This broke big over the weekend; it's a 4 minute interview with the Obamessiah on Chicago Public Radio in 2001, wherein he laments how the Supreme Court should "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" and how these constraints have made it difficult for the courts to mandate "redistributive change."
Here's a partial transcript:
"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 tendency 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."No wonder Obama slipped up with his "spread the wealth around" gaffe. He's believed in wealth redistribution for a long time!
Folks, it doesn't get much more Marxist than this. I'm beginning to wonder if Lenin himself were running on this "change" platform if he'd be the rock star candidate that Obama has become (well, I think his "L" logo might not be quite as exciting as Obama's "O", but I think otherwise the Left would be just as enamored).
Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters sums up my frustration with the media's non-coverage of this bombshell:
Imagine that a week before a presidential election, a radio interview surfaced in which the Republican candidate had called for, say, the abolition of Social Security...24/7 coverage with talking heads pondering the devastating impact on America's seniors, the overall economy, the future of Western civilization, etc...---
But how do those same networks react when a radio interview surfaces of Barack Obama in a call for the redistribution of wealth, in which he laments the Supreme Court's insufficient radicalism in pursuing redistribution and refers to the civil rights movement's failure to develop a better strategy to bring about wealth redistribution as a "tragedy?
Insert cricket-chirp soundtrack here.
Previous posts for further reading:
- More Marxist patterns in Obama's past and present
- Obama: the Communist Party's candidate of choice
- Obama: Marxism is "good for everybody"
- Obama was member of socialist 'New Party' in 1996
- Explaining Obama's punitive liberalism
Others blogging Obama's history of Marxism:
|