Original Post: Yahoo
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed.
He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."
Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted:
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Monday, May 13, 2013
Monday, February 7, 2011
Gun-Mandate Bill is Jab at Health Care Reform
Original Post: Outdoor Life
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Second federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional
Original Post: Daily Caller
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Washington post reporter Ezra Klein can't read
"You can say two things about it [the Constitution], one that it has no binding power. And two. The issue with the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think their following. The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believes it says differs from person to person."
You can say that it has no binding power, but you'd be wrong.
Wow, just wow. No wonder he finds it so confusing. He doesn't know what it says. The Constitution is indeed binding. In fact, all other laws are subservient to the Constitution. He is one of the liberal intelligentsia elite, the wise the smart. Yet he can't figure out the language of the Constitution? Yes, it's a touch old. It's not really that hard. Just get yourself a dictionary for some of the more archaic terms and there you go. If you have an ounce of critical thinking skills you can infer the definitions from the context (that means what's going on in and around the sentence.
So I suppose if a document is to hard to read you can just make up what it says. But he has a job. Someone paid him to say that and other people (including myself) watched him say it. Oh, and I'm also given to understand that he's a Political Science Major. I'd get my money back if I were him.
Well, this is for the Ezra Kleins of the world who have a hard time reading.
And.
Apparently there is also a two year old child with greater comprehension of the Constitution than Ezra Klein
We all knew that there were two year olds with greater comprehension than Washington Post reporters, now we have proof. astoundingly
Monday, November 22, 2010
Public School Bans U.S. Flag To Avoid “Racial Tension”
Original Post: Judicial Watch
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Phil Hare (Democrat) doesn't care about the Constitution
Bingo! That sums it up. Phil Hare doesn't care about the Constitution as long as he can do whatever he wants. This is probably the most un-American thing I've ever heard a Representative who's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution say. Including Obama's comments about it's flaws and blind spots.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Original Post: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225
Posted: October 27, 2008
1:46 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
"Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
(Story continues below)
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
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 the 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 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.
The video is available here:
In his top-rated national radio show today, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the tape.
The Constitution, he said, "most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn't like it."
"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.
"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It's not a disappointment; it's a blessing," he said.
Limbaugh cited unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, with whom Obama has had a relationship for many years, as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor under whose teaching Obama attended church for two decades. Ayers has stated his Weather Underground didn't accomplish enough in the bombings on the U.S. Capitol and other locations, and Wright has called on God to d*** America.
"I'm beginning to wonder just who taught whom," Limbaugh said. "How much did Obama teach Ayers, Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn't have to hear what Jeremiah Wright was saying, Obama may have half written those sermons."
The change sought by Obama, however, simply couldn't be accomplished through court action, the Democrat said in the 2001 interview.
"The court's not very good at it," he said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."
"You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, the court … engaging in a process that essentially is administrative," he said.
A commentator on the website American Thinker said Obama "wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes."
"What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distributed 'unequally' in Obama's world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation."
GOP presidential candidate John McCain's campaign stated the tape proves Obama is too liberal for the White House.
"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
But the Obama campaign called the statements just another distraction.
"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It's just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign," spokesman Bill Burton said.
However, reaction to Obama's comments reached around the globe. In the Telegraph newspaper of London, Toby Harnden said the 2001 remarks are consistent with Obama's recent statement to the now iconic Joe the Plumber in Ohio, that "when you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."
"Although his remarks were heavily analytical and academic," Harndon said of the 2001 interview, Obama "spoke warmly of the notion of redistributing wealth, suggesting that there were other vehicles that the courts to achieve it."
Limbaugh commented, "We know Joe (the Plumber) got Obama to reveal himself."
But what would be next?
"Would he quote Marx? Would he demand change in the spirit of the Soviet Union? Would he ask us to have Constitution-burning parties?" Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh contended, however, that the "redistribution" was just a distraction.
"It's part of a process where the government confiscates private property and uses it to secure their own power. It's not about fairness," Limbaugh said. "They buy votes with the money they confiscate."
He continued, "Redistribution is the least frightening part of socialism. What comes after and before is what shocks like a Taser."
The weblog Right Pundits.com said, "In other words, he sees our money as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it.""
Posted: October 27, 2008
1:46 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
"Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
(Story continues below)
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
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 the 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 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.
The video is available here:
In his top-rated national radio show today, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the tape.
The Constitution, he said, "most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn't like it."
"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.
"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It's not a disappointment; it's a blessing," he said.
Limbaugh cited unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, with whom Obama has had a relationship for many years, as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor under whose teaching Obama attended church for two decades. Ayers has stated his Weather Underground didn't accomplish enough in the bombings on the U.S. Capitol and other locations, and Wright has called on God to d*** America.
"I'm beginning to wonder just who taught whom," Limbaugh said. "How much did Obama teach Ayers, Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn't have to hear what Jeremiah Wright was saying, Obama may have half written those sermons."
The change sought by Obama, however, simply couldn't be accomplished through court action, the Democrat said in the 2001 interview.
"The court's not very good at it," he said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."
"You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, the court … engaging in a process that essentially is administrative," he said.
A commentator on the website American Thinker said Obama "wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes."
"What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distributed 'unequally' in Obama's world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation."
GOP presidential candidate John McCain's campaign stated the tape proves Obama is too liberal for the White House.
"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
But the Obama campaign called the statements just another distraction.
"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It's just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign," spokesman Bill Burton said.
However, reaction to Obama's comments reached around the globe. In the Telegraph newspaper of London, Toby Harnden said the 2001 remarks are consistent with Obama's recent statement to the now iconic Joe the Plumber in Ohio, that "when you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."
"Although his remarks were heavily analytical and academic," Harndon said of the 2001 interview, Obama "spoke warmly of the notion of redistributing wealth, suggesting that there were other vehicles that the courts to achieve it."
Limbaugh commented, "We know Joe (the Plumber) got Obama to reveal himself."
But what would be next?
"Would he quote Marx? Would he demand change in the spirit of the Soviet Union? Would he ask us to have Constitution-burning parties?" Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh contended, however, that the "redistribution" was just a distraction.
"It's part of a process where the government confiscates private property and uses it to secure their own power. It's not about fairness," Limbaugh said. "They buy votes with the money they confiscate."
He continued, "Redistribution is the least frightening part of socialism. What comes after and before is what shocks like a Taser."
The weblog Right Pundits.com said, "In other words, he sees our money as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it.""
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)