UPDATE: More audio!
Obama, release your thesis. Basta!
So the tittering hyenas on the left are howling at the moon over the satire that was taken for the real thing by Denis Keohane over at The American Thinker and Michael Ledeen at PJM, where he reported on President Obama's Columbia alleged college thesis:
I cited it and ran it with it, as did Rush Limbaugh and many others. When I couldn't find the Joe Klein link to the "first ten pages" of Obama's thesis, I took it down.
Michael Ledeen then corrected the story: The Obama "hoax"
It’s a hoax, or a satire, depending on your point of view. Joe Klein has said that he never read any part of an Obama “thesis” from his Columbia days, and that’s conclusive, as far as I’m concerned.
The hoax/satire was written in August, so it’s not connected to any current event. I cam across it on Twitter, read the blog, found it interesting, and posted on it. I failed to notice that one of the tags was “satire.”
So he got me, and lots of others. It worked because it’s plausible. I’ve done satirical pieces myself, and I know how they can take off. I once wrote one that said that Bill Casey did not die, and was hiding in a bunker under the St Andrews golf course from which he was running Mikhail Gorbachev. I thought it was obviously satirical, but it went like wildfire all over the world. And that was in the days before the Internet.
So I should have picked up some hint, but I didn’t. Shame on me.
I’m posting this as quickly as possible. Apologies to the president and to Joe Klein, and to Rush Limbaugh, who had many very wise things to say about the Constitution and the views of the Founders today, and to everyone else who got involved.
The thing is, Obama did say these things. Maybe not in his thesis, we'll never know. He said them in a radio interview and I ran it a year ago to the day -- October 26, 2008 -- which is why I posted the thesis story, there was nothing new in it--
it just echoed things Obama has already said.
We'll never know what is in Obama's thesis, because Obama will not release it -- nor will he release any of his school papers, transcripts, crossword puzzles ...nothing. What other politician ever got away with that? Obama had Jack Ryan's divorce child custody records papers unsealed (the Chicago way), which led to Ryan's resignation and Obama's first election win -- minutes before he decided to run for President.
Everything from Ryan unsealed but nothing, none of Obama's paperwork. But I digress.
But here is a radio interview where he says the very things the "hoax" -- the satire -- played on.
Obama Bombshell Audio: He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth
This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric
He speaks of the "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."
He said that it's a tragedy that the constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of the wealth.
"I am not optimistic about bringing about redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way."
So he doesn't think it can be done through the courts, but he thinks it can be done legislatively. That is why a Liberal Supermajority is crucial.
"Although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us sitting here can come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts ......"
This is not a discussion about whether redistribution of the wealth is right or wrong, this is a conversation about how to achieve that goal. And this is back in 2001.
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.
Listen to this interview or click below for the video.
Obama says the "constitution is a flawed document" (here at Free Republic)
UPDATE: There is more, more more.
OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY (hat tip Armaros)
"The Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that framers had the same blind spot......
It also reflected the fundematal flaw in this country that continues to this day"
UPDATE: Left Coast Rebel: What he said!