Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality - oh, wait a minute - yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really - to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate - by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point - he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud - from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow - where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

Throughout this campaign season, any attempts to discern the “content of (Obama’s) character” have been thwarted by the Propaganda Machine, formerly known as the Fourth Estate, his handlers, the DNC, and his followers who claim, irrationally, I might add, the “Obama will heal us!” as Cher did on The Ellen Degeneres Show Nov. 3rd, as if he truly IS the Obamessiah, ignoring the tremendous splitting of the country, of the Democratic Party itself.

For the first time in memory, a candidate was NOT “known by the company he keeps,” “the birds of a feather which flocked together.” Rather, any mention of Bill Ayers was met, even by university professors with the illogical justification that Obama was only 8 when Bill Ayers and his compatriot, Bernadine Dorhn, were bombing the US Capitol, Pentagon, and other US buildings.

That may be so, but the ideology which drove Ayers and Dorhn is the ideology to which they still adhere. Obama has chosen to have them in his life, to live near them, work with them, and seek them out, as we recently learned for sure (as many of us suspected, and confirmed in this article by Steve Diamond at No Quarter, “Ayers and Obama In Regular Contact Says Source Close to Obama Candidacy“).

The list of his close associates in addition to Ayers and Dorhn are troubling: Rezko, Wright, Khalidi, Kilpatrick, Farakkhan, Blogajevich, et al, a list that contains convicted felons and one under investigation. I have said before, and will say again, any ONE of these people would have sunk any other candidacy, yet in the case of Obama, they were brushed aside as irrelevant. As was the glaring reality that Obama took the majority of his policy positions, often lock, stock, and barrel, from Hillary Clinton. But the Propaganda arm flipped it around, and his minions, again, many university professors, brushed aside his plagiarism as inconsequential. What a great lesson they are teaching their students, and their children.

Along those lines, I am in disbelief that adults, people who would not hire Obama at their own universities or businesses with his refusal to provide ANY documentation of his academic life, or allow friends, families, or fellow students to discuss him to ANYONE trying to get information on this first term senator running for the highest office in the land, would gladly give this man their votes.

I despair that adults, and their children, believe that the means justify the ends, that hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, over 200,000 in Ohio, and 212,000 discovered in Georgia, in which voters were registered in GA, as well as OH or FL, are dismissed because as one neighbor, a retired university professor said, “ACORN does great work.” The level of voter registration fraud was through the ceiling, as the 16 investigations into ACORN indicate, yet the Propagandists say NOTHING about this as Obama “wins” contests in states where voter registration fraud was rampant. Even duplicate voting is brushed aside, as this video demonstrates (and h/t to a listener of Truthteller’s Election Night Radio Show mentioned):

Um, no - it is NOT okay for anyone to vote more than once in an election. It is FRAUD, and it is ILLEGAL!! But we already know there were instances of this in OH and FL. Heck, in VA, felons were allowed, no, RECRUITED, to vote for Obama, but absentee ballots to our military serving abroad went out late, sparking a lawsuit to make sure THEIR votes were counted. And on and on it goes.

As I said, I despair that adults are teaching our young people that you cheat, lie, and steal to get what you want. While you are at it, make sure you are a sore loser, hammering away at the vanquished in a juvenile, mean-spirited manner, never having learned the concept of gracious winning (especially when the “winning” is suspect). These are the same people who said NOTHING, or were SUPPORTIVE, of the Democratic Party forever smearing its very name by stealing votes from one candidate to give to another. The ends justify the means, and if that means we tarnish, tear down, belittle, smear, and steal from a candidate to win, so be it. Oh - and blame them for it, too, while we are at it as the NY Times did in an incredibly offensive editorial it had up last night celebrating Obama’s defeat of Clinton (I won’t link to it - go find it yourself if you want to read that dribble). We have now taught our young people that you can register as many times as you want, and vote as often as you want - just like on “American Idol”! - to make sure YOUR candidate wins. Fair and square is old school. Now it is win at all and any costs, and belittle your opponent while you are at it.

