About Me

Name: Daemonocracy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Obama Audio proves his Income redistribution intentions!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck


"Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered" is the title of a video recently posted on youtube.  I have the above link, check it out.  In it Obama frankly discusses his views on wealth redistribution on a left leaning Chicago public radio station.  He wants to radically reinterpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth, specifically to African Americans.  It seems as if this is some form of reparations he is advocating, but he clearly supports the idea of income redistribution all around.

Karl Marx said "From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."  A quote Joe Biden scoffed at when a Florida TV reporter, Barbara West of WFTV, mentioned it in an interview.  Biden asked if "she was joking..." and her answer was that she was not.  Well apparently, neither is Obama.

This is right from the horse's mouth and much more in depth than what some excused as a throw away line Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" not too long ago.  He is uncharacteristically frank in his support of this policy, says clearly that since the courts are unlikely to pursue such a policy, the legislature must.  No typical Obama nuance here, he is preaching to the choir on this radio station, but now hopefully the rest of America will get to hear how he truly feels about this issue.
 
8 days to go until the election, who knows if this will catch on.  Too long to put into a short ad effectively but hopefully, maybe this time, the Mainstream Media will do their job for once and challenge their favorite candidate on his own words.
 
Below is the transcript for the Interview:
 

TRANSCRIPT:

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.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive