.
Obama is of the opinion that America would be a wonderful country if not for those unfortunate Constitutional restrictions against the government’s ability to wield absolute power over the citizens. But appoint a few more drones to the courts to re-interpret critical clauses with an Orwellian twist, and we’ll have heaven on Earth…by presidential mandate, of course.
The terrible irony is that the people who promote this kind of economic authoritarianism and don’t believe in the right to keep and bear arms are the same ones who sound dire warnings about anything that works to protect decent people from criminals (such as restricting how close a child molester can live to a school).
So Obama’s basic premise is that the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it protects the indivdual liberty of the American people?
IF he wins, exactly what will he be swearing to uphold and defend? IF he wins, how can he take the oath of office?
But! he’s NOT going to win— but let’s just keep piling on so he’ll just go away.
Obama will be swearing to uphold what he believes is his interpretation of how he wants our Constitution to be. Remember – he said words, just words.
After spreading wealth, is it possible that he will move on to reparations with our tax dollars. Heard the reparations rumor a while back and it has surfaced again. BTW, has Mr Obama ever publicly rejected his sworn oath to black liberation theology or whatever obligation he took upon himself when he signed up with the wright church of hate whites.
Has anyone else noticed how Bari sounds more and more like one of the boyz from the ‘hood when he gets wound up – sometimes catches himself and changes the accent.
Obama promised to run his campaign with federal funding – we’ve all see how much honor he has wehn he immediately broke that promise. Be very afraid!