Then there are the issues of misogyny and race-baiting that sustained this campaign, with the willing participation of the Propaganda Arm, Obama, and the DNC. The treatment of women during this campaign was a low I have not seen in DECADES, yet many women were willing participants to this abuse, claiming even as Obama contradicted them, that he was going to be great for women. Ask Hillary. Ask Sarah. Ask those folks wearing, “Sarah Palin Is a C–t” t-shirts, or the organization that used the “C-word” as its acronym regarding Hillary. Women were treated as not just objects, but as sexual anatomy period, in a most vulgar and derogatory way. Still, since it was the DNC, too many women accepted this treatment from the very party of which they are the majority. How they can celebrate the future presidency of a man who treats women in such a hostile manner is beyond me. That goes for the GLBT community, too. But hey - they got their “Bro Before Ho,” so I know they are happy.

The race baiting that was used to tear down our only two term Democratic president in decades was horrendous to watch, especially as members serving in Congress, people whom President Clinton had helped personally, went out of their way to paint him with the stigma of being racist. Hillary, too. Two people who have worked TIRELESSLY to end discrimination in this people were called racists, and it stuck. Then anyone who would not, could not, imagine voting for the most inexperienced, unqualified candidate who was taking Chicago-style politics national, with his thugs attacking people around the country, were labeled, no, BRANDED racists if they did not support Obama. As women’s rights have been set back decades after this election season, so have been race relations. All in the service of getting this man elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character, which is still largely ignored or unexplored by the electorate and the Propagandists.

I do not think this is what Dr. King had in mind. I do not think this is what our founders had in mind, either. This election, with its win at all costs, even if it means cheating, lying, and stealing, is not democracy. It surely isn’t decent. And it is not the American Way. At the moment, I can’t see how this will change - how we will regain any semblance of justice, of knowing right from wrong, of being ethical, moral, good. Yes, we made history last night, but I ask you, at what cost to us, to our country? I weep for us today, at what we have become. I have to hope, and pray, that we will regain what we have lost, but for today, grief overwhelms me.

Jonathan Martin of Politico reports that the Pennsylvania GOP is running the following
ad in the Key Stone state. Martin writes:

McCain has refused to invoke Wright or allow his campaign to use the pastor in ads. A senior campaign aide said they knew nothing about the Pennsylvania party’s ad in advance. Officials with the state party didn’t respond to an e-mail.

Martin, however, wants to blame McCain for the ad:

McCain’s campaign is taking a hands-off approach, not disavowing the ad.

Says campaign spokesman Peter Feldman.

“John McCain’s position with regard to Reverend Wright is clear. He is not the referee of every political ad in this election.”

Of course, McCain is the leader of the leader the GOP, and could urge a state party to not air such an ad.

Of course Martin is upset because this ad is accurate. This ad is fundamentally about judgment. Obama chose a racist pastor and stayed with him for 20 years; that’s bad judgment. Obama infers that Pennsylvanians are racists. These facts about Obama and his devotion to Wright along with the insults directed at the good people of Pennsylvania will swing many Independents to McCain.

Obama’s arrogance is repulsive; his judgment is worse.

::::::::::::

UPDATE from Bronwyn Obamanot: As our regular readers know from reading our stories on Friday and Saturday — including “GOPTrust.com Kicks A–! (Great ads in all the battleground states!)” — another 527, GOPTrust.com, is also running a searing ad about Obama’s long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Many of you contributed to the 527’s fund, and I want to be sure to let you know that your donations are paying off!

On Sunday night, one of our writers noticed that GOPTrust paid to run the ad during the highly-rated CBS primetime Sunday reality TV show, The Amazing Race.

Now that is hot ad placement! The Amazing Race has won 11 Primetime Emmy awards.

The prime-time Nielsen ranking and rating for the October 21st airing is:

18. “Amazing Race 13,” CBS, 10.29 million viewers.

Imagine that. Your contributions enabled GOPTrust.com to reach over 10 million people tonight during a show that is ranked 18th out of all prime-time primary network programming — and that’s just on the one ad spot that we are aware of. True to its word, GOPTrust.com has placed its ads in as many spots as possible, both nationally and in the key battleground states.

Tell Bill Ayers that that is true “power to the people.” Tell the anti-free speech Obamabots that all the viewers of tonight’s Amazing Race saw this ad:

Obama and Wright: He Never Complained Once

Read Text of Ad — Click Here

Donate Now to Have This Ad Air in Swing States — Click Here

Note: We don’t know if it’s still helpful to donate to GOPTrust.com. Visit their site to be sure using the link immediately above.

Well, I can certainly agree with that - that’s the only reason I am willing to consider McCain: Obama.

I could get rich selling this one. Aw, hell - any one of them…

Seems people are paying attention to Obama’s BFF, Jeremiah Wright, after all!! And to McCain’s character - I mean, that he has a demonstrable one, and it is GOOD!

PRECISELY!! It defies logic to even make the claim that to question the resume of someone, especially a candidate for the most powerful job in the world is racist!!

Oh, please - do NOT get me started on the Fourth Estate and the depths to which they have sunk this election. Show of hands who thought they sucked in 2000? And how much more do they suck now? Uh, yeah - total. They have failed miserably in their obligation to REPORT and not editorialize, or promote, or belittle, or act as if their sole responsibility is to tell us their OPINION, and not do their level best to report NEWS impartially, not rumors or lies or innuendo, but the actual facts of the story that they spent time RESEARCHING. You know, actually working on stories as opposed to regurgitating press packet info. Oh, damn - I got started after all…

It is our Constitutional Duty to not have leaders who defraud us, as the Democrats did this year. As they have for several years now as they work to deconstruct the Constitution and its protections. And you better believe, with what Obama has already shown us, should he “win” his way into the White House, you ain’t seen nothing yet. If state offices are already investigating private citizens without cause, what do you think will happen if Obama ends up as president with a Democratic House and Senate? We saw how they acted this year, especially with the caucuses and the RBC/DNC. We have seen how Obama’s “supporters” have acted. Obama hasn’t called them off as a candidate, no way will he call them off as president. It will be a new day - and not a bright one.

Amen to that. Love of country, love of the Constitution, love for the Bill of Rights, and love for true democracy - and if that means a revolution is needed, count me in.

Just when you had wished you had indeed heard the last of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it turns out they are publishing a new manifesto described in brief on Amazon.com.

What makes the book blurb - this one apparently not written by their long time, umm, colleague, co-education policy wonk, fellow intellectual and, yes, neighbor Barack Obama - worrisome is that it links what Ayers and Dohrn say is America’s continuing sin, racism and “white supremacy,” with their views on war. 

In other words just as Barack Obama moves to the White House, these two destructive figures out of the past are about to advocate an entire new world view for America built around their curious race-centric obsession. Presumably this will be an opportunity to peddle, one more time, their Third Worldist clap trap which mandates that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” 

This narrow and dangerous thinking is what led Ayers, Dohrn and others in their camp to embrace figures like Castro, Ortega, and Chavez even as they trample all over the civil rights of their citizens in order to maintain their authoritarian hold on power.  

[Editor's note: See Uppity Woman's October 28th article here, "RBO: Team Cuba” — Ayers, Dohrn, just “two political activists” from Obama’s neighborhood, visited Cuba in September 2008.]

In Obama’s case, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin at all. It is because I think he is horribly inexperienced, a liar, a fraud, pals around with dangerous associates, has an ideology with which I completely disagree (you know, Paternalistic Socialism with a heavy dose of Nation of Islam-like attitude - just ask Rev. Wright), and is a major freakin’ misogynistic homophobe. That pretty much rules him out in my book. But that’s just me.

And apparently, Jonah Goldberg, who also doesn’t appreciate the frequent, no, RAMPANT use of the race card by the Obama Campaign and the DNC, as evidenced by this article, Racy Content
This? Racist! That? Racist!.

Goldberg makes some mighty good points in this article, beginning here:

Transcend means “to move beyond, to surpass.” At least that’s what I always thought. But I’m beginning to wonder whether it means instead: “Much, much more of the same, only this time really stupid.”

Exhibit A: the incessant, relentless, click-your-ruby-red-slippers-and-say-it-until-it-comes-true mantra that Barack Obama will magically cause America to “transcend race.” One hears and reads this everywhere, but less as an argument than as a prayer, an expression of faith, a “from my lips to The One’s ear” sort of thing.

It is, of course, total and complete nonsense. According to L.B.O. (Logic Before Obama), transcending race would involve making race less of an issue. Passengers on Spaceship Obama would see race shrink and then vanish in the rearview mirror.

