| Obama's Brave New Deal: A Preview http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021893.php Many readers have written to alert us to the audio of Senator Obama's reflections on, and advocacy of, the redistribution of wealth in this vintage 2001 audio clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck . Underlying Obama's remarks is his hostility to the constitutional protections of property that I wrote about in "Obama, Joe the plumber, and the gosel of envy."Based on the audio, one must conclude that Obama has thought long about the subject and seriously about the project.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506830024970697.html?mod=rss_opinion_main Smells Like Socialist Spirit http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/27/smells-like-socialist-spirit/ If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama’s redistributionism. Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale. In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended. Stop the ACLU 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. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/ 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. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. People have assumed that Obama merely offered a rhetorical stumble, and Obama and Joe Biden have strenuously attacked anyone that claimed he intended to bring about radical socialist change. This sounds very much like socialism and radical change, and there is no mistaking the context of this statement. While Obama recognizes in this passage that the judiciary doesn’t have the "structure" to make radical changes to the Constitution, he doesn’t sound at all happy about it. Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama’s vision. In fact, as Jeff Goldstein http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/ notes, that’s almost classic Marxism, and it would leave America somewhere to the left of 1970s France: In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the "constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" - and in so doing, achieve "social justice" through "redistributive change." Well, then. Fine .But this is not the America I knew… The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx’s classic philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people. The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election. Update: One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties". That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else.
The Washington Post takes a front-page look at the shenanigans in Team Obama’s Internet fundraising efforts, but they don’t quite connect all the dots. Matthew Mosk outlines the problem well, but neglects to mention an important point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502302.html?hpid=topnews Concerns about anonymous donations seeping into the campaign began to surface last month, mainly on conservative blogs. Some bloggers described their own attempts to display the flaws in Obama’s fundraising program, donating under such obviously phony names as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and reported that the credit card transactions were permitted. Obama officials said it should be obvious that it is as much in their campaign’s interest as it is in the public’s interest for fake contributions to be turned back, and said they have taken pains to establish a barrier to prevent them. Over the course of the campaign, they said, a number of additional safeguards have been added to bulk up the security of their system. In a paper outlining those safeguards, provided to The Washington Post, the campaign said it runs twice-daily sweeps of new donations, looking for irregularities. Flagged contributions are manually reviewed by a team of lawyers, then cleared or refunded. Reports of misused credit cards lead to immediate refunds. Under current law, there is also very little policing of small-dollar contributions. The false donations uncovered by news outlets or by rival campaigns have all involved more than $200, because those contributions must be disclosed in published reports. The campaigns are not required to share any information about donors who give less than $200. And they are not required to even keep records of donors who give less than $50 - they can even give cash. Mosk never thinks to ask the one question that has already occurred to conservative bloggers. What makes the Obama campaign different from online retail operations? After all, we have spent almost 15 years buying and selling products and services on the Internet, and retailers know how to protect themselves and their customers. They employ a system that compares the billing information on the order to the information in the credit-card system - and when they don’t match, the sale gets denied. Credit-card companies have gone an extra step in recent years by adding a security code to protect against fraudulent use. The McCain campaign apparently uses these systems to prevent fraud. Why doesn’t Team Obama? That’s the pertinent question. Systems have existed for years to prevent exactly the kind of fraud that has occurred in Obama’s fundraising. Why did Team Obama deliberately avoid using them? Perhaps the FEC could discover the answer to that question, if they were inclined to do their jobs. It seems very clear that someone at Team Obama didn’t want to stop credit-card fraud as long as it helped them raise funds. That’s a story that the Tanning Bed Media ought to cover … and probably won’t. Information provided from Steve of a Delphi Forum thanks for your research and sharing it for all to view:0) |
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama Lacking Morals continued....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment