More evidence that Barack Obama believes in redistribution of wealth
There is now some very damming evidence that Barack Obama fully believes in the redistribution of wealth. In an interview on Chicago Public Radio, three different guests, Barack Obama, Susan Bandes, and Dennis Hutchinson, all talk about how to best bring about the redistribution of wealth in this country. The main focus is on the courts and how the Supreme Court will not do this with it’s present makup. Here is a transcript of the most troubling part of the interview.
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.
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 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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But 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 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 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very 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 essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
The YouTube version is troubling enough, but I felt it would be good to have the full audio available, simply to show the transcript is not being taken out of context. If you would like to hear the entire interview, you can use RealPlayer to listen at the link below. Skip to about the 46 minute mark to get to the portion that has been posted on YouTube.
I really hope the McCain campaign takes this and runs with it. It’s more than just a bunch of words; it is strong evidence that points to the direction Barack Obama will take our country, if he wins this election. Call it fear, hate mongering, or what ever you want to call it, but this man needs to be defeated.
That’s my take!
Larry
Yes this is very disturbing! I also find it just as disturbing how many people are also wanting this redistribution of wealth. Then there are those who don’t pay attention and will vote for him anyway.
Your blind hypocrisy is astonishing.
If a 700 Billion dollar cashback to failed gambling bankers, few of whom have been penalised in any way, isn’t “redistribution of wealth”, or having the largest (but mis-managed) “welfare” program in the whole world isn’t “redistribution of wealth” – then what is?
It just beggars belief that you consider these Republican actions as okay but any plans to improve health and well-being of the people you sneeringly call Marxist (or any other normal adjective that you wish to use in a derogatory manner).
Just so I am clear, the blame for this economic crisis we are in and the bailout plan lies on both sides of the isle, Democrats and Republicans alike. These “Republican actions”, as you call them are not just Republicans. The Democrats want to blame this all on President Bush, but they share the blame. Look at who tried to warn Congress about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was John McCain and President Bush, but people like Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank refused to listen.
As for Obama, he has tried especially hard to lay the blame at the feet of McCain, but he refuses to acknowledge the fact that he has major ties to ACORN, the group that intimidated these banks into making the bad loans in the first place.
I don’t use the term Marxist or Socialist in a sneering way, but what Obama plans is socialist. He wants to take more taxes away from the people who are already paying the lion’s share of them, give them to people who do not pay taxes in the first place, and call that a tax cut. He should at least call it what it is, not try to sugar coat it and hide his true intentions from the American people.
But, Larry, you are missing one thing. If he shows the American people his true intentions he could never get elected.