Obama newly uncovered interview from 2001

[JRid21]

Obama: Redistribution of Wealth; Warren Court Not Liberal Enough

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=205883
In this newly uncovered radio interview from 2001, Barack Obama charts a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical I think as 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 and the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted..."


iivL4c_3pck

[masomenos]

Photoshopped.

[CowboyPrincess]

Depending on how you interpret his statement, it sounds like his answer to Joe the plumber should have been that he was going to tax him and spread the wealth to the black community because the civil rights movement and the courts didn't.

Sounded like the apple didn't fall far from the mentor tree

[Wheat]

If McCain loses.......this will be why.

For WEEKS now, we've heard about how he's against so much that Obama is for.

But, McCain doesn't speak enough what he is "For". Only what he's against. Seems that if he didn't have somebody/something to be against. He also wouldn't be for anything.

[bobtheflob]

Nobody is going to care about this except conservatives who already don't like Obama. He didn't say anything that crazy, he just used the buzz phrase "redistribution of wealth". Drudge's headline is misleading, Obama used the word tragedy but didn't say it was a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. The tragedy was that African Americans didn't follow through and gain more legislative power. In fact Obama argues that the Supreme Court did a good job of acting only within its constitutional power.

I expect conservatives to complain and scream about Obama being a communist or something. Of course the fact that we do have redistribution of wealth in this country that has been supported by every Republican president is irrelevant because they never called it by that name.

Most people won't find this shocking or even care. This isn't going to make one bit of difference in the election.

[Maikeru-sama]

If McCain loses.......this will be why.

For WEEKS now, we've heard about how he's against so much that Obama is for.

But, McCain doesn't speak enough what he is "For". Only what he's against. Seems that if he didn't have somebody/something to be against. He also wouldn't be for anything.

Nobody is going to care about this except conservatives who already don't like Obama. He didn't say anything that crazy, he just used the buzz phrase "redistribution of wealth". Drudge's headline is misleading, Obama used the word tragedy but didn't say it was a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. The tragedy was that African Americans didn't follow through and gain more legislative power. In fact Obama argues that the Supreme Court did a good job of acting only within its constitutional power.

I expect conservatives to complain and scream about Obama being a communist or something. Of course the fact that we do have redistribution of wealth in this country that has been supported by every Republican president is irrelevant because they never called it by that name.

Most people won't find this shocking or even care. This isn't going to make one bit of difference in the election.

:hammer:

[JBond]

[quote=JRid21;2377057]Obama: Redistribution of Wealth; Warren Court Not Liberal Enough

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=205883
In this newly uncovered radio interview from 2001, Barack Obama charts a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical I think as 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 and the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted..."


iivL4c_3pck[/quote

I already pay for the homes, food, education, medical expenses and retirement of the people who refuse to take personal responsibility. How much is enough?

How much wealth do we need to redistribute? I know Obama feels we need to redistribute massive amounts of capital to poor blacks (no offense intended to black people who are hard working Americans building the American dream). Obama has talked openly about his ideas of redistribution of wealth to a particular race of people, based on the color of their skin. The idea that people can not succeed without handouts and redistribution of wealth makes my stomach turn.

In America we get up in the morning. We go to work and we solve our problems.

[Cajuncowboy]

Most people won't find this shocking or even care. This isn't going to make one bit of difference in the election.



And it's a damn shame too. If people don't care then we will have this tool as a president.

I trust most Americans WILL care and those that ignore this stuff will be in the minority.

[JRid21]

[/b]

[/b]

And it's a damn shame too. If people don't care then we will have this tool as a president.

I trust most Americans WILL care and those that ignore this stuff will be in the minority.


McCain has picked up on it, he is going to address it at his stops today

[Cajuncowboy]

McCain has picked up on it, he is going to address it at his stops today

I hope he hammers it home as well.

I guess on election day we will see if America cares about their country or not.

[JRid21]

I hope he hammers it home as well.

I guess on election day we will see if America cares about their country or not.


The video has increased greatly in views in just 11 hours or so it went from like 2,000 to 450,000.

[Angus]

[/b]

[/b]

And it's a damn shame too. If people don't care then we will have this tool as a president.

I trust most Americans WILL care and those that ignore this stuff will be in the minority.

They care. They just have a hard time believing that the Democrats could be so stupid as to nominate somebody like that. It is true, but it's just beyond ordinary belief. As Adolph said, the people themselves tell little lies, but can never believe somebody would tell a really BIG lie. Obama is a really BIG lie.

There is at least a chance that Sarah Palin can make them understand before it is too late. I've given up on John McCain doing it.

:cool:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nobody is going to care about this except conservatives who already don't like Obama. He didn't say anything that crazy, he just used the buzz phrase "redistribution of wealth". Drudge's headline is misleading, Obama used the word tragedy but didn't say it was a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. The tragedy was that African Americans didn't follow through and gain more legislative power. In fact Obama argues that the Supreme Court did a good job of acting only within its constitutional power.

I expect conservatives to complain and scream about Obama being a communist or something. Of course the fact that we do have redistribution of wealth in this country that has been supported by every Republican president is irrelevant because they never called it by that name.

Most people won't find this shocking or even care. This isn't going to make one bit of difference in the election.


I don't know that I agree with this. I completely agree that it won't do anything much with respects to the up coming election but I absolutely agree that it is going to make a difference in the future. Nobody is complaining now because it's being reflected as only 5% of the total population. However, I don't see any way that only 5% will be effected so as time goes on and the other 95% start feeling the pinch to the pocket book, it will be something that rankles feathers IMO.

[footballfanny]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

This is the only news source I could find on this subject. Not that I am surprised.

Should my family be repaid for the racism they went through being Italian immigrants? The past is the past. People need to move on.

[JRid21]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

This is the only news source I could find on this subject. Not that I am surprised.

Should my family be repaid for the racism they went through being Italian immigrants? The past is the past. People need to move on.

ABC has reported on it as well, although I haven't seen MSNBC or CNN yet

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html

[bbgun]

Well, now we know his comment to Joe the Plumber was not an innocent slip. This man must be stopped.

[iceberg]

Nobody is going to care about this except conservatives who already don't like Obama. He didn't say anything that crazy, he just used the buzz phrase "redistribution of wealth". Drudge's headline is misleading, Obama used the word tragedy but didn't say it was a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not pursued by the Supreme Court. The tragedy was that African Americans didn't follow through and gain more legislative power. In fact Obama argues that the Supreme Court did a good job of acting only within its constitutional power.

I expect conservatives to complain and scream about Obama being a communist or something. Of course the fact that we do have redistribution of wealth in this country that has been supported by every Republican president is irrelevant because they never called it by that name.

Most people won't find this shocking or even care. This isn't going to make one bit of difference in the election.

and i expect liberals to look away and go "who cares, it's not bush."

those knee-deep in either side have a bad tendency to see the best in their own thoughts and the worst in the opposite of that. it's a pre-made war we can't seem to dig ourselves out of. when we try, we get pulled back in and told this is just the way it is.

nothing is the way it is if you don't accept it. what i hear are people accepting that mccain is bush (he's not but has tow-d the party line since nominated, his biggest blunder to me) and that obama will change things.

i'm sure he will change things but do we really understand *what* he wants to change or is the mere word and promise enough?

then we must ask ourselves what are the fundamental principals we want to run our country under.

hard work
personal responsibility
less government in our daily lives
you get as far as you want to push yourself in life and have a support system around for your own success, if you work for it

or the socalistic views obama has.

we seem to be so "instant success" driven these days we can't gut it out long term when problems arise. that scares me. not for a singular reason today but in my own head that mindset can be fatal to our own fundamental means to survive.

i'd not object to raising taxes IF it were to go to getting us out of debt.

i believe that to be one of the biggest problems we face that this financial crisis can do us a favor and wake us up to credit issues. with china owning a lot of our debt, how long before they have a say in what we do?

but neither candidate is doing that so they both scare me in that fundamental flaw.

like i said and strongly believe - if you're on one side far too many feel it's their job to take down the other side. i feel the extremes on both sides need to be reeled in and stopped. the answer lies in the middle, not a fanatical. we've let the fanatics have their way too long and need to refocus on our core values and stop the hate because of the R and D on names.

[ThaBigP]

I'll just leave you with a quote that seems to be a warning to the typical Obama supporter, even though it was uttered in (or about) 1981:

"Self delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly".

[Heisenberg]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html

October 27, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama advisor pushes back on 'redistribution'

A top legal advisor to Barack Obama, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, said today that Obama's 2001 remarks on "redistributive change" -- pushed hard on the right today -- are being misinterpreted, and that he was actually articulating "conservative" legal principles, and that the then-law professor's "law-speak" was being misinterpreted.

Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here, and audio is here.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."

Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court's more modest view of its powers:

"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

Obama did suggest in the interview that he favors "redistributive change," and that it should come though "political and organizing activities," and that's the discussion Republicans are jumping on, arguing that it shows the same philosophical impulse as Obama's now-famous commetn to an Ohio plumber that he favors "spread[ing] the wealth around."

"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin. "No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change."

But Sunstein argued that in the context of a long, legalistic interview, the words referred to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues -- that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

A University of Chicago law professor who appeared on the 2001 WBEZ program with Obama, and who also supports him, Dennis Hutchinson, described the interview as "not a bombshell."

"He's saying you dont achieve stable social change through judicial activism," Hutchinson said. As for "redistribution of wealth," "that's what a progressive tax system does," he said.

"It's two minutes and 17 seconds of what I could say in front of a class," he said, suggesting reporters go back to speculating about Obama's cabinet picks.

UPDATE: The legal scholars over at Volokh (http://www.volokh.com/) have a similarly underwhelmed take.

[iceberg]

obama sure is misrepresented a lot.

i hope he is misrepresented, but it's not as if obama hasn't done all he can to make mccain=bush.

so when i put aside all the hype and scorecards, i do see obama wanting a bigger government, wants it in the educational and healthcare systems, and wants more money to spend on his programs to do all that.

and by now "spread the wealth" is not a slip of the tongue, it's the way he thinks/feels and now has to make it PC so people won't go crazy on it.

biden can flat out say obama's policies are not going to be popular and somehow that gets to be classified as "mistaken/misrepresented" also.

that excuse is getting old.

[JBond]

obama sure is misrepresented a lot.

i hope he is misrepresented, but it's not as if obama hasn't done all he can to make mccain=bush.

so when i put aside all the hype and scorecards, i do see obama wanting a bigger government, wants it in the educational and healthcare systems, and wants more money to spend on his programs to do all that.

and by now "spread the wealth" is not a slip of the tongue, it's the way he thinks/feels and now has to make it PC so people won't go crazy on it.

biden can flat out say obama's policies are not going to be popular and somehow that gets to be classified as "mistaken/misrepresented" also.

that excuse is getting old.

I guess he just is not very bright. To bad he isn't able to communicate his ideas clearly. Maybe he need to take some classes from Rev. Wright.;)

[iceberg]

I guess he just is not very bright. To bad he isn't able to communicate his ideas clearly. Maybe he need to take some classes from Rev. Wright.;)

well wright didn't leave much to the imagination did he? :)

there does seem to be all these "connections" to obama that are excused away. even if 1/3rd of them were correct, that's something to at least note.

i'm not saying give the other side a pass, not at all.

but i do feel people are so "on the bandwagon" they'll excuse everything and anything because it feels good to be in that position again. i understand the feeling good part, i do. but i don't understand a 1 way blind eye. it's all short sighted to me.

[adamc91115]

Wow...

I really hope people in this country aren't as dumb as the polls are showing.

This is like someone seeing a punch to the face coming and just taking it.

[MetalHead]

:hammer:

One honest question.
There are multiple red flags and warnings about Obama.
All have been dismissed/ignored.
What will be the thing that would make you change your vote?
What do you need to see to realize what this man is really all about?
There were warnings about Clinton's womanizing ways and he proved everyone right.

[iceberg]

One honest question.
There are multiple red flags and warnings about Obama.
All have been dismissed/ignored.
What will be the thing that would make you change your vote?
What do you need to see to realize what this man is really all about?
There were warnings about Clinton's womanizing ways and he proved everyone right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

wow. now even our constitution wasn't good enough for obama. reflected flaws that continue to this day.

i think those "flaws" built up the greatest nation in the world today, but hey - i'm not pro - obama so i must have jaded eyes and just hate the man.

[VCDefectors]

Wow, there is some serious neo-tokin' going on today! I'm sure half of you are convinced Obama is the Devil. That's what happens when you spend your days listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Relax. A little Obama never hurt noboby...:D

[iceberg]

Wow, there is some serious neo-tokin' going on today! I'm sure half of you are convinced Obama is the Devil. That's what happens when you spend your days listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Relax. A little Obama never hurt noboby...:D

ok. now please put the labels down and just listen to what he's saying. now pretend mccain said it.

hell, clinton.

do you have a problem at all with what obama is saying about our constitution? if not, that's fine. so far while i don't pull 1 nugget up and go WOW - LOOK!!! i can see a lot of little nuggets out there saying the same thing.

[VCDefectors]

ok. now please put the labels down and just listen to what he's saying. now pretend mccain said it.

hell, clinton.

do you have a problem at all with what obama is saying about our constitution? if not, that's fine. so far while i don't pull 1 nugget up and go WOW - LOOK!!! i can see a lot of little nuggets out there saying the same thing.

Nuggets? :lmao:

I just find it funny that the RepCons are NOW all of a sudden concerned about the Constitution, after 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

Are you sure you are all wired up about that or is it something else?

[iceberg]

Nuggets? :lmao:

I just find it funny that the RepCons are NOW all of a sudden concerned about the Constitution, after 8 years of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

Are you sure you are all wired up about that or is it something else?

fine. now show me one place where any of those people said it was fundamentally flawed.

nuggets of info - my own slang.

no, i'm quite calm but thanks for asking. but when someone running for president says the basis laid out that allows him to run is "fundamentally" flawed, it does cause me concern.

and i'm far from neocon, so can we please stop w/that term? if you want to address a segment on how they feel about it, go ask them. if you want to address me, stop putting me in a group where i don't belong. i've said time and again i don't listen to rush or any "pundit" of those sorts. they're all the "head" cheerleader as far as i'm concerned.

[bobtheflob]

[/b]

[/b]

And it's a damn shame too. If people don't care then we will have this tool as a president.

I trust most Americans WILL care and those that ignore this stuff will be in the minority.

I don't think they will because they won't focus on one expression that he used. The thing is McCain is in favor of redistribution of wealth. Under his tax plan there will still be people who pay no income taxes but receive lots of government services. He's also in favor of Social Security. These are huge redistributions of wealth. Almost everyone believes in it to a certain extent, they just don't like that expression.


Calling Obama a socialist does not make him so, no matter how many times people say it. When conservatives call any prominent Democrats socialists, it really diminishes the value of it. You look at Obama's policies and compare them to true European socialists like Ségolène Royaland it's obvious that he's not nearly as extreme. He may be left of conservatives on the political spectrum, but he's far from socialist and I'm glad of that.

I don't know that I agree with this. I completely agree that it won't do anything much with respects to the up coming election but I absolutely agree that it is going to make a difference in the future. Nobody is complaining now because it's being reflected as only 5% of the total population. However, I don't see any way that only 5% will be effected so as time goes on and the other 95% start feeling the pinch to the pocket book, it will be something that rankles feathers IMO.

He's only raising them to the levels they were at in the Clinton years. I don't get why people always bemoan that Democrats will destroy the economy when historically Wall Street does better under Democrats than Republicans.

[MetalHead]

Wow, there is some serious neo-tokin' going on today! I'm sure half of you are convinced Obama is the Devil. That's what happens when you spend your days listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Relax. A little Obama never hurt noboby...:D

See how you completely went around the subject matter while adding a completely irrelevant post?

[iceberg]

and simply saying obama is NOT socalist doesn't make it so either.

wall street does better under dems? wanna add up my stock losses under clinton/renos watch?

[iceberg]

See how you completely went around the subject matter while adding a completely irrelevant post?

so'k. if they won't take the convo seriously, i'll just go around their posts and talk to those who do. on all sides.

[VCDefectors]

fine. now show me one place where any of those people said it was fundamentally flawed.

nuggets of info - my own slang.

no, i'm quite calm but thanks for asking. but when someone running for president says the basis laid out that allows him to run is "fundamentally" flawed, it does cause me concern.

and i'm far from neocon, so can we please stop w/that term? if you want to address a segment on how they feel about it, go ask them. if you want to address me, stop putting me in a group where i don't belong. i've said time and again i don't listen to rush or any "pundit" of those sorts. they're all the "head" cheerleader as far as i'm concerned.

Bush and Co. didn't feel that the Constitution was flawed as much as they chose to ignore it when convenient. That's ok with me.

And, while you keep claiming that you are not a Dittohead, you sure go on a rampage like one. So, please understand that I'm simply trying to cut to the chase. I don't mean to offend.

[VCDefectors]

See how you completely went around the subject matter while adding a completely irrelevant post?

I'm just trying to help add the big picture perspective on this, that's all.

[iceberg]

Bush and Co. didn't feel that the Constitution was flawed as much as they chose to ignore it when convenient. That's ok with me.

And, while you keep claiming that you are not a Dittohead, you sure go on a rampage like one. So, please understand that I'm simply trying to cut to the chase. I don't mean to offend.

you're not trying to cut to the chase, you're trying to tell me to accept the "proud black man" and listen to some "bossa nova".

you seem to want to see things in their simplist terms and not go beyond that. i'm far from a rampage and only wanting to talk about the issues at hand that will in the end effect us all.

you wanna smoke out, listen to some music, and be happy.

if you read my posts at all you'd know i don't care for rush or again, anyone who just pom poms around but you seem to want to put anyone who speaks their mind into a classification so you can make fun of it.

ain't gonna play that game. if you keep it up, i'll just not reply because you're not listening to me, just putting things into stereotypes to not have to think about it.

all i can see from that method.

[iceberg]

I'm just trying to help add the big picture perspective on this, that's all.

no. you're not. you're saying "relax and take it in". that's what i'm reading anyway.

[VCDefectors]

you're not trying to cut to the chase, you're trying to tell me to accept the "proud black man" and listen to some "bossa nova".

you seem to want to see things in their simplist terms and not go beyond that. i'm far from a rampage and only wanting to talk about the issues at hand that will in the end effect us all.

you wanna smoke out, listen to some music, and be happy.

if you read my posts at all you'd know i don't care for rush or again, anyone who just pom poms around but you seem to want to put anyone who speaks their mind into a classification so you can make fun of it.

ain't gonna play that game. if you keep it up, i'll just not reply because you're not listening to me, just putting things into stereotypes to not have to think about it.

all i can see from that method.

