http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples". It is being discussed at Free Republic (great conservative forum) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116027/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts .

TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: 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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – 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. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues 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 think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts. 

One must first understand history to judge it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

BGF

Beliavski, I am not certain but that those might be the scariest words about Obama that I have seen.  Freely translated, he is saying the Warren Court was not activist enough to suit him - and that he is not sure the courts are really structured or intended to bring about, for example, economic change through the courts - but he would like to see it happen if he could.

Another little tidbit that should have received publicity earlier but never did.  

The big problem is, the majority is willing to vote for Obama to bring "change" but nobody knows exactly what he means by that.  We get to find out later.

MWL 

Ben Graham Fan:

One must first understand history to judge it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

BGF

There's no doubt Warren expanded the role of the federal government and expanded the role of the courts. If Obama wants to appoint people like Earl Warren, why should anyone support him? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...

...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...

 ... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do

One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...

...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...

 The court’s just not very good at it...

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...

Finally, out of his own mouth, when you peel back the rhetoric, you get at where is mind is. He didn't mean to, but he has revealed himself in a way that coincides with his response to Joe the Plumber.

1. Reparations - Obama began with injustices to black people, and the failure to redistribute America's wealth to them after segregation.(...look at the...failures of the civil rights movement...the issues of redistribution of wealth and... issues of...economic justice...).

2. The Constitution - Obama views our Constitution, not as a document to constrain government, but as a document to enforce government. Here, as a Harvard law "lecturer", not a professor as he contends, he has somewhere missed in all of his education the fact that our founding fathers recognized the we are all inherently free, and they imposed constraints on the government to ensure that freedom. Obama views the Constitution as a means to force us to do his bidding (... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do)

3.The Supreme Court - In order for government to do his bidding, Obama recognizes he must go around the Supreme Court ( It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution)

4. Redistribution of people's earnings - Since the Supreme Court won't do what he wants, and the Constitution gets in his way, Obama believes that political power is the way to get around them (...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...). He sees the Court as inefficient at doing what he believes is just a process of passing a law and administering the transfer of earnings from one group of people to another (You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...).

Obama has some serious flaws in his understanding of our Republic. Or, quite possibly, he understands it, but wants to change what has preserved our freedoms and served us well for over two hundred years. Is this the "change" he speaks of? 

Mark

Hello Mark & All I haven't posted here in quite sometime (except one brief post last evening). So I haven't followed all the conversations about Obama. I've spent considerable time on our local newspaper forum. I live in Ohio. 

What is almarming and downright frighting is Obama supporters for lack of better description "don't care about his past or radical leftist ideology".  As Thomas Sowell quoted one of the Democrat poltical operatives "People don't come to Obama for what he's done; they come because of what they hope he can be". Personally, after much research of Obama's voting record, alliances with former communist groups, etc I have concluded his core beliefs are Marxist.  I have been soundly criticized for calling Obama a Marxist.  In fact on many occasions some repondents on the local forum (Gannett state forum) defend Marxism as more ideal than capitalism. Others are convinced we need more socialism in our country and not less.  

As I see it we are witnessing a socialisitic revolution from the radical left in our country. They believe this is their time to take control. And they are willing to use any means to achieve their objective including voter fraud (ACORN).  What is most alarming to me is the mainstream grassroots Democrats who support Obama even though he does not represent their values or ideology. If Obama is elected our country will never be the same. I fear for my kids and grandkids.

Mike 

*waving hello to Mike B. from the Left Coast*

Hope you and yours are well.

;)

Hetty

HettyGreen:

*waving hello to Mike B. from the Left Coast*

Hope you and yours are well.

;)

Hetty

Hetty, you have the most intense discussions I have ever seen.

Are you working directly with the 15ID's?

What do you think of seeing the end of Israel when Obama is elected?

jawn1221:

HettyGreen:

*waving hello to Mike B. from the Left Coast*

Hope you and yours are well.

;)

Hetty

Hetty, you have the most intense discussions I have ever seen.

Are you working directly with the 15ID's?

What do you think of seeing the end of Israel when Obama is elected?

1.  Thank you!

2.  No.

3.  Israel will survive and thrive.

;)

Hetty

I came back, because I'm just overwhelmed with the depth of Hetty's discussions on politics.  I would never want to miss her insight.

You sure fit the profile of the 15ID's, with one exception, you never offer any political discussion.

Avginvestor:

I came back, because I'm just overwhelmed with the depth of Hetty's discussions on politics.  I would never want to miss her insight.

You sure fit the profile of the 15ID's, with one exception, you never offer any political discussion.

Always a pleasure to see you, Avg.

;)

Hetty

Enough!

Hetty has more insight than some on these boards who feel the need to post a new thread every five seconds, eh?  The quantity of threads posted has never produced the effect that one really good thread has...think about it as you watch the board of threads with zero replies go by.

Lulu

lulu4804:

Enough!

Hetty has more insight than some on these boards who feel the need to post a new thread every five seconds, eh?  The quantity of threads posted has never produced the effect that one really good thread has...think about it as you watch the board of threads with zero replies go by.

Lulu

Ta, Lulu.  

*now you're a marked woman*

;)

Hetty

HettyGreen:

lulu4804:

Enough!

Hetty has more insight than some on these boards who feel the need to post a new thread every five seconds, eh?  The quantity of threads posted has never produced the effect that one really good thread has...think about it as you watch the board of threads with zero replies go by.

Lulu

Ta, Lulu.  

*now you're a marked woman*

;)

Hetty

Lulu,

you are soooooooooooooo right! 

The MSM will bury your find. LOL!

ML

And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

This is stunning. Obama thinks the Warren Court was not radical enough. This begs the question, what kind of person(s) would he nominate to be on the Supreme Court?

Mark

Do you mean that you have to ask?

You know exactly what he wants.  Control of the law  and Constitution through the courts to override the legistlative and Executive sections of the government.

Control is the issue.

Most people who have replied on this thread understand the importance of this Obama interview, yet the original message is rated -3. Apparently Obama supporters are trying to suppress it by giving it low ratings, causing it to be displayed less prominently. Please give the original message a positive rating if you think it is important.