« Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground's Plot to Overthrow the Government | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Wealth Redistribution An Unattained Civil Right: Obama Interview

The audio of a Barack Obama radio interview below is stunning. Unfortunately, it will probably stun few. For once the word "Constitution" is mentioned, electoral eyes roll into the backs of voters' heads as memories of a boring high school history class in a hot, dusty classroom emerge in the place of contemplation of the founding principles of this nation.

Speaking of the Warren Court its interpretation of the Constitution during the Civil Rights movement, Obama said, "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 more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Actually, it does. The federal government must provide for the common defense, a military to provide and ensure National Security. The "essential constraints" placed into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers was to ensure a limited government, not a pervasive and massive federal government providing all things to all people.

Obama laments in the interview that the Warren Supreme Court failed to reinterpret the Constitution to read into it what was not there: Redistribution of wealth for "political and economic justice in this society."

Barack Obama continues, and notes that one of the "great tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "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."

For Obama, the redistribution of wealth is a civil right that the civil rights movement failed to attain. To Barack Obama, the redistribution of wealth is basic "political and economic justice," and one segment of society has the basic right to the money of other segments of society. He's very straight forward about this.

And while in the interview he did not think wealth redistribution could be affected through the courts, he was confident that it could be attained "legislatively." The reason the courts have not legislated this from the bench is that it requires the court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is wholly in conflict with the document - and its intentions - as written.

The prospects of an Obama presidency and a large democrat majority that leans far left in both the House and the Senate will set the stage for "legislative" imposition of the transfer of wealth to those who he views have a civil right to that money.

That this is wholly counter to the Constitution is of no matter. Congress will pass 'transformational' tax and health care legislation, Obama will sign it into Law, and the only thing standing between it and us is the Supreme Court, which could strike down the laws as un-Constitutional. But what will that Supreme Court look like after one or two Obama appointments? Will it have the will to do so, or will enough justices 'interpret' ('invent' is a more appropriate term) the Constitution in the manner Obama does?

It is surreal that this country is close to potentially electing a president who intends to govern with such clear disregard to the same Constitution he will be sworn to defend and protect. But imposed Socialism won't be un-Constitutional. It will instead be a heralded "transformation" in the name of "political and economic justice."

(With thanks to Pierre Legrand for the audio link.)


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (30)

Here is an article that put... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Here is an article that puts what Senator Obama said in context for those that are interested:


and another:


Obama is a pro-wealth re... (Below threshold)

Obama is a pro-wealth redistribution marxist with a history of covorting w/ every other major marxist within this hemisphere. This audio proves it and no amount of unrelated snopes links can prove otherwise. (sorry about the redundancy above. That was kind of like saying Reagan was a "pro-American conservative")

I can understand how you wo... (Below threshold)

I can understand how you would take this sample and make the point that Obama is for wealth distribution in an overall sense, but this simply doesn't show that. For one thing there must be other contexts because the video is so edited. Secondly, the conversation is about the Warren Court's civil rights decisions, and the practical legacy of those decisions. Finally, the discussion on how to best achieve financial equality (which, in the context of the discussion is the main theme) is an answer to a direct question, not some random thought or even as an explanation of an agenda. Overall, it's pretty slim evidence of "socialism", which is something completely different than redistribution of wealth, which itself is a concept that includes free market economics, capitalism and just about every other democratic idea of economics.

The phrase "spread the weal... (Below threshold)

The phrase "spread the wealth around" speaks for itself. Whether trying to deny it or being in denial about it, won't change that admission.

When John McCain voted agai... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

When John McCain voted against Bush`s tax cuts for the rich and denounced them strongly repeatably, he calls himself a 'maverick' and is called a maverick. When Obama opposes extending them Obama is called a 'socialist', for suporting the same policiies that McCain championed. There is no coherence in McCain as there is no coherence in his supporters.

Tell me, Steve, at what poi... (Below threshold)

Tell me, Steve, at what point in McCain's opposition to tax cuts for "the rich" did he say the money should be given to "the poor"? And at what point in McCain's opposition to tax cuts for "the rich" did he change the terminology where taxes not even paid in were "refunded" and called "tax cuts" for "the poor"?

" But what will that Suprem... (Below threshold)
retired military:

" But what will that Supreme Court look like after one or two Obama appointments? "

I am not too worried about 1 or 2 Obama appointments. I mean after Ginsberg and Stevens you have to move somewhat right as it is hard to get farther left.

I am worried about 5 or 6 Obama appointments.

Congress sets the size of the supreme court and with Obama and a supermajority I expect it to increase by about 4 Justices in the name of diversity.

That will mean that the Supreme Court wont even be close to balanced for 20 years if then.

I expect Hillary to be named and possibly Bill as well as pay off to quietly go away from the Presidential race.

Maybe 2 new Chief Justice slots will be made and they will get them to offset Roberts.

I dont put anything past them that they will be able to legally do when they control all 3 branches of the govt.

During pass recession Franc... (Below threshold)

During pass recession France and other European countries lag behind the U.S. due the drain that Socialist policys placed on the thier ecomonies.

Russian grand socialist to make everyone equal failed and the country colasped.

Socialism and spreading the wealth around does not work. People are not going work harder to give it someone else. And people getting handouts will not work harder when it simply given to them without the hard work.

Giving mortages to people who cannot afford them, a policy started by the Democrats have bought this country the greatest ecomonic crisis since the Great Depression.

Barack Obama if elected is the path to Socialism and will destroy all that made this country the greatest economic power in the world.

Fox has the Redistribution ... (Below threshold)

Fox has the Redistribution video up on the front page this morning =)

Spin it how you like, Obama is lamenting the Warren Court & civil rights movement failure to address economic policy - one that would equalize the poor by redistribution.

It's socialism, plain as day.

This from a commenter at MM... (Below threshold)

This from a commenter at MM so I can't take credit for it. Had to share it. Brings it down to where we live. Enjoy.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08′ tie, again I laughed-just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need-the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient was more in need of the money.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application

Retired military,The... (Below threshold)

Retired military,
There can be no doubt that is exactly what Obama will do as President. His views that are coming to light, by his own words now, leave no doubt. He knows that he can send the country into a hard left direction that will be his legacy.

MPR, great story - true or ... (Below threshold)

MPR, great story - true or not, it's a perfect analogy of things to come.

Obama is talking about slav... (Below threshold)

Obama is talking about slavery reparations for
African Americans.

I'm not white and I'm not black. Why should
I have to pay higher taxes for slavery

I have no problems with a president that
happens to be black. But I have problems with
a president that sang along with Jeremiah
Wright for 20 years and only repudiated him
when he was discovered. Just how many
individuals and organizations has Obama needed
to distance himself from?

How's Obama going to be able to distance
himself from himself?

The right tried to fool Ame... (Below threshold)

The right tried to fool America into thinking Bill Clinton would be bad for our economy too. We didn't fall for it then, and we won't fall for it now.

"I always thou... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans"

Guess who said this Oyster, Barack Obama or John McCain?

This is all too scary. It ... (Below threshold)

This is all too scary. It sounds as if we are going to repeat the past eight years all over again. The government cutting taxes for the rich so that it will trickle down to the poor, then they bailout every bank and crook in the business using taxpayer's money. Now Barack wants to change the tax code so that the middle class which is the backbone of this nation can increase instead of decrease; the tax break that they will get can trickle up instead of trickling down for a change and he's not asking anybody to do anymore than reverse the tax breaks already given. Who does he think he is?
Robin Hood?

I sure could use some of yo... (Below threshold)

I sure could use some of your wealth. But I'm not voting for Obama because he has not spoken out loudly enough against sexually humiliating prisoners of war.

I guess Jesus was a sociali... (Below threshold)

I guess Jesus was a socialist. Every anti-tax nutcase, from John McCain to Joe "not his real name" the Plumber "not a real plumber," need to move out of America. You right-wingerscan't and don't appreciate the positive things that the taxes I pay have done for you.

One of my friends came by... (Below threshold)

One of my friends came by during lunch and said they asked some children who they were voting for and why.
I didnt see the report myself.
If this is true I believe it is pretty amazing and insightful.

I am voting from McCain because he will provide
the American people with the fishing rod and bait to catch their own fish
I am not voting for Obama because he will provide
the American people with the fish.

