Obama On Tape In 2001: Warren Court Not Radical Enough

Says it’s a “tragedy” that the constitution wasn’t reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth, and discusses the best way to bring about redistributive justice for blacks, (Joe the Plumbers all across this nation should perk up their ears):

You know what’s a tragedy? That this guy has more than 20% of the vote. It’s a tragedy for us all if he gets the liberal supermajority he needs for his grand scheme of “redistributive change”.

God help us.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit


Speaking of “reparative economic work”….I seem to remember Obama stating unequivocally that he’s against reparations…..*google* *google* Oh what do you know...back in August he tried to convince us that, yep, that’s always been his position:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

The man with a serious chance to become the nation’s first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

“I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.

I suppose in Obama’s world “reparative economic work” in the form of restribution of wealth, AKA “spreading the wealth”, is totally different from “reparations”.


Bill Whittle weighs in at NRO:

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think 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, 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.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.

Read the whole thing. He’s on a tear:

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

Then he goes on to talk about the Media malpractice that has brought us to a place where it took a single individual, and the internet to break a bombshell of a story like this..

Hillbuzz offered this interesting tidbit late last night:

We have not had a single nasty comment by an Obama follower on this site since Drudge ran the gigantic headline about Obama’s socialist agenda, and audiotape proof of it breaking.

Whenever Obama is in trouble, these people clam up.

The worse something is for Obama, the quieter his followers get.

It’s how we gauge the impact of something around here.

Not a single Obamabot comment in the last hour. We’d usually have 30 of them in our spam filter in that hour.


Where did they all go?

UPDATE: Seriously.  Two hours now.  Not a single Obama Kool-Aid Gang comment. And these people are up all night attacking us, telling us how Obama will win, and making fun of Hillary Clinton supporters or saying vile things about Hillary herself.  They do this all night — but not tonight. They’ve done this nonstop since we started this blog back in February.  But not tonight.

Know when the last time they just got really, really quiet like this was?

When Jeremiah Wright became a household name.

Heh. See how the cockroaches scatter when the lights come on?

Others blogging:

Michelle Malkin here and here.

Ace of Spades HQ, here, and here:

Carl Cameron says that McCain is going to address the tape, later today.

Stop the ACLU

Protein Wisdom

Hot Air


The left has begun spinning in earnest.


Epic Spin FAIL: Claire McCaskill explains all: ‘redistribution of wealth’ means ‘tax cuts’.


More interesting dish over at Hillbuzz: This is just one of 3 shoes to drop? Obama campaign to respond with vicious smear about McCain beating his first wife – (same exact smear he used to knock out a primary opponent in Illinois)?

I think we may be in for a bumpy last week.

Video:Sol Stern On H&C Discussing Ayers

The thing that has concerned me most about the Ayers/Obama relationship is their apparent shared educational philosophy. I’m glad to see that the issue is finally being discussed on t.v.

Stern makes a very good point about how the media has successfully created a “false portrait” of Bill Ayers, as an education reformer, when he is instead, an already too influential proponent of the marxist “social justice teaching”.

That’s the one issue, Megyn Kelly allowed lefty Professor, Alan Singer to obfuscate, during his interview with her about Ayers. But that’s okay, ’cause she tore him a new one, anyway.