Lefty statements; righty analysis.
Smells Like Socialist Spirit
; Update: Team O respondsposted at 7:24 am on October 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
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.
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.
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 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.
Update II: Via Jake Tapper at ABC (who gives us a nice link), Team Obama responds. I’m including the entire statement, to avoid more accusations of context shifting:
“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,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. “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.”
Burton continues: “In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point – and what he called a tragedy – was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.
“As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up – not from the corridors of Washington,” Burton says. “He worked in struggling communities to improve the economic situation of people on the South Side of Chicago, who lost their jobs when the steel plants closed. And he’s worked as a legislator to provide tax relief and health care to middle-class families. And so Obama’s point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process.”
I’d say that the first hint that the initial analysis was correct was in Obama’s estimation of the Warren Court — one of the most activist in history — as somehow not radical in its nature. Second, in the quote itself, Obama calls the failure to “bring about redistributive change” a tragedy. That doesn’t sound like someone who hails the court’s limitation on redistributionism — or, to use Obama’s analogy, liked the fact that the court allowed him to eat at the lunch counter but didn’t pick up the tab for him as well.
The point about the courts is really secondary. In this passage, Obama identifies himself as a redistributionist, even if he’s saying that the courts are not going to be a successful venue for it. Despite Burton’s little bit of misdirection, it’s very clear that Obama is highly sympathetic to “redistributive change” — and with an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the courts won’t be necessary to effect that redistributive change anyway.
Emphasis by poster. v
Let's check FactCheck.org
Q: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?
I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts.
What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"?
A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.
This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way:
Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did.
Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.
Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold.
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.
People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem â€“ they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.
We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
Emphasis by poster. v
"... We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. ...
"... We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. ..."
"... Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide. ..."
My personal answer is: Knowing our government; why yes Mr. Jackson, that's exactly what it sounds like. The similarities to past events are eerily familiar to some.
You just suffered through 8 years of an administration that passed law after law to legally spy on you, torture you or arrest you without evidence or access to lawyers and put you in secret foreign prison. Only now you're getting scared??? I didn't hear you saying boo when your library lists were scanned by the NSA or when all your foreign phone calls were tapped or when people were arrested in the night without habeas corpus.
I was never a fan of the smirking monkey. What you have cited are more talking points from the left. It's not as if it wouldn't be just jake if your leftist buddies did the same or worse. The issue also applies more to people of Muslim background, which applies to you more than me or others on this forum. The issues that "W" ignored that affected my world were the North American Union and open borders. Leftists don't really care about the NAU, and since illegals "get to vote" for the left, they don't really care about open borders. The beltway crowd has sold its collective soul to the globalist crowd. For the people, money talks, BS walks. That was punctuated most loudly during Bubba's administration. It had something to do with the Lincoln bedroom and Chinese money laundering. Most people don't give the amount of money for even their "own" representatives to give a rat's aunt about what they think.
Now that the Bush clan has purchased a large amount of land in Uruguay, how do the leftists plan on getting him and Cheney back from a non-extradition country? The left wants to hold the whole country hostage to another show trial. For what? Because the left is so righteous? Now isn't that a joke. The left has been one of the biggest attackers of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Wilson and Roosevelt were darlings of overstepping the Constitution; and they are still darlings of the left. Yes, "W" was weak on some Constitutional principles, but I'm a way past tired of the "my scumbags are better than your scumbags" argument. Where's a good military coup when you need one?
Ultimately, that's why a vote for Obama was a vote to take away money from others (who are already paying a disproportionate tax burden), and give it to the Obama voters.
You can't deny that a vote for Obama was a vote for theft and class warfare -- One class of Americans taking away even more money from another class of Americans. It's really that simple.
But since you are a Socialist, this is your preferred lifestyle - let others do the work, and you get to collect a government check, right?
If we consider that 1 out of 4 young Muslims in America admit that they support suicide bombings, we should all be grateful that we have laws that allow our government to stop the hundreds of terrorist attacks planned by Muslim terrorists over the past 8 years.
Yeah, uh like Joe the Plumber. Oops. Joe is into the government. Your shining example has a lein on him!Ultimately, that's why a vote for Obama was a vote to take away money from others (who are already paying a disproportionate tax burden), and give it to the Obama voters.
I can deny it and I do, with confidence. It's not that simple. Taxes go to the government. They don't go directly back to the people who aren't taxed as much. So what you said "simply" isn't true.You can't deny that a vote for Obama was a vote for theft and class warfare -- One class of Americans taking away even more money from another class of Americans. It's really that simple.
I'm not a Socialist, and you shouldn't smear me so lightly when you could just skip to pinko or commie with your false smears.But since you are a Socialist, this is your preferred lifestyle - let others do the work, and you get to collect a government check, right?
Any government desiring an excuse to take freedom and privacy from its citizens will take advantage of a real situation to create a permanent state of emergency. There were real bolsheviks and anarchists at the time of Hitler.I couldn't care less about my library card being scanned by the government, and we need to keep in mind that if not for the Islamist attack on America on 9/11, none of these issues would be even discussed.
We already had a great legal system entirely capable of handling things. The security failure of 9/11 was not cause to scrap the entire system in favor of a dictatorship. And BTW, if Obama scares you so much, you should consider how much power he has at his disposal as a result of Cheney.If we consider that 1 out of 4 young Muslims in America admit that they support suicide bombings, we should all be grateful that we have laws that allow our government to stop the hundreds of terrorist attacks planned by Muslim terrorists over the past 8 years.
Obama voters didn't know Obama. The media's propaganda machine finally worked!!!
Released: November 18, 2008
Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden
UTICA, New York -- Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.
Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll
Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly.
The 12-question, multiple-choice survey found questions regarding statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-Presidentâ€“Elect Joe Biden. The telephone survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 13-15, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by John Ziegler, author of The Death of Free Speech, producer of the recently released film "Blocking the Path to 9/11" and producer of the upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.
"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby
"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
Emphasis by poster. v
The new 'O' socialism according to Rahm. It's just politics.
Crisis, or Opportunity?
Posted by john on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:20:12 PM
What was it that Rahm Emmanuel recently said? A crisis is a terrible thing to waste?
Way, way back in September, weeks before the election, weeks even before I started this blog, I asked myself the following question: Given that most of the Democrat-installed crap had been stripped out of the $700B TARP legislation, why were the Dems nevertheless so much more enthusiastic about the bill than Republicans?
Answer: the big government boosters in Washington see, as the Chinese might, an "opportunity" in the financial "crisis". In the words of Vermont Socialist (his choice of labels, not mine) Bernie Sanders, "this can bring about a turn toward a new era. If we have the money to bail out Wall Street, we can provide funding for health care, childhood poverty infrastructure and sustainable energy."
I guess you can add to that list, the UAW, and probably a great grocery list of infrastructure (union boondoggle) projects. Anything else? Regardless of how long the list grows, the essential point is this: massive amounts of capital of the most scarce kind (the kind that requires the Treasury Dept. to print money) is going to be diverted to some really inefficient uses. This is no prescription for economic growth, and certainly not for any kind of bull market.
All of this begs another question, however. Does anyone in charge in Washington really care about economic growth? I'm reminded of a famous Great Depression/New Deal anecdote. Secretary Morgenthau featured a sign on his desk which asked "does it contribute to the recovery?" Upon seeing this, FDR chided him. The issue wasn't recovery, he said, "this is politics." For the feline Roosevelt, the Great Depression wasn't a crisis, it was an opportunity. As described by former WSJ editor Robert Bartley, it was, more specifically, an opportunity to replace one aristocracy with another. An opportunity to replace business as the dominant force in American life, with bureaucrats and politicians - a permanent political class in Washington.
I'm afraid that like FDR, Rahm Emmanuel - and one must assume Barry O - isn't interested in economic growth nearly as much as politics. Specifically, entrenching in Washington an even more permenant political class made up of an aristocracy of people who had a talent for taking tests as teenagers, and for little else, yet nevertheless believe themselves expert in everything and subordinate to no one outside their tribe. These twerps need people to need them, and a Reaganesque America in which opportunity abounds for anyone with talent and ambition - regardless of their SAT scores - is therefore anathema.
Rush was once fond of lecturing that the difference between us and them is that they measure policy and political success by how many people are getting government aid; while we'd measure success by how many people don't need government. It has been characteristic of the Left since the New Deal to claim, a la Professor Higgins, that we NEED them. And to prove it, they're going to kill the private economy. I hope this doesn't end the same way the Great Depression did.
Emphasis by poster. v
I actually have an Arabic last name, and thanks to an expired ID I got lots of attention at airports. I blame that inconvenience on political correctness and a system that's denied the ability to check my background, and give me clearance while targeting the people who are actually hijacking planes. I've yet to hear of one Jew or Israeli airline hijacker. Chances are the last 8 years weren't effected one bit. So what if the government knows you're checking out Harlequin Romance books in big print from the library? I'd rather that then a forced mandatory service with a mandatory reading program.
If you were scared for 8 years, what reason do you have to be less scared?
You'll have another dogmatic, religious wingnut in office who says he's going to capture Bin Laden and redirect troops instead of bring them home. Obama and political correctness isn't offering you new freedoms or safety at all.
Hey you forgot to mention that Jeri Ryan (of Star Trek) handed Obama his Senate seat after her divorce proceedings were opened up and her ex husband Jack Ryan, GOP Senate incumbent, was exposed as a sexual deviant.
I don't have an Arabic name and I don't look Arabic.I actually have an Arabic last name, and thanks to an expired ID I got lots of attention at airports. I blame that inconvenience on political correctness and a system that's denied the ability to check my background, and give me clearance while targeting the people who are actually hijacking planes.
Consider this that day.I've yet to hear of one Jew or Israeli airline hijacker.
The first recorded aircraft hijacking in the Middle East occurred some thirteen years before the creation of the PFLP. In December 1954, Israeli military jets intercepted a civilian aircraft in Syrian airspace that had recently taken off from Damascus, and forced it to land within Israeli territory. Syrian passengers were detained for 48 hours, pending negotiations over the fate of five Israeli soldiers who had been captured inside Syrian territory while mounting wiretapping installations.
The first state-hijacking of an airplane was Israel's hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent "to obtain hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus," who had been captured spying in Syria. Prime Minister Moshe Sharett accepted the "factual affirmation of the U.S. State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice."
Contrary to your report on the brouhaha in France stirred by medical aid for George Habash (news article, Jan. 31), Mr. Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was not "the first group to hijack aircraft in the late 1960's." Israel originated the practice in 1954.
On Dec. 8 of that year, five Israeli soldiers were captured in Syria, apparently retrieving eavesdropping equipment. On Dec. 12, Israeli jet fighters intercepted a Syrian civilian aircraft flying from Damascus to Egypt, claiming that the plane had violated Israeli airspace.
The following day you reported that this "development appears to have given Israel an unexpected position of strength for negotiating the release of Syria's prisoners."
Gen. Moshe Dayan was then Israeli Chief of Staff. The Israeli Prime Minister, Moshe Sharett, wrote in his diary, "It is clear that Dayan's intention . . . is to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus."
Contrary to General Dayan's hopes, no exchange took place. Prime Minister Sharett added that the United States State Department complained that "our action was without precedent in the history of international practice." SAM HUSSEINI Associate, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting New York, Feb. 18, 1992
Guess what, we already live in a world where progressives want to fine you for blight, and are fighting to block off streets from traffic. Who gets to set the standard for "blight"? Why are kids being sent home from school for wearing tshirts supporting Republican candidates? So this desire to control the way other people live their lives, and watchdog comes from both sides.
Fairness Doctrine anyone?
You're just a cut and paste monkey. Are you suggesting the event would validate profiling Israelis with extra scrutiny at airport security today? Oh right, you still have a problem acknowledging that the 9/11 hijackers carrying American passports were Muslim Arabs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)