Once again we have another story that has been picked up in a big way by the Blogosphere but is currently being ignored by the mainstream media. And this time the story is huge. If you've seen the Drudge Report today you will know exactly which story this is; the audio of a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ FM in which Barack Obama explicitly calls for the "redistribution of wealth." You won't find any information about this blockbuster story in the MSM just yet but as been very typical lately, you can be informed on this topic on the Blogosphere including this report from Steve Schippert of Wizbang who posted it at 1:20 this morning while the members of the MSM were complacently sleeping, comfortable in the knowledge that Obama probably had the election in the bag:
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."
Your humble correspondent did notice one oddity. The source of this YouTube audio is Naked Emperor News. And on that website is featured a Cafe Press link that leads to a page selling "Hillary Electable" T-shirts. Is the Hillary War Room perhaps doing some extra-curricular work in the background? In any event it seems to be one of those things that makes you want to sit up and go...hmmm?
UPDATE: NewsBusters Tom Blumer has provided the transcript of this interview along with this exit question: "How many Chicago-area reporters, many of whom more than likely frequently listen to public radio, have known about this interview all this time and were hoping against hope that it had disappeared down the memory hole, instead of doing their job and telling us what he said?"
OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples -- so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And 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 it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the 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 coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
..... Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
Host: You mean the courts?
Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, y'know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....