Instead, Obama has set off a case of full-blown race dementia among precisely the crowd that swears Obama is leading us out of the racial wilderness. Rather than shrink, the tumor of racial paranoia is metastasizing, pressing down on the medulla oblongata or whatever part of the brain that, when poked, causes one to hallucinate, conjure false memories and write astoundingly insipid things. For instance, a writer for Slate sees racism when anyone notes that Barack Obama is — wait for it — skinny. What this portends for Fat Albert is above my pay grade.

OHMYGOSH - how much do you love, “LBO”?? It is SO true, though, isn’t it? Our whole vocabulary has been redifined as a result of Obama:

We need to rewrite those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, because now virtually any adjective, noun, verb, or adverb aimed at Barack Obama that is not obsequiously sycophantic or wantonly worshipful runs the risk of being decried as racist. Community organizer? Racist! Mentioning his middle name? Racist! Arrogant? Racist! Palling around with a (white) terrorist? Racist! Celebrity? Racist! Cosmopolitan? Racist! This? Racist! That? Racist! The other thing? Oh man, that’s really racist.

The new Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: “Conjunction: a word that connects a racist attack and Barack Obama.”

Oh, perfect - I can just see that new “Conjunction Junction” piece right now. Anyone who disagrees will be yelled at, threatened, and called a racist over and over and over until they acquiesce. Perfect! Or, maybe it will go something more like this:

This week, an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star denounced John McCain and Sarah Palin for suggesting that Obama is a socialist because he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Don’t they understand that “socialist” has always been a racist codeword used by bigots like J. Edgar Hoover to demonize black activists like W.E.B. Du Bois?

A couple problems: First, as best I can remember, Marx, Engels, Lenin, George Bernard Shaw, Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, and Michael Harrington do not usually get a lot of attention during Black History Month. Second, as writer Michael Moynihan recently noted, Du Bois wasn’t merely a socialist, he was a Stalinist! (Du Bois was not entirely unsympathetic to the Nazis, either.) Besides, when did “socialist” stop being an anti-Semitic codeword for Jew? Maybe when the left started going batty over “neocons.” But that’s a story for another day.

Now, just hold the damn phone. How in the HELL can anyone claim that correctly acknowledging one’s political ideology, in this case, socialism, is RACIST??? Well, holy crap - all those times my buddies at Union and I joked about how we just CANNOT play Monopoly (we kept giving each other houses, money, whatever was needed) because we were socialists we were being RACIST!! Wowie zowie. Ahem. Really, this kind of BS has just gone way, way, WAY too far.

As is the idea that Obama will “transcend” anything, except morals, ethics, and common sense, but especially race:

The idea that Obama was ever really about transcending race flies completely in the face of his own writings. The overarching theme of his book Dreams From My Father is the story of (a) man who found it impossible to transcend race and instead explicitly chose to have a racial identity when he didn’t have to (he describes fellow multiracial students he met in college as sellouts). He then joined a black church whose theology is shot-through with black nationalism and whose longtime pastor believes that black brains are different from white brains.

But, yes, I know: The above paragraph reads: “Blah, blah, blah … racist, racism, racey-race-racism.”

Now, let us actually transcend race for a moment. Apparently for Obama, “transcend” isn’t a racial term so much as a euphemism for declaring victory. He says he wants to “turn the page” on the arguments of the ’80s and ’90s, by which he means conservatives should stop clinging to their guns and antiquated Sky God and join his cause.

Well, yes, because who could not be moved by such Rainbow-y, hope-y, change-y, pretty little unicorn-y type of rhetoric like,

“they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Oh, WHERE do I sign up?!?! Obama surely does have his own lexicon:

He told Planned Parenthood he wants to stop “arguing about the same ole stuff,” by which he means he wants people who disagree with his absolute support for government-funded abortion on demand to shut up already.

He doesn’t want to argue about his pals from the Weather Underground who murdered or celebrated the murder of policemen and other Americans, he just wants everyone to agree no one should care.

In short, Obama and his disciples only demand one kind of transcendence from all Americans. We must, as Obama likes to say, unite as one people, one nation, one American family and transcend all of our misgivings about Barack Obama. Then, and only then, will The One fulfill his wife’s pledge and fix our broken souls.

Only a racist could possibly disagree.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Apparently. You know, as a Southerner who grew up with African American classmates and friends, serving African American men in my grandmother’s little country store, doing a BUNCH of anti-racism work as an adult, to then be called a “racist” because I don’t support an unacceptable candidate is just a tad harsh. What I find to be racist are all of the people who support this unqualified candidate ONLY because of his skin-color, who refuse to hold him to the same standards as anyone else, and belittle those who try. THAT, folks, is racism, in my humble opinion, of course. But hey - it’s a whole new dictionary now, right??

From the original post:

Gatewaypundit has a video from Naked Emperor News with some comments from BO back in 1995. Yeah, it’s a few years ago. But he talks about the same thing he mentioned to “Joe the Plumber.” This sounds like the real BO to me - not the sanitized stump speech version. After all, there are no white people who willingly pay taxes for AA children to go to school, are there?

Here’s the audio:

All day yesterday, Memeorandum featured many, many articles about the second video, including one at the National Review.
Read the rest ->

First, the audio from 2001:

The National Review author provided a transcript of the audio and interspersed parts of it with interesting comments. I’m excerpting a few here, but it’s worth the time to read the entire article.

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about [Obama's comments]. Nothing. 

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it. 

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Wow. “.. . redistribution of wealth. . . essentially is administrative.” Redistributing the wealth, then, is both a job for the President and is simply a matter for planning? And “not suitable for the courts” certainly suggests one would not have much chance for redress. Are you kidding?

Then he adds this:

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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.

To me, when Obama says “[the Warren Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” I get the distinct impression he means the court somehow failed in the “breaking free” part. That would mean Obama feels the constraints engineered by the Constitution should be removed or overcome somehow. This is what the NR had to say about that:

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. 

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

So, the Civil Rights movement, by using the courts to address questions of equality missed out on creating “coalitions of power” that would bring about “redistributive change.” The reason the Civil Rights movement used the courts is because that is what the courts are for - to address such problems in a venue everyone believes has legitimacy and the force of government behind it. Why would community organizing have done any better? How in the world would “redistributive change” have occurred outside the courts? What does he MEAN?

In addition to the author’s comments about Obama’s statements, he notes as well that this video - by Naked Emperor News - was found and reported on by an individual. NOT THE MSM. The 1995 video is also from NEN.

I, do however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation. 

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them. 

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

I just did a story on the MSM, noting that it had lost all its integrity. This is just another reason to distrust those providing you “news” on tv and print and radio. At least on the ‘net you can look at multiple sources and are not limited to whatever some editor decides to give air time to.

CBSnews did give some cursory coverage to the story by reporting on a remark by John Boehner.

“As disturbing as Barack Obama’s comments about ‘redistribution of wealth’ are, what’s worse is that seven years later his rhetoric is the same,” Boehner said Monday in a statement.

“Obama still wants to ‘redistribute’ our tax dollars and ‘spread the wealth around,’ giving money to people who don’t pay taxes rather than growing our economy for everybody.”

The Obama campaign immediately pushed back, arguing that the Right is deliberately misinterpreting a narrow legal argument Obama was making about decades-old court cases.
————–
“In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.

The Obama campaign is whacking away at a straw man here. I don’t think Obama was arguing the courts should redistribute wealth at all either. He plainly said that was an administrative function for the chief executive.

Of course, this audio also has other implications. By discussing the redistribution of wealth and justice within the context of the civil rights movement, Obama also makes this a racial discussion. His context is clearly about AAs and whites.

Obama has said he is all about trans-racial politics even while his past associations with the likes of Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and other race salary-men suggest otherwise. To me, this audio is simply more of the same in that sense.

And what about the redistribution of wealth and justice? Obviously Obama feels redistribution needs to happen. That’s not even open to question for him. He also seems to think the President can accomplish such redistribution because it is an “administrative function.” And he says the Constitution, rather than define what government cannot do to citizens, should rather define what it HAS to do for citizens. That’s a very different way of approaching the fundamental outlines of how our country works.

And, the Civil Rights movement missed out by ONLY using the courts to work for justice. ONLY? What venues did the Civil Rights movement miss?

Fundamental questions for a candidate, one would think. Will anyone but the bloggers bother to ask? Given that Obama has provided so little about his beliefs (other than his strong Christian beliefs, but NOT at Trinity, no, that was a 20 year fluke) or about him personally (writings, personal information), something like this audio offers a window into what a President Obama would put on his agenda. Had he bothered to make more information available, this audio might be placed within some bigger context. But he hasn’t. So, this audio is as important as it gets.

Obama is remarkably consistent from at least 1995 to 2001 in how he views the ideas of who owes what to whom. I wonder. In the wake of these audio clips, will people try to convince us BO’s politics have changed or his attitudes? Given that he was at Trinity until last spring, I’d say the only viable thing to say is his (mis)representaitons of his politics and his positions have changed. After all, the BO campaign will do whatever they can get away with, not what is true or even passes the sniff test.

It’s clear to many Democrats that a radical clique has taken control of the Party. Democratic ideals once held to be sacrosanct, including freedom of speech, one person one vote, and an intolerance of sexism have been violently pushed aside for the benefit of Obama. The media drumbeat for Obama is incessant; the media has even stopped pretending to be neutral. We’re seeing the country through Alice’s Looking Glass now and everything is upside-down and backwards. In an effort to save our Party and country, many Democrats are actively working to defeat Obama.

In 1980, the last Japanese soldier of World War Two, Captain Fumio Nakahira, was discovered on Mt. Halcon, Mindoro Island, Philippines. During the previous 35 years, Captain Nakahira had survived alone, serving his Emperor and believing that the War had not yet ended. (This was 15 years after the Gilligan’s Island episode).

Captain Nakahira comes to mind when I think about the thousands of disaffected and disillusioned Democrats across the country who will not be voting for Obama. If Obama is elected despite our efforts to defeat him, it will codify for a generation the Chicago corruption, race-baiting, and misogyny practiced by Obama and his minions; tactics which caused many of to leave the Party. And Obama’s race-baiting, misogynistic thugs will say: Good riddance!

Camping out on our own private Mt. Halcons, many thousands of men and women will remain committed to the causes which brought us to the Democratic Party in the first place. We won’t stop being concerned about sexism, race relations, economic opportunity, and national security.

It’s now dawning on Republicans and independents that a creeping totalitarianism is sweeping the country. Obama’s Truth Squads use the power of the state to stifle free expression, McCain supporters are jeered in public, and Obama’s shock troops — in a form of hate speech so ugly that it can only be described as a pogrom against women — wear clothing which declares that the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is a “cunt.” Sexual terrorism is the new form of Left-wing Kristallnacht.

Where did this come from?

The ecstatic mania of Obama’s supporters comes from many places, and I don’t pretend to understand all of the sources. Many who support Obama are low-information liberals, do-good progressives, proud African Americans, and fed-up independents. I can’t blame these groups; the Bush Administration has been a disaster. There is, however, a core group of Obama supporters who believe that the Senator from Illinois will bring revolutionary change. And their desire for the revolution is all-consuming and any tactic is considered fair game: caucus fraud, sexism, race-baiting, voter intimidation, online smear campaigns, sexual terrorism, and voter fraud. Anything to win.

I hold Obama accountable for the tone of this campaign and the actions of his supporters. From “hoodwink and bamboozled” to his “lipstick on a pig,” Obama’s sexist double-speak and race-baiting innuendos have unleashed something very ugly into the ether. Obama has given his supporters the tacit encouragement to cross lines of acceptable discourse in order to destroy his political opponents. In the Obama world, Bill Clinton is a racist, Hillary is a bitch, Sarah Palin is a cunt, and John McCain is erratic and senile. I fully expect that an Obama Administration, like all recent Administrations, will continue in campaign mode and I expect these tactics to continue. This was the reason, to borrow a phrase, that we sought to fumigate our Party.

Like many of you, I won’t have anything to do with Obama or his party. Obama’s tactics go against the reason I was a Democrat and no pleas and no threats will force me to give up my principles. Above my computer I have postcards with the images of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy; my Hillary poster is in the corner and remains unframed.

Gatewaypundit has a video today from Naked Emperor News with some comments from BO back in 1995. Yeah, it’s a few years ago. But he talks about the same thing he mentioned to “Joe the Plumber.” This sounds like the real BO to me - not the sanitized stump speech version. After all, there are no white people who willingly pay taxes for AA children to go to school, are there?

Here’s the video:

I wonder - will people try to convince us BO’s politics have changed or his attitudes? Given that he was at Trinity until last spring, I’d say the only viable thing to say is his politics have changed. But the BO campaign will do whatever they can get away with, not what is true or even passes the sniff test.