October 27, 2008

SHAME, CUBED

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

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 re-distribution 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 re-distribution 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 re-distribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and the hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This re-distribution 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 many 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 – 5% 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?















After about 30 comments I realized I forgot to do what I forgot to do last time...

There is an entire web community dedicated to discussing some of the issues we raise here at Eject! Eject! Eject! You may comment on this article by clicking here.

I will try to move the existing comments to the new forum if I am able.

Posted by Proteus at October 27, 2008 3:11 AM







Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:


1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.

2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.

3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!

Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!




Comments



Excellent, timely and concise!

Well done, Sir!



Yes, but what new information is there? If Ayers, Wright, radical community organizing, endorsements from the Democratic Socialists of America and New Party, etc. haven't been enough to convince anybody, why will this?

I guess it can't hurt to try.



Excellent article.

In regard to the Second Circle of Shame, I predict that after this election (and however it turns out), the press as we know it will be finished. The blogosphere and internet in general will take over. And it cannot come one moment too soon.

Thank you again for a very well written article.



Good work, Bill but you missed the easy sound bite takeaway: in this interview Barack Obama came out in favor of reparations.



More useless alarmist drivel! You could of found the same thing from quotes from
GW Bush when he entered his first years as a
gov. down in
Texas.
Your party is over you should be scared. Maybe next time you shouldn't put a extreme right wing bible banging nut job on your ticket.



One of the best, articles I have read on this election. I feel ashamed to say, however, that a lot of the "masses" have been hoodwinked or brainwashed into thinking that this "obamanation" is our future. I surely hope not . . . !



One of the main things I look for when choosing someone to hold power is humility. Power corrupts. It is especially intoxicating for the young, idealistic, arrogant and untested.

A man who seems himself as the one qualified to respond to the "fierce urgency of now" with a "righteous wind at [his] back," capable of reversing the rise of oceans, scares me, especially if he has Congress on his side.

However, the founders understood human nature and power, perhaps better than any other group in history.

This is the hope. Obama wants power. He will want to keep power. Wright was right: Obama will act as a politician acts. He will be forced to go right.

More than anything, Democrats want to keep power, so they, and their media cohorts, will be forced to make compromises contrary to their ideology, just as Bill Clinton did with welfare reform and other policies.

Congressional Democrats and the media and all the king's men will bend over backward to make Obama successful, and that will not be done with a Leftist agenda.

It's a second term we need to really fear.



This Obama audio is deeply disturbing and profoundly scary.

That this was brought to national attention by an individual on the Internet, and not the press, does not surprise me at all. You can't trust the press to do their job anymore.

Thanks for people like you to get this information out to the citizens of this country - everyone of which needs to hear this audio of Obama himself talking about his desire for redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps even more disturbing than Obama's desire for "redistributionist change" is his failure to understand the nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers (who Obama obviously doesn't think much of) wrote the Constitution to expressly limit the power of government. They knew firsthand the danger that arises when government becomes to powerful. Instead of protecting its citizens, it oppresses them.

Reagan said it best: "When government expands, liberty contracts".

Say no to socialism on Nov. 4 - vote McCain/Palin.



There really is somebody else that can see past the carefully constructed gossamer of lies and obfuscation.

I like your writing style. Not only do you have something to say but you know how to add a touch of eloquence. Your ending was weak, though. It has merit but you didn't put as much care into its construction as your first two points.

I hope its still not too late to save this nation. Thanks for standing tall in this hour.



What an October surprise?! Thank you for putting this out and I am on the record for saying I completely agree. That probably allows me to put dibs on the same dungeon cell that you'll get once this Marxist is elected president. At least we'll have something to talk about... Vote McCain---he'll help you keep the change...



"Share the wealth" is thus understood, by his own words referencing Civil Rights and how it "failed", to more acurately mean reparations. This is a frightening man.



Wait a second. Obama wants the government to "do" for the little guy. But corporations, so often driven by profit over ethics, can receive as much help from the government as they want, as many breaks - tax and otherwise - and that's OK? And then there's the Bush White House trashing of personal liberties and expanding of government surveillance into our lives - and you're concerned about Obama's abuse of the Constitution? Give me a break!



The right wing truly has become pathetic. Grasping at desperate straws. This article is a statement about what is wrong in this country and why it is over for the Republicans. At last we might get to live in a world with some flexibility and opportunity for real change!



"You could of found the same thing from quotes from GW Bush when he entered his first years as a gov. down in Texas."

Got any proof of that?



Deborah,


  • Corporations should not always equate to large companies. Small corporations greatly outnumber large ones. They actually create jobs where people can then pay taxes. Your suggestion that they "so often" raise profits above ethics is not based in fact. I agree there are companies that are greedy, but Corporate greed is hyped in the media for ratings and they paint with a broad brush.

  • They receive help form the government because they produce jobs, goods, services that people want or need. They are also taxed a bunch which then drives some to go overseas in order to compete.

  • In the eight years I have seen little evidence that Bush has trashed any liberties through FISA or any other program. What I have witnessed is that we have not had another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Everyone that supports Obama should think this way when the go to the store. If you buy groceries for your family, think about a government representative coming up and taking half of them away. You will have no say in who they are given to or what items are even taken. Pretty soon you are going to get tired of spending your hard earned money to buy groceries for your family only to have them taken away. If you only get to keep half of them why should you even work to buy them when you can get in line to get the same amount or more from someone else?

Great article btw Mr. Whittle!



Be careful...

Your transcript of the video leaves out the fact that the audio consists of MULTIPLE excerpts from that radio interview. The video is carefully edited to play a sentence or two spoken by Obama - then display text on the screen interpreting those sentences - then moves on to more NON-CONTIGUOUS sentences.

If you listen to the entire interview (appx 12 minutes - see WBEZ Chicago website) - in context, the "redistribution" of which Obama speaks is the "redistribution" of VOTES for African-Americans. The audio clips are from a discussion about blacks having NO VOTES, then being COUNTED in Southern States but not actually being able to vote, the "three-fifths" compromise, etc.

He's not talking about taking peoples' money away. He's talking about UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE.

Surely you Republicans support SUFFERAGE, do you not?



Dear Deborah,

In what way has the Bush White House trashed your personal liberties and expanded government surveillance into your life? Please be more specific. And exactly what would you want the government to "do" for you that isn't covered by the Constitution? Inquiring minds would like to know.

And Tish E., have you ever heard of that old Chinese ill-wish, "May you live in interesting times"? You might remember that "change" covers a plethora of states, amazingly few of them good. Once you go to the top and start that ball rolling, you have no notion nor control over where it's going to go, except my experience has shown that it's more than likely not going to be what you wanted or asked for, so don't be surprised if you end up flattened.

- Tanka



I, unfortunately, also don't see this as changing much. I think people are well aware of this tendency of Senator Obama and have chosen to support him either because of it or in spite of it. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here is some commentary from the left as an example:

http://sedatesnail.blogspot.com/2008/09/dear-top-1-deal.html

http://teachthemoment.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-defense-of-spreading-wealth.html

They're both fine and analytical people, but they have bought into the idea that the top earners don't need all of that money, so why not tax it away? To them, the redistributionist tendencies of Sen. Obama are not only acceptable, they are cause for cheer.



I don't see what the big deal is all about. You write "we all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: it means re-distribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and the hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it."
So I take it that you think all the money market managers are getting fair pay for their hard work when they make many millions or even billions from investors? This at the same time that the middle class has lost real income? The USA has had a progressive tax system for many years that trys to redress the situation by having the well-to-do pay at a higher rate. That is the principal way that income is redistributed. Of course, some of those hard-working, well-to-do people hide their income in the Bahamas, etc, or get congress to provide protected tax-free avenues for their income, and some millionaires pay no taxes. But why are you guys so surprised by Obama's stance here? Progressive taxation has been around for a long time.



Oops, where are my manners? Bill, that was a great article, and as always I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on your new book(s)! And congratulations on your Pajamas Media and National Review contracts; what dream jobs!

Go, Bill!

- Tanka



Great blog Bill. There are some glaring perspectives in your writing that I think cause the major fundamental difference between people like you and people like me. I will start from the bottom up.

"We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press."

We haven't had an independent press since well before even you were born. The idea that this just happened now is absurd. If anything, the fact that I am reading your blog for free which is a recapitulation of other free information via a relatively free internet, proves the exact opposite.

"The entire purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT."

The purpose of the Constitution is to provide a framework in which to manage the business that is America. We elect those that we feel can run the business best and treat all the "employees" of that business fairly by providing resources for those employees to thrive.

We disagree specifically about this excerpt of Obama's philosophy because we disagree about who has been getting the wealth. For a very long time, the wealth has been spread amongst the wealthy, and that same elite has written the rules to keep it so. Those rules are government. Those rules have not been limiting for those that have been successful, in fact quite the opposite. But now we enter a new era in human history where it actually benefits everyone to have everyone prosper. It is a new time in economics, in social justice, and governmental rules. The constitution allowed the last 232 years to pass, and you are correct in saying that we have thrived. Our constitution is going to elect Barack Obama in a few days and our constitution is going to allow a redistribution of wealth to all the employees of the business that we call America. Everyone under the umbrella, creates greater prosperity. Animosity declines slowly. Stratification of wealth still exists. It's all going to be ok.

Horray for this independent news.

Thanks again Bill. Your perspective confirms the path of this America, simply because we will out vote you.



The most damning report on Barack Obama's political -as yet unreported!!!- biography
http://colony14.net/id41.html

look at Obama Timeline



Eric, you just said it yourself: "That is the principal way that income is redistributed."

Your presumption is that this is acceptable, but we're here to tell you that in Bill Whittle's house, that it is NOT acceptable.

Why should I work hard, become knowledgeable in my field, and earn more money just so I can watch the goverment take it away and give it to who-knows-who? For that I'm supposed to work harder?

Do you know nothing of what goes on in socialist countries and what that sort of thing does to worker morale and pride in accomplishment? If you don't, try reading Hedrick Smith's books, "The Russians" and "The New Russians" for a nice overview of what Senator Obama has in store for us. Else maybe soon you'll find yourself using that favorite Russian saying about the State: "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."

- Tanka



"We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press."

Bill, now that you have woken up...do you need your beard trimmed? Or would you just like a cup of coffee to clear the cobwebs?

Let me be the one to break it to you, Bill. News divisions are run by the corporations that own them.



Yes, Jake you are correct. News organizations are owned by corporations, generally large ones. If I were a large corporation, and there was a marxist candidate running who planned on regulations and taxes so invasive and onerous as to virtually guarantee the winners and losers in the market place - independent of their abilities to provide good and services and tied solely to their political patronage - , I might be in the tank for that guy, too... Out of survival (besides If I win, he will sweep aside my competition, without me having do do any of that inconvenient stuff like lowering my prices or improving my quality and selection)

Why is it that liberals can't seem to differentiate between capitalism and corporatism, at least insofar as what they actually mean.



Do you mean to suggest that Professor Obama may have made similar statements regarding the Constitution to students in his Constitutional Law course at Chicago? Certainly, you do not mean to suggest that any of those students should (or could) be located for comment. See puff piece in U. of Chicago Mag on Obama.



As usual, very well said. I'm so glad you're back writing (and appearing) regularly. Your common sense and clarity are badly needed!



Great blog, Bill. I've enjoyed your very insightful blogs in the past, particularly the ones dealing with conspiracy theories.

This audio should be a game changer, but, alas, I'm not sure it will be. Never underestimate the power of the media to either bury a story they don't like (like the video of Obama at a dinner with Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, which the LA Times has in its possession but refuses to release) or to spin it in a way they want it to appear. It will probably be up to McCain/Palin to push this story in the hope that it will resonate with the voting public.



Would Jesus be ashamed of a man who was more concerned about feeding the poor, than helping the rich amass even greater wealth.

Yes, indeed, Jesus would be very ashamed.



I wondered why we hadn't heard about this sooner and it's very interesting to learn that it was a "small potatoes" American who is responsible for it. Please thank your friend for us. I don't know that it will help enough at this point but please tell them their efforts are appreciated.



Would Jesus be ashamed of a man who was more concerned about feeding the poor, than helping the rich amass even greater wealth.

Yes, indeed, Jesus would be very ashamed.

Pure B.S. True if Obama was feeding the poor WITH HIS OWN MONEY, but he wants to force others to feed the poor. Jesus, as far as I can tell, had no interest in that.



Ah yes.

I remember the hyberbolic hysterics of Liberals just before Bush took office..."he'll make this country a Fascist state just like his grandfather tried to do!"

Every election year, opposition forgets the modifying power of the American system and they degrade into angst that the United States is doomed.

Have faith in your country. Have faith in your countrymen. It's going to be alright.




Obama is making a pretty standard criticism of liberals: that, instead of pursuing change democratically, they attempt to do so through the court system. Note that he describes the tragedy as being "of the civil rights movement," not a tragedy of the Constitution. More specifically, I believe he's saying that African Americans would be economically better served by civil society institutions (e.g., church-run after-school programs) that help them get educations and jobs, rather than Supreme Court decisions that, for example, mandate affirmative action. Seems to be a pretty conservative position.



It's just such ... such torturous logic! You could make a case to throw my grandmother in gitmo!



This is what you've got? A statement that it was a tragedy that the African American community relied too heavily on the courts to gain economic parity? That is pretty thin gruel, even for a campaign in despair.

There is no suggestion that the courts could, or should have done otherwise. He didn't say the court's behavior was tragic, but the people's dependence on it. The suggestion seem to be a more conservative one than you place on it... that the black community had to work harder to lift itself from poverty.

There have been many accusations of racism in this campaign, most unjustified. This, I think, may cross the line.