October 26, 2008

Obama and the redistribution of wealth: analepsis [updated]

Seems his Joe the Plumber “slip up” has a more friendly public precursor:

Thus spake O!rathustra:

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 people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

[my emphasis]

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew…

(h/t STACLU)

****
update: Entire audio from the show available here.

Many on the left are talking about how the original is actually 41 minutes long, but here’s the show description:

The Court and Civil Rights
Susan Bandes – Professor of law at DePaul University and the editor of the book, “The Passions of Law”
Dennis Hutchinson – The William Rainey Harper professor in the college, senior lecturer in the law school and editor of the Supreme Court Review at the University of Chicago
Barack Obama – Illinois State Senator from 13th district and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago

3 guests. I’ll listen to the whole thing and report back, but I don’t the expanded context will change much, other than we might see this discussion as an “academic exercise” — which means only that it is theoretical and not likely to be put into practice.

Unless, of course, said academic wins the presidency and has both Houses of Congress and perhaps a refigured judiciary at his disposal.

In which case, whoops!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:46pm
174 comments | Trackback

Comments (174)

  1. Oh, we could be completely fucked. And I’m frightened that our last best chance is John McCain.

    Can we invade Iraq again or something?

  2. omfg whatever where’s the reality cake show on cable, now?

  3. Pingback: (Audio) Obama the Marxist : Stop The ACLU

  4. Here’s to Israel, we hardly knew ye…

  5. Sgt. York –

    If was on Taiwan I’d be moving my breakables downstairs, and that’s no lie.

  6. Funny thing; any time I’m engaged in a discussion and somebody invokes “social/economic justice”, it’s obviously time to see if the chex mix has been refilled.

    And this guy is media’s pick. Amazing.

  7. …It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf

    The notion that the Supreme Court could arbitrarily and capriciously break free from the constraints of the Constitution is even more chilling than the activist ideology that would suggest they legislate from the bench. In this case, instead of simply usurping the authority of the Congress, they instead would be also bypassing the state governments and their role in ratifying constitutional changes!

    Nothing, nothing!, could be more totalitarian…
    And nothing provides a better observation of O!s ideology…And the most chilling part is that he seems to see redistribution as a means to pay for the support of a percentage of the citizenry…

    And to concieve and describe of our constitution as a charter of negative liberies, instead of a charter preserving individual liberties is mind-boggling…

    But I guess that’s par for the course when you view your country as evil and oppresive in the first place…

    If this putz is elected, we’re all going under the bus! Get all out that you know to vote against him!

    Not for McCain, but for Liberty!

    Best wishes, and keep the faith…

  8. This is also specifically about race, if nobody had noticed.

  9. That’s a given, urthshu. In Orwell speak, “post-racial” means “entirely consumed by race, such that there is NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION”.

    Very tricky, those code words. But I’m hip.

  10. “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…”

    This comes from one of the central differences between conservatives and progressives.

    For conservatives rights adhere to individuals. The place of government is to respect them and not abridge them. Government does not confer rights, they exist before government.

    The foundation of America is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the document setting up our 2nd try at a form of governance to secure those rights.

    For progressives rights are a grant from government to a group. That grant may be changed at any time.

    Government exists to arbitrate between groups and decide which groups receive which rights. Only groups have legal existence in the matter of rights. Individuals have no rights outside of the ones granted to the group(s) to which they belong.

  11. He’s supposed to be an expert on Constitutional law, isn’t he? Lord, have mercy.

    The only thing the government should do on your behalf is leave you the hell alone as much as possible. But I guess I don’t know much, so back to clinging to G-d and my guns for me!

  12. The Army of the Potomac was the instrument of justice that freed the slave.

    Well, that and Thomas Jefferson’s cleverness at the founding.

    The Civil Rights and Voting Acts just restated the reality that slavery was done, and were the impetus for government to enforce the Bill of Rights equally…

    But Government? Government in this year of our secularity 2008?

    Government is the tool of vengeance, boys of girls.

    Well, we always bitch about not having choices. We’ve got a hell of one now, don’t we?

  13. I think Jeff was speaking about language and what words mean the other day (or every day) so when we see “Constitutional Law expert” written today, we’d be wrong to think in an old fashioned way about those words.
    Now this phrase describes a person who studied the Constitution… maybe got good grades in whatever indoctrination he received…. and then formed opinions. Facts need not intrude (and those that do will be removed from wikipedia by the faithful)

  14. …generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…

    So hoot and cleo weren’t channeling Professor Irwin Corey earlier after all, they were quoting their messiah.

    I would also like to point out that nowhere does Obama specifically use the word socialism. I don’t know where you nutcakes come up with this wacky stuff.

  15. Natural rights, meaning bestowed upon us by higher authority than the government. This is important because the government under this description cannot abridge those rights.

    But do away with “natural rights” as an idea based on Enlightenment contextualism, and you can “reason” that all rights, like all truths, proceed from language, and so, from man. And the collection of men in charge of supplying those rights is the government.

    There lies the path to totalitarianism. Enjoy your Derrida and Barthes!

  16. Pingback: Tennesseefree.com » Obama’s desires for wealth redistribution: the Pre-Plumber tapes

  17. In Orwell speak, “post-racial” means “entirely consumed by race, such that there is NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION”.

    Very tricky, those code words. But I’m hip.

    Wow, let me get this new-speak straight. Clinton was our first black president, so, given all the MSM help and blind eyes turned, that makes Obama our first affirmative action president?

    Provided he’s elected ofcourse. Myself, I still think that were in for a classic “Dewey Beats Truman” scenario.

  18. Pingback: Suitably Flip

  19. Drudge is running it as the headline, and has a pull quote right above the Barbara West interview with Biden.

  20. With an Obama presidency, we can all just kiss our asses goodbye…well, quite a few of us can, anyway. The social, economic and political collapse becomes, shall we say, more focused.

    With a McCain presidency, the progression of the collapse slows down just a little bit. That gives us time to stock up on the beans, bullets and band-aids are get our neighborhood shotgun brigades organized.

    refer:
    “The Rise and Fall of Civilizations,” by Miller, Joubert and (…what the hell was his name…) Butler. (That was it.)
    “The Rise and Decline of Nations” by Mancur Olson.
    “Decentralization, Corruption And Government Accountability: An
     Overview” by Pranab Bardhan and Dilip Mookherjee.
    “Party Government, Patronage, and Party Decline in Western Europe” by Jean Blondel.
    “The Big Picture resource Collapse” by Brain Wang, April 7, 2008.
    “The Rise and Decline of the State” Mises.org
    “Wealth and Democracy” by Kevin Phillips.

    Let’s see…am I still on topic here? Gloom and Doom. Ayup. End of the world as know it. Ayup. Republic to democracy to tyranny. Ayup. Ayup, and yeah…

    So…when do we do the nuclear holocaust thingy?

    Oh, yeah. Game Theory and memetics.

    The good guys win this one, but we’re gonna get really bloody, first.

    Even w/o the collapse of the world as you know it, Kurzweils’ math wrt “The Law of Accelerating Returns” is a pretty convincing argument that life as we know it is almost over, anyway.

    If we don’t want to face reality, there’s always Nick Bostrom’s “The Simulation Argument.”

  21. Myself, I still think that were in for a classic “Dewey Beats Truman” scenario.

    Me, too.

    These states are almost certainly NOT going to go to Obama, no matter what the polls say:

    Florida (toss-up in most polls)
    North Carolina (toss-up in most polls)
    Virginia (reported as leaning Obama)
    Indiana (toss-up in most polls)
    Iowa (most polls have this one as solid Obama, but c’mon, let’s get real here)
    Missouri (toss-up in most polls)
    North Dakota (toss-up in most polls)
    Nevada (toss-up in most polls)

    If you go to the electoral map here and plug those in for McCain, what do you get? You get that if McCain wins either Ohio or Pennsylvania, he wins. I think McCain wins Ohio for sure, if they get the fraud under control, and has a good shot in Pennsylvania.

    McCain could even lose both Ohio and Pennsylvania and still win, if he gets Colorado (possible), New Hampshire (possible) and New Mexico (less likely).

  22. Oh, I don’t know how I did that…only “this” was supposed to be red.

  23. Ok, so you voted for Hilary in the primary but a loyal dem a fell into line supporting O…and this comes out? The media was so in the tank they disenfranchised me, that voter thinks? Why didn’t THEY find it, why did it take an average citizen?

  24. Pingback: ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » (Audio) Obama the Marxist

  25. “The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. …progressives still don’t get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.”

    -Mark Steyn

  26. Hillary is to the right of this guy. Now that is scary.

  27. O!dious O!bamunism.
    Bullets beans and bandaids indeed.
    O!h yeah, will someone please bail me out too? I’m tired of paying my mortgage.

  28. But do away with “natural rights” as an idea based on Enlightenment contextualism, and you can “reason” that all rights, like all truths, proceed from language, and so, from man. And the collection of men in charge of supplying those rights is the government.

    I talked with the Almighty this morning and he told me that I would be OK.

    But the rest of you are fucked.

  29. That should be “He”.

    Sorry, Big Guy.

  30. Obama is the end result of BSD. It’s the only possible explanation.

    In related news (sorta) my McCain sign was stolen yesterday. I’m so pissed. As soon as Staples opens, I’m getting some poster board. I’m thinking of going with SOME FASCIST STOLE MY MCCAIN SIGN.

    What do you guys think?

  31. I don’t know, Carin, I been leaning toward DON’T VOTE, IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM myself.

  32. When a supposed Constitutional scholar sees a fundemental flaw in the Constitution which just “happens” to coincide with his political philosophy we have a serious problem. Well I will just hold my breathe until I see this actually reported by the MSM……………..

  33. Pingback: Barack Obama the Socialist & Marxist 2001: Bring About “Redistributive Change” … Who Needs the Constitution. | Scared Monkeys

  34. anybody out there?
    not paranoid ?
    somebody?
    Relax..
    give it a try read what calm conservatives and libertarians are saying

  35. Great link Sashal:

    All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports “redistributive change,” a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.

    What I don’t understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [

    Did you actually read it?

  36. Of course, there’s the separate point about Obama’s interest in “major redistributive change” more generally: It would be interesting to know if Obama endorsed that goal in the interview, and what specifically he had in mind.

    That is the question being asked here, sashal.

    All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports “redistributive change,” a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.

    That is the conclusion most of us arrived at.

    What is your point?

  37. Sashal’s link is freaking me OUT.

  38. What do you guys think?

    SOME FASCIST REDISTRIBUTED MY MCCAIN SIGN.

  39. yes, carin I read it all of those and comments too.

    Are you on the same planet?

    Just relax, nobody is coming and taking your possessions from you, nobody is confiscating nothing.
    Different type of taxation( a, k. a. redistribution) were used in USA for 120 years ….

  40. New rights made up out of thin air, now we get old ones taken away. Nice nice.

  41. Different type of taxation( a, k. a. redistribution) were used in USA for 120 years ….

    Taxation is not redistribution, sashal. Come back and see us when you figure out the difference.

  42. >>Are you on the same planet?

    Apparently not, b/c taxation is not what’s primarily freaking everybody out.

  43. and B Moe that is waht everybody is talking about all this time all over the place-Obama, McCAin, Palin, me, you et al-taxation.
    I haven’t heard anybody saying confiscation…

  44. We live in interesting times gentlemen.

  45. Sashal, anything that brings us closer to that mark of 50% of the population paying no taxes freaks me out.

  46. Thomas – I like it!

  47. You really miss Communism, don’t you, sashal?

  48. You know what is redistribution? Tax “cuts” for people who don’t pay taxes.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

    Hey, those Bolsheviks were Marxists too, huh? Does cognitive dissonance ever grab you by the throat, sashal? If not, how do you keep it at bay?

  49. WaPo: At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win (No link, fuck them)

    Well this isn’t terribly surprising given the UN is going to be one of the largest beneficiaries of O!’s redistributionist policies via the Global Poverty Act. The P/R/O! trifecta will surely pass it.

  50. Pablo, don’t try to confuse sashal with reality and fact — it only annoys…

  51. Obama did a number of interviews on this program, and they all seem to have material interesting to those of us concerned with the man’s philosophical groundings. Full story here.

  52. I’m interpreting the quote Jeff provided as Obama voicing disappointment that redistribution was NOT achieved through the courts. Words do mean things.

    Sure, it would be great to believe that he was participating in some sort of mental exercise, but I’m not seeing it. Nor do I see panic here on this site, I see a healthy amount of scepticism and concern.

    What’s the old saying? You cook a frog by putting him in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat? If you’re believing he’s harmless that water is already boiling. That shadow? That’s the lid coming down on the pot.

  53. Pingback: Obama: The pattern, and it’s implications | BitsBlog

  54. Pingback: Obama: The pattern, and it’s implications | BitsBlog

  55. Please — the media has gone down so hard for Obama it’s not funny. The LAT is sitting on a tape of Obama at an anti-Semitic celebration with his buddy Raschid Khalidi. Anything that might harm the Obamessiah is to be hidden beneath a bushel.

  56. That Obama holds these views is not news to anyone who has been paying attention. The troubling thing is that very few people do pay attention.

    More troubling about Obama himself is the fact that he continues to pretend not to hold these views. He refuses to engage in open debate as to his intentions. We will not fully and fairly discuss what he sees as the fundamental purpose of government. He waves such questions away. He rhetorically dances around his beliefs. When accidentally confronted with his own slip-up with Joe Wurzelbacher, he lets his spokesmen lie on his behalf and he countenances attacks on his interrogator, which attacks seek to silence questions.

    He is an intentional liar about the most important questions he can be asked to address. And he does all this with the knowing complicity of the press writ large. He deceives even his supporters, let alone the so-called undecided voters who are only now beginning to think about him.

    He is in short, entirely untrustworthy. How can he be rewarded with a position vested with the greatest trust we have, all while he commits acts disqualifying in themselves? That is disturbing.

  57. >>What’s the old saying? You cook a frog by putting him in a pot of water and slowly turning up the heat? If you’re believing he’s harmless that water is already boiling. That shadow? That’s the lid coming down on the pot.

    No kidding.
    I was just reflecting that, as a center-right guy, I would be re-defined by him as an extremist.

    And its weird b/c though I have substantial disagreements with people on the more hardcore Right, if he does as much damage as it looks he might I’ll find myself supportive of that b/c it’ll take stronger medicine to fix it.

    So both placed in that category and more-or-less forced into it. I’m talking people who are reaching for the reset button, not just anti-abortion give us back the gold-standard types. fuckityfuckfuckfuck

  58. THE NEW DEAL made America strong enough to win World War II.

    THE GREAT SOCIETY made America great enough to go to the moon.

    REAGANOMICS destroyed that strength and greatness letting Gordon Gecko run free.

    Obama is not a Socialist, and what he proposes is not Socialism.

    The only Socialist in the race for the White House is Sarah Palin.
    Alaska’s Windfall Profit Tax = Redistribution of wealth, earned by Entrepenuers.

    What we have under W., and what REAGANOMICS essentially is, is a system
    akin to Feudal Europe, which is what America’s founding fathers fought for
    Independence from in the first place.

    And just as the Palin’s fight for Alaskan Independence,
    Obama fights for America’s Independence from Gordon Gecko,
    and the Republican party which would turn the U.S.A. into
    The Peoples Republic Of America so they could run it just like their
    heroes run China.

  59. Jesus. CAPITALS and everything. I feel so much better now. Thanks.

  60. With the economy, I can see the progression now:
    “Shut up! Bush!”
    “Shut up – Depression!”
    “Shut-up! FDR!”
    “Shut up!”

    And this is probably in the newspapers

  61. I don’t think our founding fathers fought so we could be forced to give half our income away in taxes.

    Shit, they didn’t even think it was the federal government’s job to build roads.

  62. MIKE THE COMMUNIST: I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  63. THE NEW DEAL prolonged the depression.

    THE GREAT SOCIETY was an abysmal failure and destroyed the core of many inner cities.

    Whatev, that guys a maroon.

    But in other news:
    “Documents obtained by Townhall show the Democratic Party encouraged party activists to accuse the GOP of intimidating minorities on Election Day even if no evidence of intimidation existed in the 2004 presidential election. The tactic is being used again in 2008, this time to downplay fraud charges against a predominantly minority non-profit supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.”
    Here

  64. What need to answer the question “how Obama?” when morons like Mike the American show up to demonstrate performatively?

  65. Pingback: The U.S. of A « I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err

  66. Alinksy’s friggin chapstick, ulululululu:

    “A nine-page section of 66-page 2004 Kerry Edwards Colorado state Election Day Manual titled “Minority Voter Intimidation” begins: “Over the past twenty years, there have been repeated efforts by the Republican party and Republican Party candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of African-American and/or Latino voters.” The manual then instructs Democrats how to look for minority voter intimidation tactics and how to publicize it to the media with special tactics designed for mainstream and specialty press.

    Such intimidation tactics might take the forms of “efforts to create longer lines at the polls, targeting in minority communities,” or “slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts.”

    “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’” The manual said this should be done by placing stories in mainstream and specialty press “in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics” and “prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.”
    (from the same link, but so juicy)

  67. Pingback: Ever wonder what Barack Obama sounds like naked? | Pundit Review

  68. Mr. Goldstein neglected to include the word “essential”–as in “essential constraints of the Constitution”–in his cute little misreading of this interview. I don’t doubt that Obama believes that wealth has been stolen from African Americans throughout America’s history, and economic justice is not exactly a radical idea. But the hair-on-fire false notion that Obama wants to collectivize private property is ridiculous, unless you consider the progressive income tax an example of that, in which case you are a VERY small minority in this country.

  69. anything that brings us closer to that mark of 50% of the population paying no taxes freaks me out

    Then don’t freak out. It’s not even nearly so.

    Lots of people don’t pay much or any fed income tax, but percentage-wise they pay out the ass via other roundabout federal taxes: payroll, fuel and energy, other fed-incentivized or -demanded state and local sales and “sin” (and sometimes income and property) taxes, etc.

    The “wealthy” — as opposed to the merely rich — get their money in ways that mostly aren’t counted as income, and are taxed at a far lower rate, leaving them plenty of cash to pay others to weasel them out of what little income tax exposure they have.

    Which, no, doesn’t “encourage investment” or whatever; it reduces the mobility of capital and people, and installs a permanent class of superfluous “experts” to mediate between the taxed and the taxing (acting, de facto, always somewhat more in the interest of the latter, or they wouldn’t have been installed, would they?).

    The only ones who get truly fucked in all this are people like me who make lots of money but have almost none. And that’s why I have almost none.

    Because I don’t do anything the way the gov’t would prefer for it to be done, my overall rate of getting robbed is well over 50%. And I cheat. Neither Joe 40oz’s nor Bill Gates’s total burden is nearly that high, and they don’t have to go outlaw to keep it that way. The system is designed to keep them in their places. And me effectively in Joe 40oz’s.

    The average college graduate who works for the government (or in a position that exists at its pleasure, like O!’s wife’s, to choose an extreme example, but really, any licensed professional’s) is leeching off me more than any massive family of lifelong welfare bums is.

    And so is Bill Gates. In a day.

    Do the math and you might find the same. Unless you’re one of them.

    Which you probably are, because them is far more than 50%. And they’re not the people you’re freaking out about.

  70. Try harder, bruce.

  71. “and economic justice is not exactly a radical idea,” if you’ve been incubating in a hermetically sealed left-wing fever swamp maybe.

  72. Is Drudge sludge what powers the paranoia?
    Go ahead, make YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT.

    Below is some help provided with the link to original.

    Drudge has lost his touch. He’s now going freakishly hyperbolic with a strange headline linking to a heavily edited YouTube recording (complete with trippy visuals).

    The headline claims something about how Barack Obama in 2001 said it was a tragedy that the Supreme Court didn’t redistribute the wealth, but (a) the clip that he links to is heavily edited, so it’s hard to know what is going on in the clip; and (b) to the extent that you can make anything out, Obama actually says the exact opposite of what Drudge claims.

    The original clip e is here, and it’s an hour long.Go ahead, make your own judgement)

    This all comes on the heels of Drudge having pumped up the false ‘B’ hoax story; the only difference is that this time Drudge is linking to an audio source that seems to directly contract his headline. Last time, the story to which he linked merely undercut his headline.

    Obama hasn’t made any arguments in favor of an activist court; in fact, he’s tended towards defending a conservative, less activist approach.

    It’ll be somewhat amusing to see how many people Drudge will bring down with his lies this time around.

    h/t jedd report link

  73. Yep, sashal really misses Communism.

  74. Pingback: Obama On Tape In 2001: Warren Court Not Radical Enough « Nice Deb

  75. A reminder to the “jed report” about Obama’s judicial “conservatism”:

    On Second Amendment
    Only 29% of Obama supporters believe justices should rule based on Constitution (Rasmussen)

    TNR responds:

    this [poll] reflects very poorly on Democrats. Less than a third of Obama voters are willing to sign on to a fundamental tenet of American government that you learn in elementary school civics class, and half think that judges should just make it all up as they go along. (After a full five days of law school, I find this quite disturbing — have Obama’s supporters no shame about admitting this to a pollster!?)

  76. Obama hasn’t made any arguments in favor of an activist court; in fact, he’s tended towards defending a conservative, less activist approach.

    As far as the courts go, you’re almost right. Obama recognizes the limitations of using the judiciary to impose socialist redistributionist schemes on the American public, but he’s foursquare in favor imposing them on that same public using extraconstitutional legislative power to do so.

  77. Baracky keeps talking about how we all have to sacrifice. NPR really likes that part. I’m not sacrificing for you Baracky cause you are a dirty socialist. You want sacrifice you go talk to Rick Moran and Peggy Noonan. I’ll be over here not putting up with your dirty socialist shit.

  78. Whatever it is I think I’ll have another thank you very much.

  79. Another tell is when O! refers to Bush “giving” money to the rich or tax policies dedicated to “giving” money to the rich and taxing the middle class and the poor. As if the money left over after government taxes you is what they have “given” you. Kinda a communism-light if you will.

    Just think everytime you hear the words “rich” and the words “middle-class” and “poor”; you should be thinking “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat”.

  80. Exactly, Mr. Pink. Listen to that hardball interview the Florida anchorwoman gave Joe Biden the other day, and listen carefully. He says that Bush has been engaging in redistribution and socialism. How? By letting people keep the money they have earned. The only way one can possibly say this is to assume it all belongs to someone else to begin with. And who might that be, eh?

  81. Pingback: The Autopsy

  82. Speaking of liars, and this makes O! nothing special, but the one thing that doesn’t resonate well at all is this canard of “tax cuts for the rich”. Sure, “the rich” may have received tax cuts, but so did middle class voters such as myself. So, if O!’s gonna lie straight out like that in regards to who got the tax cut, why should I believe him that I won’t get a tax increase? I don’t.

  83. #Comment by sashal on 10/27 @ 8:31 am #

    You really are dumber that a sack of hammers.

  84. Gee, Mr. Hopey-Changey a Socialist redistributor? G’wan!…

  85. Obama recognizes the limitations of using the judiciary to impose socialist redistributionist schemes on the American public, but he’s foursquare in favor imposing them on that same public using extraconstitutional legislative power to do so.

    Right. Note that he says he’s “not optimistic” about the courts redistributing wealth. I’d fall more towards being optimistic that the courts won’t redistribute wealth. One man’s bug is another man’s feature. Like communism.

  86. Yes, Obsterperous, but it works so well with those who don’t really understand the dynamics of taxation. The rich got to keep MORE of their money.

    It’s funny, because this election is basically about something the media refuses to talk about, and Obama supporters deny is the issue.

    It’s the socialism, stupid.

  87. Is Drudge sludge what powers the paranoia?

    Is Obama expressing his ideas in his own words and with his own voice “Drudge sludge”?

    This is why you aren’t taken seriously, sashal. Drudge is not the issue here. Obama verifying what many who have looked at his record think about him is. But you just go ahead and put your head back in that hole in the ground and scream “DRUDGE!!!” I’m sure the echo will be satisfying.

  88. It’s all he’s got, Pablo. He tried debating what Obama actually said, and that didn’t work so hot, so now he’s gonna simply attack those reporting it.

  89. sashal doesn’t like independent voices I don’t think. Truth is the new racism.

  90. It starts with taxes. Then progresses to the state being in charge of everything so redistribution becomes more enforcable… ahem… efficient.
    The best hope is that the blue dogs revolt in order to save themselves at next election cycle, but if Obama is smart, and he is, he’ll spread the wealth there fast… but he is an urban animal and I see Obama’s attitude and arrogance really alienating small town white democrats and I could see him punishing them for not voting for him.

    This guy is gonna be a disaster… on about 10 levels.
    McCain will just be a disappointment.

    Great choice

    Disaster vs. Disappointment

  91. THE NEW DEAL made America strong enough to win World War II.

    THE GREAT SOCIETY made America great enough to go to the moon.

    REAGANOMICS destroyed that strength and greatness letting Gordon Gecko run free.

    COCAINE is a hell of a drug.

  92. If you do not like what O! says in response to a question try to destroy the person asking the question. That seems to be SOP for the left now. IMHO.

  93. Pingback: Promises to keep « A Defending Crusader…

  94. I gotta question about the update. Is the fact that the interview is 41 minutes long important because at minute 40 he said, “just kidding..Psych. Had you going…”

    Otherwise I’m going black market…Underground BABY!

  95. shorter version of Sashal “We need the Fairness Doctrine so O! doesn’t get asked anymore questions.”

  96. My husband just called to tell me that his employee’s dad has written on the back of his personal truck “I’m voting for the Maverick and the MILF.”

  97. yes, Pablo, it does not matter that drudge lied and distorted and you swallowed.
    Yep, I am attacking Drudge.
    Just listen to the whole transcript.
    Check the links to prof Bernstein and Kerr I provided in my first post on this thread.
    Pathetic…

  98. it does not matter that drudge lied

    Drudge “lied” by quoting Obama’s own words?

    Just listen to the whole transcript.

    I did.

    He said what he said.

  99. Shorter Sashal “No he didn’t say that SBP. It is all a vicious right-wing smear by that evil right-wing hack Drudge. We need to shut Drudge down so he doesn’t air anymore Obama quotes that make him look bad.”

  100. Dan’s post yesterday at the Pub “A Useful Timeline of the Mortgage Meltdown”, read Dan’s link and Obama’s quote contained therein.

    I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

    Where “give” stands in for “not take”. Obama is a sophistical liar, as I said before.

  101. I think with the abundance of paranoia there is a good business possibility.
    I am opening 1 week courses called “how to survive the socialism”, for $875 dollars you will be taught to survive harsh cold winters with no heating oil, to manage to stand for hours in the food lines, “special”kitchen talk” that part I believe HF will appreciate the most,
    how to read your local newspaper between the lines and how to interpret TV propaganda. For additional $165 you will be shown how to grow your own staples in the backyard.

    For the best students there will be additional course for $2,650.00 which will include 1 week trip to Cuba with immersing into socialist paradise life in the regular Cuban family( bed and breakfast provided). +for $100 you will be able to purchase the services of genuine socialist prostitute for 1 night( entirely optional, and not allowed for married students).

    Pablo, you will get 10% discount as a neighbor…

  102. Dead frog.

  103. I think with the abundance of paranoia

    Please explain to us how Drudge “lied”.

  104. yes, Pablo, it does not matter that drudge lied and distorted and you swallowed.

    I haven’t been to Drudge, sashal. I’ve seen this in enough other places, including Volkoh, thanks to you. No need for Drudge. And as Carin noted above, you should actually read the things you reference.

    What lie are you talking about? How about you addressing WHAT OBAMA SAID? He says it plain as day. So why don’t you explain this:

    one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

    Speak to that, sashal. Or just, you know, go DRUDGE!!!!! again.

  105. @104 Hey.. you just might have brought out one of the only bright spots with an O! presidency… an end to the Cuban embargo!

  106. Pablo, you will get 10% discount as a neighbor…

    If we need it, The One will see that we get it for free.

  107. However Bush was quoted and sounded like an idiot I do not remember anyone saying “Oh well that is just ABC they are smearing him it is a lie.” I can hear this quote with my own ears Sashal. I guess my ears are lying to me then too huh?

  108. All of this has highlighted the very real specter of the P/R/O! triumvirate and railroading that will occur in the first 24 hours. I have been glad to see McCain et. al. finally beginning to hammer and focus on that. Especially as the Dems begin lusting after the 401(k)s etc.

  109. Pingback: Obama The Marxist - 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview | BigMouthFrog

  110. #Comment by sashal on 10/27 @ 9:49 am #

    I repeat: dumber than a sack of hammers.

  111. Thomas Sowell on Uncommon Knowledge at NRO, on the difference between “interests” and “visions”. The very underlying basis of the controversies included in this thread. Good stuff from Sowell as usual.

  112. Baracky isn’t going to be president, sashal. Not of America anyway. Socialists aren’t ever presidents because America is all about free enterprise and individualism. Baracky’s just been a cruel media hoax I think. He had me going for awhile.

  113. Link. My apologies.

  114. ten , Pablo you did not miss that part:

    “What I don’t understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more “fairly” distributed than it is currently?

    It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

    UPDATE: At Overlaywered, Walter Olson and Ted Frank (in the comments) talk about how all this might impact Obama judicial nominations. There are two basic possibilities. One is that Obama might believe that appointing far left Justices to the Court would be unlikely to accomplish much in the long-term, and could ultimately harm the progressive agenda, and his own presidency, by reviving “unelected judges imposing their will on the American people” as a Republican campaign theme. The other possibility is that Obama, intoxicated by victory, and having the very healthy ego that all successful politicians have, will decide that the election of a very liberal African-American president, along with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signals that the social and political winds have shifted sufficiently that the Supreme Court could successfully launch an activist liberal agenda, and he will nominate justices accordingly. But there is nothing in either Obama’s radio remarks, his voting record in the Senate, or his public statements on judges to suggest that he objects in principle to the equalitarian “living Constitution” of Brennan, Warren, et al., and there is much to the contrary.

  115. yes, 115 HF.
    Whatever you say, bro…..

  116. I bet you’re disappointed, huh? It’s ok we can still hang out and make fun of President McCain together.

  117. Sashal, those courses and fees sound great.

    But Super Black Commie Jesus ain’t gonna let you keep but about a quarter of that fucking money. For the greater good, you understand.

    **NOW HEAR THIS**
    By fiat of the uberchrist your annual April 15th butt raping will now include an armed robbery, and a federally funded donkey punch.

    Free Che t-shirt with loss of 401k.

  118. Wow. Baracky is alienating people right and left with all his socialisms. What a meltdown.

  119. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more “fairly” distributed than it is currently?

    So Drudge, in fact, was not lying?

    Is that what you’re saying, sashal?

  120. Sashal,

    There’s one VERY BIG point you seem to not understand: It’s not the government’s fucking job to “redistribute wealth”.

    Christ almighty. Maybe you ARE dumber than a sack of hammers.

  121. How is it moral to TAKE money from one person and give it to another?

  122. hey, norman, tell it to the government, INS and taxation codes which existed in USA since 120 years already.
    sack of hammers

  123. Sashal’s still trying to claim to be a conservative, huh? Good Lord, man. Own it. You’re a lefty. For all of semantic’s delusions, he at least is honest about what he is. Sashal? Not so much.

  124. look, nobody is arguing that Obama is to the left of the wackos, loonies, neocon slime etc, who were running the country for the last 8 years.
    But save this crap about socialism, Marxism and whatever, please…

  125. hey, norman, tell it to the government

    Taxation and redistribution aren’t synonyms, sashal.

    Still waiting for an explanation of how Drudge “lied” by (accurately) quoting what Obama said.

    Start with the transcript that Jeff posted. Explain what the “context” for those statements would be.

  126. But the hair-on-fire false notion that Obama wants to collectivize private property is ridiculous, unless you consider the progressive income tax an example of that, in which case you are a VERY small minority in this country.

    Translation:

    “No one’s talking about taking private property and distributing to the collective. We’re just planning on taking SOME property, at a much higher rate than currently, and distributing it according to economic justice, which is based on what would be good for us all on the whole, which is completely different from the collective good. Also, the Pope is in fact a Quaker, and bears usually defecate in phone booths.”

  127. Excuse me sashal, but the Federal government using the taxpayers’ money to pay for infrastructure such as roads and airports, and for national defense is not in any way “redistributing wealth” you moron.

  128. That “120 years” figure? Pulled it right out of his ass, he did.

  129. Neocon slime?

    Doesn’t much like them Jooz, our sashal.

  130. Dammint, Spiny, don’t you know that the money you earn isn’t yours? It belongs to the State, which generously allows you to keep a portion of it. You should be grateful.

  131. BS. You go to the mat MUCH too hard for O!, who is so far left it’s not funny. Again, talking about the left as it pertains to the United States. I mean you may be an actual paleo-con, but this reactionary bullshit is troubling. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face in the worst way possible. Again, the “neo-cons” as you should know are hardly right. I, also, don’t understand the emotional language you use to describe them. “Slime”? Sure, there’s a lot I disagree with them about, but your emotional language deceives you and undermines ANY point you ever hope to make.

    Now, how is McCain going to be another 8 years of Bush? And how is O! going to bring us back to golden prosperity? What’s the REAL conservative think?

  132. The 120 years comment is a lefty talkin point I have already seen reiterated about 50 times while reading comments around the net. Someone must of posted a Kos diary, just too bad that none of them link to where they get their “thoughts” from.

  133. Translation:

    “No one’s talking about taking private property and distributing to the collective. We’re just planning on taking SOME property, at a much higher rate than currently, and distributing it according to economic justice, which is based on what would be good for us all on the whole, which is completely different from the collective good. Also, the Pope is in fact a Quaker, and bears usually defecate in phone booths.”

    Huh? A “much higher rate than currently”? From 36% back up to 39%, where it stood in the longest peacetime expansion in history??

  134. According to you, a bump from a 33 percent marginal tax rate to a 36 percent tax rate defines the “limit” of the American dream. That extra thirty bucks per thousand earned on net income above $250,000 just doesn’t look all that much like the final victory of Leninism to me, and I know I’ll still be trying to earn more next year than I earned this year, but hey. Maybe you are the man who earns $251,000 per year but only has $29 in disposable income, so the Obama tax plan really would ruin you?

  135. Huh? A “much higher rate than currently”? From 36% back up to 39%, where it stood in the longest peacetime expansion in history??

    You may believe Obama’s lies, bruce, but those of us who can do arithmetic don’t.

    There’s no way that Obama’s grandiose schemes can be paid for without a massive, and I mean MASSIVE, tax increase.

  136. According to you, a bump from a 33 percent marginal tax rate to a 36 percent tax rate defines the “limit” of the American dream.

    I see you O-bots have been issued your new Pravda.

    Funny how you and “bruce” pop up with EXACTLY the same lie within a couple of minutes, isn’t it?

    Still waiting for that “context”, sashal.

  137. Rush said, but I’ve been unable to find support [you guys are good at this], that Baracky isn’t using the $250,000 figure anymore. It has not turned into $200,000.

    Perhaps by election day it will be $150,000? And by January 1 it will be $100,000.

  138. The 120 years comment is a lefty talkin point I have already seen reiterated about 50 times while reading comments around the net. Someone must of posted a Kos diary, just too bad that none of them link to w

    HA, you know there is a little game I play. I see if I can get the commenters on my blog to bring up a lefty talking point. I wonder if I can get this one out of ‘em?

  139. Response to Kerr at Volokh here.

  140. Pingback: In which I answer a few objections to the Obama “redistribution of wealth, redux” audio tape for Mr Orin Kerr

  141. Sashal if O! is elected with any sort of majority I gaurentee that my wages will be taxed at a higher rate than they are now. I make around 50 a year. Wanna place a bet on this?

  142. you’re on, pink

  143. 142, jeff.
    I saw the grandiose job you have done on Kerr’s post .
    Excellent

  144. Ok I will save my next paystub. I have never had a Democrat running for president in my lifetime be honest about taxes. I seriously doubt O! will be the one to reverse this trend.

  145. Of course he’s lying about taxes. It’s what they all do. And of course your taxes will go up, as mine will, too. These are the same people that are still claiming that the tax cuts under Bush were for the rich. My wife and I make around $80,000 between us and received a tax cut that helped us immensely. We must be rich.

  146. Geez, sahsal, I guess you did read it. But you didn’t understand it. You bolded the right parts, though.

    Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more “fairly” distributed than it is currently?

    No, it isn’t a revelation. But it is instructive to hear him come right out and say it. Which he has.

    But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth?

    I think most aren’t. But you seem to be, sashal. And you don’t seem to mind that he’s come right out and said it, free of code words. For a guy who rails so against Bolsheviks, it seems cognitive dissonance would be a persistent problem. Instead, you want more Marxism, unvarnished. Odd, that.

    Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

    I don’t care for it whether it’s implied or stated outright. As feet would say, I don’t want a dirty socialist as president. Why do you want one?

  147. This election has a number of remarkable aspects. One of them is the matter of lying.

    George W. Bush is anathema to all right-thinking (or, better, left-thinking) individuals, and anyone prepared to even grant him the benefit of the doubt is equally vile and inconsiderable, because Bush lied. Obama, on the other hand, is the Great Hope of National Redemption, bringing Hope, Change, and a New Order in Washington to the benefit of all people, because he’s a liar. Odd, don’t you think?

    Regards,
    Ric

  148. because he is not a fucking socialist, pablo.
    He is not even as much as universal healthcarte type as Hillary.
    He is talking to return taxes to Clinton presidency time levels. Did you experience much socialism then?
    You guys have to let your paranoia go,really
    Get a xanax ! Or something.

  149. He is talking to return taxes to Clinton presidency time levels.

    link?

  150. 148, OI
    We make slightly more then $100 000.
    Between mortgage, kids college, and other staff, there are not much disposable income left.
    You and me we will actually get more cuts on our taxes

  151. He is talking to return taxes to Clinton presidency time levels.

    While at the same time promising increased spending which can’t possibly be funded at those tax levels.

    Arithmetic, sashal.

    Study it. It’s important.

  152. Did you listen to him, sashal? Did you just misunderstand him? And do you believe everything you hear from a politician on the campaign trail?

    What he says he’s going to do now, and what his prior statements combined with his actual voting record suggest he’s going to do are two very different things.

    What do you suppose Bill Ayers saw in young Obama?

  153. Sashal what I find fascinating is you are actually willing to “trust” what a politician says during his campaign. How old are you 12?

  154. That entire phenomenon, Rick, as you know, is itself a lie: Gaming the system so as to hire thieves and institute official thievery is spectacularly dishonest.

    Were it not so there’s be no Constitution and back we are, full-circle. Likewise, Obama is a thief in the making and we know it from these very words.

  155. What do you suppose Bill Ayers saw in young Obama?
    xanax

  156. O! is speechifying now about what we now give to billionaires and big corporations. Those what write enormous tax checks. Yes, we give them stuff by taking not as much as we could. And people who don’t pay any taxes need tax cuts, which we’ll pay for by rescinding the gifts we don’t really give to people who already pay the vast majority of taxes.

    Up is down. Black is white. Obama is a conservative. sashal is too. War is peace. And the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

  157. xanax

    If you don’t have anything to say, put your head back in the hole, sashal, and scream DRUDGE!!!

  158. Pingback: Press coverage negative on McCain? | The Anchoress

  159. “You and me we will actually get more cuts on our taxes”

    If true, explain to me how. Especially, in regards to how he’s going to pay for the massive spending increase he plans.

  160. But the hair-on-fire false notion that Obama wants to collectivize private property is ridiculous, unless you consider the progressive income tax an example of that, in which case you are a VERY small minority in this country.

    The truth is what is popular! The majority will define reality!

    THE ANGRY VILLAGERS WILL NOT BE DENIED!

  161. 1887 was about 120 years ago, right? Does any of this look familiar, sashal?
    http://www.slp.org/pdf/platforms/plat1887.pdf

  162. Ok socialists, let’s get one simple point clear before we continue on the path to again proving your premise, such as it vaguely is, utterly wrong-headed.

    Government is inefficient.

    In other words — and pay careful attention here — in addition to your wanting to have it set your life’s operational parameters (which is as amoral as it is foolish) and in addition to it not being able to return to you a nice fat cash rebate without first jacking the costs and debts up elsewhere, and in addition to it having no constitutionally-enumerated authority to do so, and in addition to the inherent oppression all of this surely represents — as surely as the other collectivist failures throughout history did — it can only deliver a percentage of my forced input back to your thieving output, you foolish, unthinking little social criminals.

    Be honest if you want my stuff (not that I have any to give you which I do not): Come take it yourself so as to get a full measure for your afternoon or weekend spent pillaging. Because if you entrust these assholes to do it for you, you’ll get ten cents on the dollar.

    —-

    Apologies to the rest of you. Leftists, being educated, superior, nuanced, and compassionate cannot grasp the simplest fundamentals. Which is also why not one of our trolls has ever offered a philosophical defense of the position s/he thinks s/he holds. Liars and thieves are rarely if ever that creatively endowed.

    Which, if they could fathom it, is a good reason why “classical liberalism” is such a great term: They’ll not grasp the sheer idiocy of contemporary progressivism unless they come from a perspective that really understands just why such revolutionary ideas were tried a bit over 230 years ago.

    They were tried because all that other shit by whatever minced, mangled, and parsed definitions collectivists care to give it had failed. It was rock and roll, man, to inbred chamber music. You’d think the hip, the urban, and the progressive would like totally groove on that thing, man.

    Nope. They’ve become precisely what they thought they hated. The universe does that. Were they as nuanced and bright as they insist, surely they’d know that.

    The new American system of the late 18th Century rejected the oppression, intolerance, envy, sloth, and theft that has become the root of contemporary progressivism. Well, surely we can’t have those reforms anymore, now can we?

  163. sashal: “because he is not a fucking socialist, pablo.”

    Really? What would you call a “soak the rich” and “spread the wealth” class warrior candidate, Sashal?

    sashal: “He is not even as much as universal healthcarte type as Hillary.”

    But you can see it from there…

    sashal: “He is talking to return taxes to Clinton presidency time levels. Did you experience much socialism then?”

    Only because he over-reached and his Democratic majority was lost in very short order.

  164. I’ll admit it. If O-boy, or any other Democrat, was running on a “raise taxes to pay off the debt” platform, I’d consider giving the guy my vote. In other words, just raise the taxes, without tacking on any additional spending, for a set period, and all the new revenue goes to paying the debt off, for however long that would take. I wouldn’t even mind too much the extra surrender of my earnings to that effect. Shit, commit the Democrats to fiscal responsibility? Where do I sign up?

    But every mother’s son and daughter here knows that’s not going to happen. Not now, not ever. The only Change O! is offering is the exact same Change (Now with 39% more FREE!) that Clinton was offering, and Carter before him. Tax the top end, and keep the other end Waiting For The Man. Tammany Hall on a massive scale.

    Pimps up, y’all.

  165. Disaster vs. Disappointment>”

    Nothing but net from Mr. SteveG there.

    Bravo, sir.

  166. #85 & #113-Should read “dumber than a sack of hammers and sickles”

  167. Pingback: Tel-Chai Nation

  168. bruce

    15% capital gains revised up to 20% which by my calculator is a 33% increase, but I have to admit I am still using my non government issue calculator which uses the old math and I realize I shall be punished under the administration of hope and change for using math in a subvervise capitalist lap dog manner that subverts the state… see. Jeff G goes on about words and their meanings being shifted, but Obama…. ha… he is changing math baby. yeah
    Take that mr math professor 1+1 = the government will decide that for you.
    screw language. syntax and meaning… no no no change is gonna take a new math and every will need to get on board

  169. I’m not a bible thumper. I believe in Jesus and that he died for our sins, but I’ not a real follower of the organized religions these days! There are too many instances of the church rewriting the scriptures to suit their own needs and beliefs. With that said, as a believer, I can see where the book of revelations is possible. I don’t believe that obama is the anti-christ. I didn’t believe that clinton was the anti-christ!!!! However, the fact that the american people will not even examine what obama states in his own words is incredibly frightening. This guy has been described in the press and on the floor of the house of representatives as a (or the) messiah. Such an obsession with an individual who is articlate, well spoken, intellegent is not only scary, but absolutely frightening. I now see how the false prophet and the anti-christ will be accepted into this world. God bless america, we will survive (I Hope)!

  170. To b moe
    you are correct, the angry villagers will not be denied. But, they will be S@#t on just the same. Nobody cares about the average citizen!!! What was it Jefferson said? A little revolution every now and the is a heathy thing! Anybody up for a cup of tea?

  171. Pingback: Obama Fumbles and Makes the Case Why Hilary Clinton Should Have Been President as He Announces Volcker Chairman-Designate of the Newly Formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board « But As for Me!

Leave a Reply