Believe it or not, I have been trying to follow your train of thought on this whole Constitution thing. I'm not sure what exactly you are so upset about. A lot of people in government, and society for that matter, feel that the Constitution was never meant to be a declaration for all time. But it is a remarkable document and I personally feel that it is more relevant today than ever. But some people do not, and that's ok too. So relax, bossa, black man...

[iceberg]

i'm long since tired of the race baiting you're doing.

have a day.

[jrumann59]

Mark my words if Obama goes through with all of his plans there will be another revolution in this country. With all the things that have been moved into place, 1 battalion on reserve to patrol the US soil, the rolling back of Posse Comitatus thinga are going to get 1860's ugly here in the next 4-10 years.

[ThaBigP]

Mark my words if Obama goes through with all of his plans there will be another revolution in this country. With all the things that have been moved into place, 1 battalion on reserve to patrol the US soil, the rolling back of Posse Comitatus thinga are going to get 1860's ugly here in the next 4-10 years.

I've seen and heard lots of "rable rable rable!" going on like that (sorry for the South Park reference). Interestingly enough, when the Weather Underground informant interview was dredged up from its hibernation in a 1982 documentary a few days ago, the FBI informant mentioned the WU had planned, upon "taking over" the government, to prevent precisely what they thought would be a "counter revolution" (WU's own phrase). They didn't trust the US military, as they would likely side with the people and Constitution. Their solution? Invite foreign occupation of the US. They also planned on setting up re-education camps in the Southwest (if the camp don't kill ya, the desert will!). They estimated up to 25 million "die hard capitalists" would need to be killed. Radical? Yep. True? Yep. From one of the FBI informants embedded with the WU.

In case you didn't get a chance to check out that interview, here's a link again:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/eliminating_25_million_america.html

Now...just imagine...if there were merely a rumor that Palin or McCain had been associated with people who founded such a radical group as one that would openly discuss the elimination of 25 million of those who disagreed with their policies.

[CowboyPrincess]

I want Texas to succeed from the US if Obama gets elected. Do we still have that privilege?

[jrumann59]

I've seen and heard lots of "rable rable rable!" going on like that (sorry for the South Park reference). Interestingly enough, when the Weather Underground informant interview was dredged up from its hibernation in a 1982 documentary a few days ago, the FBI informant mentioned the WU had planned, upon "taking over" the government, to prevent precisely what they thought would be a "counter revolution" (WU's own phrase). They didn't trust the US military, as they would likely side with the people and Constitution. Their solution? Invite foreign occupation of the US. They also planned on setting up re-education camps in the Southwest (if the camp don't kill ya, the desert will!). They estimated up to 25 million "die hard capitalists" would need to be killed. Radical? Yep. True? Yep. From one of the FBI informants embedded with the WU.

In case you didn't get a chance to check out that interview, here's a link again:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/eliminating_25_million_america.html

Now...just imagine...if there were merely a rumor that Palin or McCain had been associated with people who founded such a radical group as one that would openly discuss the elimination of 25 million of those who disagreed with their policies.

Think about it even if our military blindly followed the CINC, our standing military at its most exaggerated number is close to 1 million, the US gov't has no idea how many people are in militia like groups, even if its conservatively estimated 1% of the total population it is 3 to 1, I have heard numbers as high as 5% and others as high as 8-9%. The only weakness the militas would have is the lack of an air force.

[VCDefectors]

I want Texas to succeed from the US if Obama gets elected. Do we still have that privilege?

How American of you. Patriotism with strings attached. I like it.

[Trouble]

Obama never hurt noboby...:D



Obama never helped anyone as well...just ask the people from his old Chicago district.




:starspin

[jrumann59]

Obama never helped anyone as well...just ask the people from his old Chicago district.




:starspin

Present....

[Maikeru-sama]

I want Texas to succeed from the US if Obama gets elected. Do we still have that privilege?

This has got to be the most over the top post I have ever seen on this board.

[jrumann59]

This has got to be the most over the top post I have ever seen on this board.


I would disagree, MilesAustinMVP has made some that were far more "over the top"

[CowboyPrincess]

How American of you. Patriotism with strings attached. I like it.

Oh.. I'm patriotic.. more than others. I'm just not wanting to see a country wide Jim Jones koolaid drinkathon... Everyone is sooo blinded by him they don't see the danger and I wanna be as far away as I possibly can so I don't get force fed the Koolaid or get executed for being conservative

[CowboyPrincess]

This has got to be the most over the top post I have ever seen on this board.

Bite my ***! I was being sarcastic.

[JRid21]

I would disagree, MilesAustinMVP has made some that were far more "over the top"

:hammer:

:bow:

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

wow. now even our constitution wasn't good enough for obama. reflected flaws that continue to this day.

i think those "flaws" built up the greatest nation in the world today, but hey - i'm not pro - obama so i must have jaded eyes and just hate the man.

I don't think Obama can take the oath of office.

It says that he would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

How can he now take the oath of office?

[VCDefectors]

Oh.. I'm patriotic.. more than others. I'm just not wanting to see a country wide Jim Jones koolaid drinkathon... Everyone is sooo blinded by him they don't see the danger and I wanna be as far away as I possibly can so I don't get force fed the Koolaid or get executed for being conservative

I know of a few places in Vancouver, B.C. you can hide out. I got warn you though, these hideouts were a part of the 60s Defectors movement. But they don't remember anything since they were part of the 60s. You'll be safe.

[Cajuncowboy]

How American of you. Patriotism with strings attached. I like it.

YO!

That woman has given more for her country than you can imagine.

Back off.

[Nors]

That there is not widespread outcry with who and what Obama believes in regarding race views, wealth redistribution, socialist leanings and religous/idealogical things he believes in and has signed for supported....

This could be a historic "change" for America. Funny is those endorsing it don't even see whats coming.....

[VCDefectors]

YO!

That woman has given more for her country than you can imagine.

Back off.

YO!

I'm sure 'that woman' can defend herself if she feels the need to.

Front on.

[CowboyPrincess]

I know of a few places in Vancouver, B.C. you can hide out. I got warn you though, these hideouts were a part of the 60s Defectors movement. But they don't remember anything since they were part of the 60s. You'll be safe.

My husband died from that war that Clinton and those other defectors hid in Canada from.. Don't think I'll be visiting there soon

And I am really glad he isn't here to see what is going on. This is NOT the country he fought for. He fought for a country that had pride, respect, honor, etc... NONE of that still exist here... Everyone is all about me me me... what happened to our Pride and HONOR?????

[VCDefectors]

My husband died from that war that Clinton and those other defectors hid in Canada from.. Don't think I'll be visiting there soon

And I am really glad he isn't here to see what is going on. This is NOT the country he fought for. He fought for a country that had pride, respect, honor, etc... NONE of that still exist here... Everyone is all about me me me... what happened to our Pride and HONOR?????

Sorry to hear about your late husband.

Pride and honor (what I like to think of as expressions of freedom) come in many flavors. I still think this is a wonderful country, as somehow we have managed to keep duct-taping this thing together. That's what I love about it most of all.

[Cajuncowboy]

YO!

I'm sure 'that woman' can defend herself if she feels the need to.

Front on.

I'm sure she can and will.

Just letting you know how much of an idiot you are for not knowing what you are talking about.

Carry on.


BTW, why haven't you defected yet.? I keep waiting.

[Nors]

nice internet find - read what Obama really stands for before you vote for "change" - LOL

Rev Wright says “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

The government invented HIV to kill blacks? Really Obama?
Rev Wright says: “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”

America is evil murders? Really Obama? We some how deserved 9/11?
Rev Wright says: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

Aren't you glad you brought your kids every Sunday Obama?
Rev Wright says: “The governmebingnt gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God **** America … for killing innocent people. God **** America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God **** America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

OMG, 20 years of this Obama?
Rev Wright says: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

Is that how you feel Obama? Really?
Rev Wright says: “Hillary ain’t never been called a n***er. Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person.”
Rev Wright says: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

Well he makes a good point
Rev Wright says:: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

Those black men are all innocent. Do you want to let them out and give them free college Obama? Racism...yeah, you sure are a victim of that Obama. You are on hard times now.

Rev Wright says: “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means. And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this sh*t!”

Obama did not sit in this church for 20 minutes, he did not sit there for 20 hours, he did not sit there for 20 days, he did not sit there for 20 weeks, he did not sit there for 20 months, he sat there for 20 years.



I might have sat there for 20 minutes max. Then I would have punch him Wright in the nose and walked out.



Obama sat there because he agreed with him 100%.

[VCDefectors]

I'm sure she can and will.

Just letting you know how much of an idiot you are for not knowing what you are talking about.

Carry on.


BTW, why haven't you defected yet.? I keep waiting.

Thanks. Your personal attack has been noted. Now go fetch me a beer.

[CowboyPrincess]

Duct taping isn't gonna do it. We need to go back to family values, respect for the office, showing honor to those that serve in ANY branch of the service and for people to elect officials that are REALLY looking to keep America great. Thats what my husband fought for. And that is what my son is going to fight for. He is enlisting in 4 mos on his birthday. He wants to follow his dad in service of his country. With the talks about a 25% cut in military spending and people wanting to rewrite the Constitution and it's true meaning, am I going to be sacrificing a son too?

[CowboyPrincess]

nice internet find - read what Obama really stands for before you vote for "change" - LOL

Rev Wright says “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

The government invented HIV to kill blacks? Really Obama?
Rev Wright says: “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”

America is evil murders? Really Obama? We some how deserved 9/11?
Rev Wright says: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

Aren't you glad you brought your kids every Sunday Obama?
Rev Wright says: “The governmebingnt gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God **** America … for killing innocent people. God **** America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God **** America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

OMG, 20 years of this Obama?
Rev Wright says: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”

Is that how you feel Obama? Really?
Rev Wright says: “Hillary ain’t never been called a n***er. Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person.”
Rev Wright says: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

Well he makes a good point
Rev Wright says:: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”

Those black men are all innocent. Do you want to let them out and give them free college Obama? Racism...yeah, you sure are a victim of that Obama. You are on hard times now.

Rev Wright says: “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means. And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this sh*t!”

Obama did not sit in this church for 20 minutes, he did not sit there for 20 hours, he did not sit there for 20 days, he did not sit there for 20 weeks, he did not sit there for 20 months, he sat there for 20 years.



I might have sat there for 20 minutes max. Then I would have punch him Wright in the nose and walked out.



Obama sat there because he agreed with him 100%.

Hey Nors... missed you around here:D

[Cajuncowboy]

Thanks. Your personal attack has been noted. Now go fetch me a beer.

Yes, I did. I took a chance and did what was right. I did attack you. Personally. Why? Because you were being an idiot. Shove your beer sideways.

[CowboyPrincess]

Yes, I did. I took a chance and did what was right. I did attack you. Personally. Why? Because you were being an idiot. Shove your beer sideways.

I appreciate you sticking up for me, but DON"T get yourself banned for him being naive in calling me out about my patriotism. You are needed here through the election.

The only way they are going to listen is by examples, not insults.

Thanks again but don't get banned over me... PLEASE

[Nors]

Hey Nors... missed you around here:D

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_black_liberation_theolog.html

This is a MUST read for all Americans - Republican and Democratic. Today it hit me - will my grandchildren come to me and say - what did you do to question this? Why did you let this happen? Please read and digest and think about what is really afoot here and what Path is best for the United States of AMERICA.

[VCDefectors]

Duct taping isn't gonna do it. We need to go back to family values, respect for the office, showing honor to those that serve in ANY branch of the service and for people to elect officials that are REALLY looking to keep America great. Thats what my husband fought for. And that is what my son is going to fight for. He is enlisting in 4 mos on his birthday. He wants to follow his dad in service of his country. With the talks about a 25% cut in military spending and people wanting to rewrite the Constitution and it's true meaning, am I going to be sacrificing a son too?

To each their own, I suppose.

Lifes too short to carry the world's weight on one's shoulder, IMO. No one knows for sure what's going to happen to this country's future. But I do believe that life goes on, no matter which side of the political fence one chooses to live on.

[Cajuncowboy]

I appreciate you sticking up for me, but DON"T get yourself banned for him being naive in calling me out about my patriotism. You are needed here through the election.

The only way they are going to listen is by examples, not insults.

Thanks again but don't get banned over me... PLEASE

I've been treading water for a while, if I'm going to get banned, it might as well be for something worthwhile rather than arguing with Concord or something. :D

But I get understand.

[VCDefectors]

I appreciate you sticking up for me, but DON"T get yourself banned for him being naive in calling me out about my patriotism. You are needed here through the election.

The only way they are going to listen is by examples, not insults.

Thanks again but don't get banned over me... PLEASE

I responded to your sarcastic post with sarcasm. Nothing more or nothing less.

[iceberg]

That there is not widespread outcry with who and what Obama believes in regarding race views, wealth redistribution, socialist leanings and religous/idealogical things he believes in and has signed for supported....

This could be a historic "change" for America. Funny is those endorsing it don't even see whats coming.....

if there is a lord on high who grants wishes and miracles, please don't ever let me agree with nors again... :cool:

[Cajuncowboy]

if there is a lord on high who grants wishes and miracles, please don't ever let me agree with nors again... :cool:

:lmao2:

I was thinking something similar but he is dead balls on accurate with that post.

[SuspectCorner]

It seems like just a few short weeks ago Rightwingers were laughing about Hollywood-types threatening to move to another country if McCain prevailed... my how the worm has turned.

BTW, the word is "secede".

I love how suddenly-desperate neocons take a twenty year-old statement - totally out of context... and then run around with it like their hair is on fire!

[ThaBigP]

How American of you. Patriotism with strings attached. I like it.

Patriotism is not blindly following the federal government into the totalitarian abyss. The fact of the matter is, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. It's a contract, for all intents and purposes, between the states, the people, and the (then) newly formed federal government. If the federal government decides to toss the constitution, it legally tosses the institution that created it in the first place and gives it its legal standing. So, if we play pretend and say that the worst of the conspiracy theories come true (as the Weather Underground intended - with extermination camps, etc), then the states would be on firm moral ground (and legal, even though the federal government would doubtless deny that) to break away and reform the government among themselves as they choose, including taking the Constitution as-is and actually living by it, rather than just hanging it on a wall and saying "ooh! aah! Isn't that pretty! Some old dead guys wrote that!". In fact, the second paragraph of the first legal document created by the colonies as independent states reads thusly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Cajuncowboy]

Patriotism is not blindly following the federal government into the totalitarian abyss. The fact of the matter is, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. It's a contract, for all intents and purposes, between the states, the people, and the (then) newly formed federal government. If the federal government decides to toss the constitution, they legally toss the institution that created it in the first place. So, if we play pretend and say that the worst of the conspiracy theories come true (as the Weather Underground intended - with extermination camps, etc), then the states would be on firm moral ground (and legal, even though the federal government would doubtless deny that) to break away and reform the government among themselves as they choose, including taking the Constitution as-is and actually living by it, rather than just hanging it on a wall and saying "ooh! aah! Isn't that pretty! Some old dead guys wrote that!". In fact, the second paragraph of the first legal document created by the colonies as independent states reads thusly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I like this as well from the Declaration Of Independence...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When good men do nothing, bad things happen.

[CowboyPrincess]

It seems like just a few short weeks ago Rightwingers were laughing about Hollywood-types threatening to move to another country if McCain prevailed... my how the worm has turned.

BTW, the word is "secede".

Ahhh... Suspect Corner has come out from under his rock and found something to jump on about me... First off, I was being sarcastic. I wasn't threatening to leave the country. I was showing my Texan side...I am a red, white and blue American girl. I hang my flag, fold it with respect and celebrate this great nation I was blessed to be born in

Second... I still am waiting for Alec Baldwin, Cher and Rosie O to leave like they promised they would do if Bush won. Madonna seems to be the only one that kept their word.

Third...I don't nee a spelling lesson. I had a typo... haven't you had one before?

[SuspectCorner]

Ahhh... Suspect Corner has come out from under his rock and found something to jump on about me... First off, I was being sarcastic. I wasn't threatening to leave the country. I was showing my Texan side...I am a red, white and blue American girl. I hang my flag, fold it with respect and celebrate this great nation I was blessed to be born in

Second... I still am waiting for Alec Baldwin, Cher and Rosie O to leave like they promised they would do if Bush won. Madonna seems to be the only one that kept their word.

Third...I don't nee a spelling lesson. I had a typo... haven't you had one before?

<smiling broadly from under his rock somewhere in Texas>

[CowboyPrincess]

<smiling broadly from under his rock somewhere in Texas>

LOL you're funny :laugh2:

[JBond]

Wow, there is some serious neo-tokin' going on today! I'm sure half of you are convinced Obama is the Devil. That's what happens when you spend your days listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Relax. A little Obama never hurt noboby...:D


Wrong. I just listen to what Obama says. It is clear as day. He is not hiding. He is a socialist and believes the courts shout dispense economic justice with regards to civil rights movement.

[ABQCOWBOY]

He's only raising them to the levels they were at in the Clinton years. I don't get why people always bemoan that Democrats will destroy the economy when historically Wall Street does better under Democrats than Republicans.


I think that it is certainly important to note that the surplus President Clinton built was forced upon his Administration, so to speak. Let's remember that a Republican Congress forced that issue. They made the Democratic Party accept a balanced budget referendom and it was a Republican effort that accounted for much of that excess. Now, President Clinton gets a great deal of credit on this, and well he should, however, if left to his own devices I don't believe that he would have shown the same results. I would also point out that the economy was headed towards a downward cycle at the end of President Clinton's administration. While it is very expediant to blame President Bush for this entire thing, the reality is that President Bush did manage to stave off a recession while fighting a War. In fact, up until perhaps a year ago, the economy was not that bad. Gas prices are falling like stones in a pond yet nobody is willing to give Bush or really any Republican credit for this. It is a very popular thing to say that the Republican Party was in power for 6 years prior to the Democratic Party but in truth, nobody want's to acknowledge the fact that the economy has taken a down turn during that Democratic lead Congress.

I really questioned myself about posting this because I fear that it will only cause ranker as opposed to honest back and forth discussion but if we don't start somewhere, we will never come to any basic conlussions on what needs to be done. Nothing I have posted is untrue. I hope that all of this is considered before voters just accept Mr. Obama on the strength of what the Clinton Administration was able to accomplish. These two mean have very different ideas on how things are to be done and at the time President Clinton accomplished great things, it was a bi partisan effort. It was not a single party that did these things.