"The phrase redistribution ... (Below threshold)

"The phrase redistribution of wealth" speaks for itself." False. Every single economic policy rests on the presumption of spreading the wealth. Whether you assume the wealth in a general "class" (i.e. the middle class) or in a general group (i.e. the market, the consumer or the employed) or amongst countries (i.e. trade). Redistribution of wealth does not mean socialism or welfare. If you want to see socialism in action observe the United States military: free housing, free food, free medical care, deployment according to authority's need, job placement, and strict code of observing authority within a community that assumes the individual is not as important as the entity of the whole. This is not what Obama is referring to in any of his policies and certainly not what he is talking about in this clip. He may very well be picking and choosing from that menu of socialist characteristics but that does not equal "socialism" as a whole.

Steve, are you implying tha... (Below threshold)

Steve, are you implying that John McCain's intent was to create a negative tax debt for middle income families? And not just a negative tax debt, but a "refundable" one, such as what Obama suggests?

There's a vast difference there.

You're falling for Obama's "tax cut" terminology. You cannot cut taxes for people who do not pay them. You cannot relieve them of a tax burden they do not share. McCain was unfortunately wrong in 2000 calling for cuts for the lowest 10%.

Obama is creating a dependent middle-class. He's already got the poor. He's widening his base.

"You right-wingerscan't ... (Below threshold)

"You right-wingerscan't and don't appreciate the positive things that the taxes I pay have done for you."

WTF? I pay taxes too, you putz. I'm lucky to get one red cent back at the end of each year.

Obama said he wants to give... (Below threshold)

Obama said he wants to give a tax break to the 95 percent of working Americans that work & pay taxes, rather than give tax breaks to the big corporations. What's not understandable about that? Hardly redistributing the wealth - more like giving the guy who creates the wealth a piece of it. Okay by me.

McCain should talk, his wea... (Below threshold)

McCain should talk, his wealth is based on generations of his family involved in Slave Trade and owning cotton plantations all over with thousands of slaves working for the McCains.


Tough: "Obama said... (Below threshold)
Steve Schippert:


"Obama said he wants to give a tax break to the 95 percent of working Americans that work & pay taxes, rather than give tax breaks to the big corporations. What's not understandable about that?"

because 95% of Americans are not paying income taxes. nearly 40% are already income tax consumers, receiving more in 'refund' checks than paid in the first place.

This, by definition is not a tax cut, but increased wealth redistribution. Already.

Sarah Palin is a Marxist<br... (Below threshold)

Sarah Palin is a Marxist
Alaska: America's Socialist State

Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska is the MOST Socialist state in these United States, and she's proud of it!

Alaska has no income or sales tax!
That's because it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields.
First the state government takes it's hefty cut, then it redistributes the wealth, cutting a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.
Sarah Palin was happy to increase this year's check by $1200, bringing the per-person total to $3,269, helping her maintain her popularity as Governor.

I wonder how that's not "buying" votes?

Sarah Palin is proud of her state's collective wealth-redistribution scheme.
Sarah Palin said,
"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."

Right out of the Karl Marx play book!

Adrian's link to the snopes... (Below threshold)

Adrian's link to the snopes website isn't relevant; it's about a 2008 article in the WSJ.

"First the state government... (Below threshold)

"First the state government takes it's hefty cut, then it redistributes the wealth, cutting a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state."Sarah Palin is proud of her state's collective wealth-redistribution scheme.
Sarah Palin said,
"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."

Before you dig yourselves deeper in the stupid hole look up the definition of Severance Tax, every state in the Union with natural resources has them. Get an Education not lazy Indoctrination!

severance tax
A tax imposed by a state on the extraction of natural resources, such as oil, coal, or gas, that will be used in other states.

>Sorry, billie .... ... (Below threshold)
Steve T:

Sorry, billie ....
It's Bill Clinton we have to thank for the likes of Andrew Cuomo, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick. These were prime players in the financial meltdown. Cuomo - for threatening lenders with lawsuits if they didn't make money more accessible for people who couldn't pay. Raines for allowing Fannie Mae to accept them. Gorelick as one of his flunkies.

One point regarding Alaska.... (Below threshold)
Steve T:

One point regarding Alaska.
A royalty is a cut of the revenue generated from a product you own, i.e., it's voluntary.
A tax is involuntary and nothing is given in return.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy