Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, 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 a lunch counter and
order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court
never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more
basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
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 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.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the
civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so
court-focused, uh, 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
redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren
Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my
question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and
is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”
Obama replies:
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive
change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
[snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you
know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially
is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very
good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the
court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it,
legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a
rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and
economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think
people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s
defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of
“political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic
justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second
earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and
certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the
successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government
decides “deserve” it.
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: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights
movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, 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 redistributive change. And in
some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited
copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the
context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he
believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals
and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight,
pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in
our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed
the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United
States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation —
then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a
filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at
our backs.”
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.
We’re just getting started.
THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: 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.
THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the
press is finished with them?
— Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for
www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment