Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama In 2001:"Tragedy Redistribution Of Wealth Not Pursued"

From the One's own mouth, on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM, 2001...

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 tendancy 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.

Hmmm...using the courts to 'redistribute' wealth and property to those the State decides are more 'deserving'? Sounds suspiciously like the Soviet Union to me.

Apparently Thomas Sowell has a similar view on the type of change Barack Hussein Obama is promising to bring to America. History does repeat itself if you aren't paying attention.

What Obama is actually saying is that it's a pity the courts didn't do the job, so it's up to the political branch..which he's now attempting to be elected to head.

I wouldn't count on hearing about this on the dinosaur media.


Anonymous said...

In reading, and re-reading, and re-re-reading the quote above, where exactly does Sen. Obama characterize the SCOTUS' non-pursuit a "tragedy"?

It seems the CONTEXT he's discussing is the characterization of the Warren court as 'radical' and that, IF the Court had addressed such issues, the characterization might, in some circles, be valid.

Or are you just borrowing, heavily, from Drudge?

Freedom Fighter said...

Anonymous 8:08,
I find it difficult to believe that you `read and reread' the quote AND listened to the interview and didn't hear him call for the SCOTUS failing to address redistribution of wealth for 'social justice' a tragedy.

It's EXACTLY what he said. One obvious aspect of this in the context Obama used is reparations for slavery to descendents who have already been the recipients of at least two trillion dollars in government largess..or to put it another way, warping the equal protection clause of our Constitution to include confiscation to benefit those the government sees fit to reward.

I't exactly what the Soviets did after the 1917 revolution, and I find your attempts to spin this - forgive me -ludicrous.

I don't know what Drudge did with it, but this is nothing less than the perversion of everything our Founding Fathers stood for.


knowitall said...

I've said this numerous times to people, we do not need to look into any liberal illuminati speeches or banquets, we heard Obama say last month he was going to spread the wealth. Did people understand is the question?

Anonymous said...

Hello there,

I have a message for the webmaster/admin here at

May I use some of the information from this blog post above if I provide a link back to your site?


Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Mark,
You may use this with a link and proper attribution.

Rob Miller