The TrueSoldier Rants

The Thoughts of a Conservative mind.

Obama’s Socialism Unmasked

Michelle Malkin has the story along with links to the audio of Senator Obama on a Chicago Public radio program back in 2001 talking not only about redistribution of wealth, but also how we must “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution”.  Here is the transcript of the Chicago Public radio show:

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.

 

Socialism….It’s what were in store for if Obama is elected!

Advertisements

October 27, 2008 - Posted by | Presidential Election

14 Comments »

  1. This is very scary stuff.

    Every American should listen to this audio of Obama himself talking about his desire for “redistributive change”.

    There is no doubt now what his intentions are. Give away money from those that earn it to those who don’t. We’ve been warned.

    I encourage everyone to e-mail this audio clip to Drudge, FOXnews, and Rush (as I have).

    Comment by John | October 27, 2008

  2. You guys are morons. He is not advocating some specific type of redistribution, especially some kind of socialist type of redistribution. We already possess, in this country, a progressive tax system that is by its nature a redistributive mechanism. It was set up to explicitly redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Even Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations (and, John McCain in 2000) advocated for this. So nice try, but no dice.

    Comment by Lindsay | October 27, 2008

  3. […] Ace, Michelle Malkin, Bookworm Room, TrueSolider96, Memoirs of a Young Conservative, Flopping Aces, McNorman, and The Baltimore […]

    Pingback by Obama ‘01: Tragedy That “Redistribution of Wealth” Wasn’t Pursued By Civil Rights Movement | The American Pundit | October 27, 2008

  4. […] making the usual blog rounds, I stumbled upon this post over at the Sound Politics Public Blog by TrueSoldier discussing a 2001 Obama Chicago public radio interview. TrueSoldier tipped the hat to Michelle […]

    Pingback by Sen. Barack Obama–Socialist is as socialist does « Artful Politics | October 27, 2008

  5. Yes we already have a redistributive tax system where those who earn more, mostly by hard work and sacrifice are penalized and forced to donate to the people who do not work, for various reasons. To suggest that it is “unfair” to earn more than another is ridiculous. Some people want to work and produce, others want a free ride. Some people are willing to work extremely hard, whereas others simply don’t want to. I think it is only fair that the workers be not only compensated but incentivised. It is hard to think that without compensation, they would be interested in giving 110% With that said, some redistribution is appropriate, but there has to be an incentive for hard work, we know already what socialism and communism lead to, why can’t we learn from history. Obama is simply frustrated at the fact that the majority of people at lower income levels belong to his group. He should be happy he is an exception to the rule, and remember than in a country where those like him are the majority he would never have even the opportunity to accomplish, regardless of ability. Take a look at his dad. Some people never know when to be appreciative.

    Comment by c.c. | October 27, 2008

  6. He said the Warren Court did not break free from the essential constraints of the constitution. Not that we must break free. You are flat out liars. You send these ridiculous emails out about how he wants to get rid of the coast guard and then spread this distorted analysis all over the internet. Give me a break. You can do better than this.

    Comment by Petar | October 27, 2008

  7. You dont want to embrace change, because you are scared and stuck in your old ways of America as usual. This really isnt about the “hard workers” having to pick up the slack fo the so called “losers.” This is about people like you not wanting anyone else to become your equal, and you dont really want Americans to actually pull each other up, and help each other out. You always want to have the upper hand on someone, you cant stand the thought of America actually being “United.” Obama’s plans will do just that, unite the people. It will hold us accountable for our brothers and sisters, no matter their race or creed. You would rather stay in your mansion, and eat bon-bons and cavier, then give a dollar to someone who really needs it. Its disgusting, and I cant believe Americans could act this way. God Bless Us All…

    Comment by Nicky | October 27, 2008

  8. Many people have no idea what socialism means. Socialism is when the government owns and runs an institution. “Social” Security is socialism. Are republicans advocating that we end Social Security and Medicare? I guess they are. I hope that seniors are smart enough to realize that they might lose their benefits if they do vote for McCain, because Republicans view those handouts to seniors as socialism (and many republicans are rich enough not to need social security and would rather not pay into it).

    Also, Republican leader George Bush and Henry Paulson have been buying banks the past couple of months. That is socialism, which is taking place at the request of Republican leader George Bush.

    Comment by Eric | October 27, 2008

  9. To those who call President Bush our “Republican Leader”, please stop. President Bush is a conservative only in his belief in a strong military and…you can stop right there! He spends like the worst of the liberals and has destroyed our economy. His policies on immigration are too far left for most Democrats I know.

    A real Republican leader will cut out the free healthcare given to illegal immigrants, eliminate affirmative action, and promote capitalism which rewards “a hard day’s work” with “a hard day’s pay.” I don’t want to live in the “Welfare States of America!”

    Comment by Derek | October 27, 2008

  10. First and formost noone is entitled. You work, you earn money and make a living. You get yourself over your head in debt you be responsible and make right. The thing is people think there entitled due to race,status and etc etc..I appreciate those who contibute to society, but those whom seek to give handouts seems to be growing as well as those with their hands out.

    Persilla Chi

    Comment by Percilla Chi | October 28, 2008

  11. For those who may recall when the Medicare Act was passed, not one republican voted for it. The comment here that republicans see any use of a government program that isn’t involving military or the industrial-military complex feeding off the government as a public dole even though, like social security for which at least some of the monies returned to citizens is their own money, is notable by its perspicacity. Anyone who thinks that most of the qualities that are being used to describe one political party don’t apply to the other are sadly mistaken. We better be able to see through the scare tactics and look for some evidence before believing anything that gets put on these websites.

    Comment by Joe the skeptic | October 29, 2008

  12. Read the transcript:
    http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgmpz5bc_2gfggbmv4

    Comment by Jeff S. | November 1, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: