Previous post
Next post
This video has me shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Stop the ACLU has the transcript:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Oh, but wait — there’s more! From Kim Priestap at Wizbang, we learn that the US Constitution reflected an “blind spot” and the framers committed an “enormous flaw”:
So let’s go over this, nice and slow for all the liberal children out there. Barack. Obama. Is. A. Socialist.
Get it?
Barack Obama is a socialist. He believes in Marxist philosophies and wants to redistribute your wealth. He looks at our Constitution, one of the most profound document ever written in history, and sees a profound flaw. Then you add in some of the craziest, most radical associations possibly ever seen in American politics, and what do we have? That’s not even mentioning the lack of experience.
You can be stubborn and vote for him if you want, kiddos. But you gotta face the facts. Barack Obama is a radically liberal socialist with extremely radical associations and no experience, who wants to reinvent our entire system of government. If you truly love America, and believe in everything she stands for, you must understand that he will be disastrous for our country. That’s not to say we can’t rebound from it, but it will be a disaster. The evidence is mounting and mounting and mounting, yet the response from his supporters is akin to a five-year-old closing their eyes, covering their ears with their hands, and shouting repeatedly, “BLAH BLAH BLAH, I CAN’T HEAR YOU! HOPE’N CHANGE, HOPE’N CHANGE, HOPE’N CHANGE!”
It’s time to face reality, folks. Barack Obama cannot be elected the President of the United States. He doesn’t stand for the United States. There’s no more getting around that. And if Americans cannot see that… it makes me scared for the future of our country.
Libby says: “…that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted…” –BHO
He is right when he states that they are negative liberties. They are about the government not infringing upon our rights which is the Bill of Rights. And the Framers, I think, purposely don’t state what they should do on our behalf. They wanted government to have as little influence on us as possible. And, thank the Lord, it hasn’t shifted. And what exactly “must” the government do for me that it already isn’t? I have a passport from the State Dept. and I have a military to protect me and a judicial system to which I can take my grievances, the FDA to keep food safe, etc. I need the government to do those thing which I cannot do for myself. I can’t run a military, or conduct diplomatic relationships with other countries or run a judicial system or inspect food. I can, however, figure many other things out for myself. Why do I need BHO to give money to me that someone else earned? And why should he have my money and give it to whomever he deems is worthy?
Andrew Carrow says: Let’s get real folks. Is it all that unbelievable that the most liberal senator in forever, is making such comments? He can peddle whatever he wants on his web site but he will drop that spiel like a hot rock and fall back on liberal beliefs. Socialism? of course, why should people pay their own way? Why should people strive to stratify themselves economically? why should we give a hand up instead of a hand out? I think you are getting the picture. I think that turn on a dime Biden has tourettes. just thought I should say that. Hope and change ’08
you’ve been obamma’d! (don’t have much time to write)
hanging Palin in effegy… disgusting!
Mat says: I’m just curious what exactly this “blind spot” and “fundamental flaw” is. Obviously, the Constitution is not perfect, hence the amendments, but I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever meant for economic redistribution (in fact, quite the opposite). In fact, if you look at all of the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in 1787-88 (when the Constitution was submitted and ratified), there were specifically fears of this exact possibility, i.e. the tyranny of the legislature. The Supreme Court was designed (along with the Executive Branch) to combat this problem (it appears that Obama wants to just do away with the courts unless they become rubber stamped to the Democratic Party). Bear in mind that the Colonies went to war with Britain largely because they didn’t want an unrestricted Parliament telling them what they could and could not do.
Jibreel Riley says: thanks to Ted Stevens and two meth heads this story will get buried too
Burt says: Anything but Fascism. The Rightist card demonizing socialism is particularly absurd considering our greatest President bar none, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was pretty darn far to the Left. Fuck off Mccain, and the rest of the Mammon Kings, and their shills.
baz says: Socialism is communal ownership. And I don’t hear anything like that from Obama, so no, I’m not convinced. The progressive tax structure Obama proposes is pretty much the same as we had under Reagan, so whatever you say about Obama has to be said of Reagan, too.
But the stock market is kinda socialist, selling ownership shares to the community. A lot of companies are employee-owned; that’s kinda socialist. Stock options are very socialistic. Even Sarah Palin’s a socialist.
The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg writes:
A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
Now THAT’S socialism.
Gary Baker says: “Socialism is communal ownership.”
If you don’t hear anything like that from Obama, I suggest that you are not listening well. Socialism is not simply about ownership. It is about control. When he talks about “spreading the wealth” that refers to government control of capital producing enterprises.
The progressive tax structure proposed by Obama may or may not be the close to that under Regan. The idea of either government control of the healthcare industry or forcing people to purchase healthcare insurance is nothing like Regan. Regan proposed harnessing the entrepenueurial spirit to generate wealth, not spread wealth. Your statement is ridiculous.
Likewise, your statement about the stockmarket, or any type of private sale being “socialist” is incorrect. Private sale assumes that all or part of a business or property is privately owned and subject to the will of the owner. Socialism assumes that the property is subject to the will of the majority via government control. While there are government regulations regarding many sales, in most cases they are still capitalist transactions which tends to make them more efficient. To see some of the effects of socialism, check the condition of the Canadian Health Care Service where people regularly wait several months to consult with the appropriate specialist, have cancer turn untreatable during the wait, or are sent to the US where care is available.
The Alaska collectivism that you refer to is returning profits from state resources to the people, not taking control of private resources for the government’s use. State resources held by the government inevitably are used for political purposes, not the benefit of the citizenry.
13 Comments