Further proof of Obama's desire to "redistribute the wealth" on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ FM from 2001
Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth
This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric (click link below)
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. This who and what this man is. The Marxist messiah.
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
UPDATE: Obama says the "constitution is a flawed document" (here at Free Republic)
UPDATE: Bill Whittle here:
I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.
There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.
That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
You’ve earned it.