2001 OBAMA QUOTE: TRAGEDY THAT ‘REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT
Posted by iusbvision on October 27, 2008
Via Matt Drudge.
Below is a 2001 Radio interview where Obama talks about how the Supreme Court should have been used (abused) to subvert the Constitution and have government forcibly redistribute wealth.
This is a 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama where he discusses how the subversion of the Constitution can be used to allow government to forcibly redistribute wealth in America. Every country that has tried this nonsense has resulted in a big mess. Much of Western Europe and Eastern Europe are history’s testimony of this simple truth, but those who buy into Marxism just never learn from history and are often busy rewriting it. Often people this far to the left try to hide it, but now some are opening up since they are so confident in their victory on the upcoming election.
The far left blogs say that using terms such as Marxist, socialist or communist are smears, but the simple truth is that the views that Obama expresses in this interview reflect classic textbook Marxist philosophy. They call the term “Marxist” a smear because they are trying to confuse people and rewrite “the American Way” in a manner that is consistent with the Communist Manifesto.
At too many universities, instead of being taught the classics, Marxism is pounded over and over in liberal arts education, but much of the time it is taught as “academic truth” and the students are often not fully aware that a great deal of other philosophy exists and they are not always informed thatw hat is being taught is Marxist philosophy.
Obama’s peer group when he worked at the University of Chicago was this Marxist group of academics including the now infamous William Ayers and other self professed Maoists. Don’t know hat a Maoist is students, well take a look HERE. People in these peer groups consider Marxism as the only academic truth, in spite of the fact that attempts to practice it have resulted in economic stagnation to human disaster.
Think about it liberal arts majors, how much reading of Aristotle’s books of Rhetoric and Ethics have you actually had to put in your hands and go over? Or Cicero on politics? Or the very writings of this nations Founders?……yet almost very semester in my classes I get substantial amounts of Marxist theory, and odds are so do you.
The simple truth is that many normal citizens have no idea how subversive much of academia has become. Many citizens actually think that socialists and communists are not allowed to teach on college campuses. My upcoming book on on academia will have chapters on this very subject.
Any serious student of politics can see that Obama’s campaign play book is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Oh wait…. most poli-sci and communications students are not asked to read that book…. you might want to pick it up and give it a read and ask yourself just why that is.
Anyway, on to the radio interview for you to hear for yourself. I find it interesting that Obama doesn’t seem to recognize the limits on Congress that are expressed in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution. Obama also seems to believe that the only things that the government CAN’T do is what is in the Bill of Rights. This is completely against what the Founders believed in. In fact many people who opposed the Constitution such as the great Patrick Henry believed that others would come who would interpret the Constitution to mean that the rights penned are the only ones you have and can be repealed by government…. just like Obama indicates in this interview.
“Social justice” through “redistrobutive change” is textbook Marxism/socialism/communism.
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 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. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Hotair.com and Michelle Malkin comment HERE.