Obama said to ???Joe the Plumber??? that he wanted to spread the wealth around by taxing the rich. Obama even admitted to saying it. But Joe Biden denied it during and interview and then the Obama campaign sent a letter to the station telling them they would not have any more interviews. Now we have another audio tape of Obama specifically talking about his philosophy (really Karl Marx???s philosophy) where he said in a regretting tone of the Warren Court, ???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.”
The McCain camp has seized on this:
John McCain yesterday sought to use a seven-year-old radio interview to buttress his argument that Democrat Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth.
The interview – first reported by the Drudge Report and highlighted by conservative bloggers and websites – was with a Chicago radio station on Sept. 6, 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law school lecturer.
Obama, talking about the civil rights movement and Supreme Court, says: “I think where it succeeded was to invest 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 would 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.”
Calling it one of the “tragedies” of the movement, he added 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.”
This of course has lead to sharp rebuttals from the Obama campaign as liberals are want to do in order to claim the truth is not the truth:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the interview as “a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.”
“Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all,” Burton said in a statement.
Let???s go back and read what Obama actually said then shall we? Let???s do it in full context:
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.
Obama specifically lamented what he saw as the lack of ???redistributive change.??? He said that. There is no spinning it.
But there is another issue with this quote from his Marxist ramblings. He said, ??? … 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 this man is supposed to have been somewhat of an expert on the Constitution? Really? How can you say that with a straight face when he says the Constitution, ???doesn???t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf????
Let me quote the Constitution Barack Obama and his supporters claim to know so well! And let me quote to you SPECIFICALLY where the Constitution talks about what the, ???Federal Government … must do on your behalf???:
Article I, Section 8 USC ??? ???The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.???
How???s that Obama for a list of things the government is supposed to do for the people? I know, it???s far too short for your liberal ideology but to say that there is no definition of what the government is to do on our behalf is either the height of ignorance or a down right lie by a man that knows better.
And how about this:
Amendment X: ???The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.???
Right there Barack it says that all powers not delegated to the federal government are the responsibility of the states OR the people!
And this man is supposed to be smart? Stupider like a Marxist is more like it!
How can he defend the Constitution if elected President when he either does not know what the Constitution contains or so freely ignores it? In either case he is therefore unqualified for the job.
RSS Feed
Loading ...