Obama (2001): Redistribution of Wealth by Supreme Court Justifiable

September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm (Chicago, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Spread the Wealth, Supreme Court)

Earlier today, Republicans were hitting on a recording of Obama in 1998 in which the future President says he “believe(s) in some redistribution”.

“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

It’s those final words – “I actually believe in some redistribution” – that Republicans have latched onto, characterizing them as an endorsement of redistributing wealth, rather than making sure government agencies were well supported. Many conservatives argue redistributing wealth is akin to socialism.

That’s hardly a revelation.  The President’s staunch support of taking from those who work and giving to those who watch the work is well-documented, in word and deed.

Now though, a new recording has surfaced of Obama in 2001, and it’s a rather alarming statement on just how far he thinks government can reach in their quest to spread the wealth.  Essentially, he believes there is theoretical justification for the Supreme Court to do the redistributing.

Back in 2001, Barack Obama gave this stunning interview to a Chicago public radio station in which he talked about using the Supreme Court, the most undemocratic of the three branches of government, to “spread the wealth.”

A rough excerpt:

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 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 could pay for it, I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the 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 and the Constitution…. 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 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. You can craft theoretical justification for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The President Can’t Remember the National Debt, Can You?

September 19, 2012 at 4:33 pm ($16 Trillion, David Letterman, National Debt, President Obama)

Last night during his interview with David Letterman, when the President wasn’t lying about things he’s said in the past, he was feigning ignorance of just how high the national debt is.

I’d be willing to bet 90% of the people here are well aware that the national debt topped $16 trillion –  during the recent Democrat National Convention no less.

Check it out here…

And yet, the smartest President in the history of Presidents wasn’t aware of that number.

Via the Washington Examiner:

In his interview with David Letterman last night, President Obama admitted that he didn’t know the amount of the national debt.

“Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?” asked Letterman.

“I don’t remember what the number was precisely,” responded Obama.

The national debt, of course, was $10 trillion when President Obama took office, but is now currently at 16 trillion and counting.

“If this is me, I got the credit card guy calling me every day, I start to get scared,” Letterman responded. “As Americans should we be scared that we owe that kind of money? Who do we owe that money to?”

“Well a lot of it we owe to ourselves,” Obama explained. “Because if you invest in a treasury bill or something like that, essentially you’re loaning the government money.”

Permalink Leave a Comment

Man Who Called Bush Unpatriotic Says He’s Never Called His Opponents Unpatriotic

September 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm (David Letterman, Debt, Deficit, George W. Bush, President Obama, Unpatriotic)

Obama (2008):

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Obama (2012):

“One thing I’ve never tried to do and I think none of us can do in public office is suggest that because someone doesn’t agree with me that they’re victims or they’re unpatriotic.”

Never tried to do?  Not only did you try, but you actually did.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Oops – Secret Unedited Video of Romney Turns Out to be Edited

September 19, 2012 at 9:00 am (47%, China, David Corn, Mitt Romney, Mother Jones, Video Editing)

Benny from the Blaze picks up on how the two-part video release from Mother Jones has a missing period of time between the clips.

Tuesday afternoon, the site Mother Jones released what was described as the “full,“ ”raw and uncut” video of Mitt Romney’s comments at a private campaign fundraiser, which has drawn immense criticism from both sides. The “uncut” videos leave out a critical  portion of the speech, as Romney was beginning to explain his now infamous “47 percent” remarks, and pick up in an altogether different location.

Here is Benny’s video mashup of the last 10 second of the first clip, and the first 10 seconds of the second clip.

As noted, there are some problems with calling this an unedited video.  The video transcribed would read:

[Romney]“We do all these polls — I find it amazing. We poll all these people to see where you stand in the polls but 45 percent of the people vote for the Republicans and 48 or 49–,”

This is where the first part of the video cuts out.

Part two picks up seemingly on a completely different subject: China.

“…about twice as much as China, not 10 times as much like is reported. And we have responsibility for the whole world, they’re only focused on one little area of the world, the south china sea…”

Not only are the topics completely different, but the second clip starts with a nearly full pitcher of some beverage sitting atop the table.

Legal Insurrection received an explanation from Mother Jones regarding the discrepancy.

“According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.”

I’m going to have to go ahead and call BS on this one.  Mother Jones was portraying this video as completely uncut and unedited.  So they had to have known that a gap in the sequence, which is easily noticed when the two clips are played in succession, would at the least have looked like they were cut and spliced.

Why didn’t they get out in front and offer that explanation before releasing the entire video?

While this doesn’t necessarily provide any new light on the material in the video, it does raise some eyebrows as to those who released it and claimed it was unedited.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Dear Media, Accurately Portraying Muslim Rage as Muslim Rage is not Islamophobic

September 19, 2012 at 7:00 am (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Stevens, Islamist, Kirsten Powers, Mitt Romney, Muslim Rage, Newsweek, President Obama, Radical Islam, Think Progress)

This week we learned what really gets the liberal media in a … well … rage.  It isn’t the act of perpetrating violence upon the innocent.  No, it’s calling out that rage for everyone to see.  In Liberal Land, words speak louder than actions.

The media on the left side of the aisle took more umbrage with a Newsweek article titled, Muslim Rage, than they did with the incidents that demonstrated that rage – the killing of four Americans in Libya, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the hoisting of Islamist flags on sovereign U.S. soil.

Outlets like Think Progress called the Newsweek cover, which featured an image of a group of obviously agitated Muslims, Islamophobic.

Newsweek for their part did not apologize for their portrayal of events in the Middle East saying:

This weeks Newsweek cover accurately depicts the events of the past week as violent protests have erupted in the Middle East (including Morocco where the cover image was taken).”

Rather than focusing on the real issues here, the liberal media is doing everything in its power to avoid pointing the finger at radical Islamists.  They point it at Mitt Romney for his statements, they point it at Newsweek, at the author, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, and they point it at an obscure film heretofore unknown to the general public.

None of these are justification for the scene currently spreading throughout the Middle East.  And most assuredly, the rage is not a response to an anti-Mohammad film, despite what the White House would have you believe.

The rage has been consistent and perpetual, and it has long been evident prior to any version of any anti-Mohammad film. During the Iran hostage crisis in 1979.  At the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.  At the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.  With the USS Cole bombing in 2000.  At the Fort Hood massacre in 2009.  And of course, September 11th.

This to name a few.

The rage is tangible, and it is very closely associated with radical Islam.

Giving terrorists built-in excuses such as an obscure film only serves to add fuel to their fire.  Appeasement does not work.

What the left clearly needs are more people of reason, more people like Kirsten Powers who wrote:

“… our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American.  We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.”

Say it along with her – Crazy.  Religious.  Fanatics.

Muslim rage.

Do not fear it.  Fearing words only serves to embolden the enemy, and they know it.

While we continue to fight over those words, extremists continue to point their RPG’s at our foreign diplomats, storm our embassy walls, burn American flags, call for beheadings and public hangings, and on and on.  All the while, the media criminally continues to whistle through the graveyard.

That said, I would like to propose a change in how the media labels things of this nature.  I’d like to redefine the term Islamophobia.  The phrase, much like the race card, has been overused by the left and has been played out.  It has outlived its usefulness.  It no longer sticks as a term of bigotry or intolerance toward radical Muslims.

To quote the classic line from The Princess Bride – I do not think it means what you think it means.

Instead, the meaning should revert to a more literal translation.  Islam-phobia.

The phobia involves those in the media continually capitulating to the radicals and terrorists killing in the name of their religion.  The phobia involves Democrats who continually bow down to the unreasonable demands of terror-linked domestic organizations such as CAIR, or the ICNA, and are willing to release known terrorists in a foolish attempt to establish peace.

The phobia equates to fear.  That is why liberals refuse to stand up to radical Islam, and it is why the media refuses to accurately portray the level of rage being executed in the name of the tenets of radical Islam.  They are afraid.

No more.

Journalism is a profession.  Stop acting like amateurs.  Stop being Islamophobes.

At some point, you will have to grow a spine when it comes to the threat of radical Muslim rage.

At some point, you will have to stop pussyfooting and tiptoeing your way around the subject matter.

In the end, at some point you will have to address reality, and not continue to long for some fantasy world that exists only in your minds.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters

Permalink Leave a Comment