Exclusive: Obama’s Hope ‘n Change Smells More like Socialism

by PAM MEISTER October 28, 2008
Barack Obama promises change. But can America afford the change he’s promising?
Joe the Plumber’s question to Obama about taxes, to which Obama answered “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody,” just scratched the surface of the candidate’s plans. A Chicago radio interview of Obama in 2001 has surfaced and it paints a detailed picture of Obama’s guiding political philosophy.
The most significant part of the clip is below (emphasis mine):
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 it’s 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.
Joe Biden wanted to know if WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West was “joking” when she asked, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” After hearing this interview, perhaps Joe might want to amend his answer.
In a nutshell: Obama thinks the Constitution stands in the way of government meddling in the way you and I live our lives.
A Gallup poll in June indicated that Americans oppose redistribution of wealth by the government 84% to 13%, preferring that the government do what it can to improve the overall economic situation. I find it hard to believe they’ve changed their minds in just a few months. So if a majority of Americans are against socialism, how would Obama enact it?
Simple: judges.
The next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court - possibly as many as three. Tommy Vietor, Obama spokesman, explained that "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." Denver Post columnist David Harnsanyi points out that
“Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Could this latest bombshell be why Americans have not been privy to Obama’s college records and writings? The Obama campaign is calling this latest revelation a distraction. I call it critical information.
Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, says, “No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as ‘early voting’ so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.”
Voters who have been enthralled by Obama’s flowery teleprompter speeches and promises of hope, change, lollipops and unicorns owe it to themselves to look beyond the information being offered by the mainstream media in this last significant week before the election.
As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary