10.29.2008

Redistributive justice? Chebama's lies


Obama stated plainly to Charley Gibson that he would tax us more because he wanted "Fairness". When Gibson showed that every time taxes were cut, the gubmint's revenue INCREASED, and that when tax rates were high the gubmint took in LESS Obama still pressed for fairness--do you see ? It is NOT ABOUT raising money to do the work of society--it is about PUNISHMENT of those who have achieved.

See it in his own words here where he is candid--before he set sights on the White House.











While he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama told a Chicago radio show host that he sought "major redistributive change" for the benefit of fellow blacks.

He was speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, and how it had fallen short of "economic justice."


....
This is yet another example of Obama's lack of candor and deception about his true radical agenda during this campaign, as well as the mainstream media's failure to vet such serious issues and force them out into the open where voters can see them and have a fair chance to evaluate them before they go to the polls.

In 2001, Obama said it's a "tragedy" the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks, and it's still an issue of concern for him today. And he suggested he wants to effect "major redistributive change" through legislation.

He complained that during the civil-rights era, "the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth" for blacks, and that the Warren Court was not "radical" enough.


"One of the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change," he said while serving as a state lawmaker and University of Chicago lecturer. "And in some ways, we still suffer from that."


More
here

On Obama;s Will Be Done:


17 comments:

TROLL said...

Trying to smear Barack Obama because of an extremely loose affiliation with a radical won't work for you right-wingers!

One would think you'd have learned your lesson when you tried to bring up Ayers, Farrakhan, Flager and Wright!

That radical hateful leftist Illinois State Senator was just a guy who lived in the neighborhood of Obama's skin.

moi said...

If Obama becomes president, I am going to haul myself on a plane to D.C. and personally petition the man por MOI's grievances. I mean, how totally UNFAIR is it that, as a member of the "weaker" sex and a lifelong morning, noon, to night worker, there isn't a single pair of Louboutins in my closet?

iamnot said...

If the electorate were used to paying attention or actually thinking, that Gibson interview alone would have doomed the obamanation.
As it is, they're all lining up for their healthy dose of hopey changey.
Lambs....

K9 said...

wow that last video is catchy. where have i heard that before? grrrerhahaha appropriation for authority. another tool in the leftist bag o tricks.

pamokc said...

It's amazing how good Hillary Clinton as candidate would have been looking to me right about now.

iamnot said...

I was pulling for hillary from the start. I figured she be easier to beat than BO.
I don't know if I was right or not, but it looks like it.

K9 said...

hillary looks like reagan compared to barack.

czar said...

I hope on Nov. 5, everyone just takes a deep breath. Not to mention on Jan. 20. Personally, while I am certainly voting for Obama, I realize that either candidate (hell, probably any of them, except for Cynthia McKinney, my former congressperson) will be a vast improvement over the unmitigated, anti-American hell of the last eight years.

Aunty Belle said...

Troll-Man,
heh. YEah, well, ain;t gotta try too hard to "smear" the O.

Moi, mah Presidentia!
Thas' it! We need to create ourselves as aggrieved groups wif our hands out...howl!!

IAMNOT,
what is so clear from the Charley Gibson interview is that it is the worst, most transparent class warfare imaginable. BO has a punitive revenge attitude that defies logic, but is in full sync wif' ideology. Jes' read Saul Alinsky an' you'll understand the Barry O.

K9 Pup,

ya' thought that little jingle was catchy--yeah, catch your breath and pray we are spared.

Pamokc
I never thought I could arrive at any favor toward the Hildebeast, but mercy I'se thar!

Czar!

I'se so pleased to see ya makin' a visit. Welcome. Hep us'uns understand why youse so certain fer Obama.

I git that youse been miserable over the Bush policies, but does ya imagine thangs cannot git worse?? Does socialism/ marxism appeal or ya think those charges are overheated?

We's civil, an I promise to insure civility, but I'se genuinely anxious to hear yore thoughts on this.

Pete Bogs said...

all the lies and hate that are coming from the right in this election cycle are not Christian... it seems a lot of Christians have forgotten this little ditty: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Aunty Belle said...

Oh!! BAwgs--hey hey!! I'se so please to see ya, kiddo!

Okay, I hear ya, but I doan know what ya mean--please give us a concrete example.

(an does ya mean to imply that "lies and hate" ain't emanatin' from the left? )

K9 said...

i couldnt stand john kerry but i like obama for various reasons - mostly based on feelings. thinking about our forefathers intentions and our birthright of liberty i could never vote for him. its that simple

Anonymous said...

From the Boston Globe:

"Whatever else may be said about the Bush administration, it has never cowed its opponents into silence. If anything, the past eight years have set new records in vilifying a sitting president: "Bush = Hitler" signs at protest rallies; Crude "Buck Fush" bumper stickers; a 2006 movie depicting Bush's assassination; The New Republic's cover story on "The Case for Bush Hatred." The denunciation has been unending and often unhinged, yet Bush has never tried to censor it.

Will we be able to say the same of his successor?

If opinion polls are right, Barack Obama is cruising to victory. As president, would he show the same forbearance as Bush in allowing his opponents to have their say, unmolested? Or would he attempt to suppress the free speech of those whose views he detested? It is disturbing to contemplate some of the Obama campaign's recent efforts to stifle criticism.

When the National Rifle Association produced a radio ad last month about Obama's shifting position on gun control, the campaign's lawyers sent letters to radio stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, urging them not to run it - and warning of trouble with the Federal Communications Commission if they did. "This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience," Obama's general counsel Bob Bauer wrote. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

Similar lawyer letters went out in August when the American Issues Project produced a TV spot exploring Obama's strong ties to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Station managers were warned that running the anti-Obama ad would be a violation of their legal obligation to serve the "public interest." And in case that wasn't menacing enough, the Obama campaign also urged the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation.

In Missouri, an Obama "truth squad" of prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials vowed to take action against anyone making "character attacks" on the Democratic candidate - a threat, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt later remarked, that had about it the "stench of police state tactics."

Perhaps these efforts to smother political speech are simply the overly aggressive tactics of a campaign in its adrenaline-fueled sprint to the finish. But what if they are the first warning signs of how an Obama administration would deal with its adversaries?

Michael Barone, the esteemed and judicious author of "The Almanac of American Politics," fears the worst. "In this campaign," he writes, "we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy . . . We may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."

Pray that Barone is wrong. The nation's political life is toxic enough when the president is falsely labeled a dictator. It would be infinitely more poisonous if the label were true. "

Doom said...

All I am certain about is, if Obama wins the election or if Dems get a bullet-proof majority in congress, my plan (hope) of finishing an undergraduate degree, than going for a masters, in order to get ahead, is finished. An economic "glass ceiling" for those who do not agree and aren't a part of his (their) politburo will be a non-starter.

I also know that kind of business model destroys innovation (the very thing I wish to capitalize upon). As well, it ends entrepreneurship, an aspect of my interest. I am not going to invent the warp engine so his aunt and brother (who he doesn't even take care of) can live well without doing anything for themselves.

Beyond that, after what I have seen the liberal Supremes do to personal property rights, buying a house would be out as well. Three more of those and the state will be allowed to take anything, especially with a congress and president who back them. The first thing they will take, of course, is guns. Or, at least, they will try. One can always ponder what the 600 pound gorilla in the room (the military) might have to say about some of this though... But it is a thin, and dangerous, thread upon which to hang one's political hopes.

Anonymous said...

Doom, after guns, they'll take farms and factories.

Doom said...

Anon,

To some degree, they have already taken those things. Through regulation, the tax schedules, and a few other things, they have too much control. With enough control, there is no need for ownership. At this point, some of that can be undone. Some of it is weak enough that it can be bypassed. Any strengthening of government, regulation, but especially an enshrinement of those things, and we are done.

The banks are partially owned by the state, currently. That can is set to be temporary. But either an Obama win or a Democratic take over of congress, but absolutely certainly if both, and the fix is permanent. Though they will change from disinterested ownership of banks to one in which the government votes it's shares.

At which time, money will truly become fake. It will be whatever the government says it is. We have not even a clue what economic hard times are, yet.

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Doom and ANon,

yep--ya'll is seein' the horizon. Thas why Aunty say, git aholt of some heirloom seeds!