Sunday, October 26, 2008

Amending the Constitution to force Redistribution of Wealth?



In his own words. On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ FM in 2001, Barack Obama speaks of the "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 you bring about redistributive change."

He said that it's a tragedy that the constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of the wealth.

"I am not optimistic about bringing about redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way."

From Atlas Shrugs who comments - So he doesn't think it can be done through the courts but he thinks it can be done legislatively. That is why a Liberal Supermajority is crucial.
From Atlas Shrugs
and Michelle Malkin
and SuperKev Redistribution of Wealth: Not just a slip, folks
UPDATE III: Keeping a running tally of video views before the Obamaniacs get it yanked from YouTube. (Don’t worry though, the PUMAs warned us, and thousands of us have all been downloading copies of the video. Down the memory hole this one will not go.)
And Drudge: 2001 OBAMA: 'TRAGEDY' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED

and HillBuzz: Obama’s socialist audiotape should pressure the LA Times to release the tape they are holding of Obama at the 2003 Rashid Khalidi event in Chicago
The LA Times is sitting on a story about Obama at a 2003 Chicago event honoring Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, at which Obama was present while rampant anti-Semetic, anti-Israel hate was spewed.

Obama did nothing to stop it — and instead joined in the praise heaped upon Khalidi.

The LA Times shut the story down and refused to release the tape, because it would obviously hurt Obama with Jewish voters and all Americans who understand the importance of our historic and strategic friendship with Israel.


flip side: This Is The Best They've Got?

15 comments:

  1. from Wikipedia:

    Choosing the Intensity of Redistribution

    Between total rejection of income redistribution and total support for income redistribution, modern societies chose a third way: They decide on the grade of redistribution. Rather than employing ethics, the decisions are made by letting different interests compete against each other in democratic elections. The objective of a moderated income redistribution is to avoid the unjust equalization of incomes on one side and unjust extremes of concentration on the other sides. Both forms of extreme redistribution tend to be implemented violently. Moderated redistributions then allow for a moderated income inequality which fosters a non-violent competition in free markets.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rose,you do realize that when Alaska residents receive their annual cut for oil drillin in the state,it is done through a forced redistribution of wealth,and something that sarah Palin is quite proud of when speaking to crowds who don't know shit about what Socialisn is,and don't realize it.Davif Corn,writer for the Nation,has even penned Palin as the most Socialist governor in the states due to her work with this forced redistribution of wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. mresquanie

    not the same thing and you know it. all resident's sharing from the sale of the natural resources of the state is not a "redistribution of wealth".

    don't know if Obama thinks he's Robin Hood or just buying votes. giving tax breaks to the 40% that don't pay taxes is a joke. giving those same non taxpayers a check from the money taken from persons and companies making money is also , to some extent, taking away the incentive to work hard.

    this "redistribution of wealth" BS should be a serious concern or fear to regular working people.

    the messiah is anything but.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "spread the wealth around"

    what ever happened to earning it yourself and maybe punishing those that cheat or steal from others to obtain their wealth.

    I fear a disaster is coming

    ReplyDelete
  5. The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome.
    Robert A. Heinlein's To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987):

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey I liked most everything Heinlein wrote after 1960. But he had some out-dated ideas about humankind's place in the environment. He was from another era. Great sci-fi writer. Maybe he just thought we could destroy this world because there were an endless number of other worlds to explore and exploit over a boundless number of universes spread over multi-dimensional space and time-lines. He certainly could afford to pay higher taxes and did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9T0FI2axbU

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heinlein was sort of a libertarian. I'm much more of a socialistic Clarke-Azimov kind of guy. There are some good right wing sci fi writers though, among them Poul Anderson and the guy who wrote Blade Runner who went nuts thinking the communists were after him as he was warned by the pink light.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In fact, I was first drawn to the idea of socialism by Azimov's Foundation series. Hari Seldon's "psychohistory" appealed to me and when I later read about Marx's "Historial Materialism" I thought maybe that's what Azimov had been writing about.

    Of course, I also used to pretend that twinkies were lembass (elven cake) from the Tolkien stories.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does that mean you are still drawn to socialism Eric?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I guess it depends on what you mean by socialism. I certainly support socialized medicine. Social security. Municipal utilities districts. Unemployment insurance. Bike lanes. Food coops. Unions.

    But I don't support one party political systems, forceful seizures of property without substantive and procedural due process of law, nor a "vanguard party" dedicated to class struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Should Palin have said something about that guy yelling out that Obama is a nigger?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some posters on my blog said so. I think it's best ignored. The individual was obviously craving attention.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.