THE TRUE BARACK OBAMA - UNMASKED

[MetalMeister]

Is THIS what you truly believe in David Slane?

This belief expressed by Obama is no less than that of a marxist society.

Listen to the audio of Obama.


ELECTION 2008
Obama: Constitution fundamentally flawed
Faults Warren court for not pressing for 'redistribution of wealth'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

[davidslane]

Okay, he never said redistribution of wealth on the 2001 panel.


The Republicans completely misinterpreted his legal reading which was actually a conservative view point against judicial activism and had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.


Here's the TRUE story if anyone is curious about FACTS!!!


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html?showall

A top legal advisor to Barack Obama, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, said today that Obama's 2001 remarks on "redistributive change" -- pushed hard http://www.drudgereport.com/ on the right today -- are being misinterpreted, and that he was actually articulating "conservative" legal principles, and that the then-law professor's "law-speak" was being misinterpreted.

Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27, and audio is here http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."

Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court's more modest view of its powers:

"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district(s), and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was 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 is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

Obama did suggest in the interview that he favors "redistributive change," and that it should come though "political and organizing activities," and that's the discussion Republicans are jumping on, arguing that it shows the same philosophical impulse as Obama's now-famous commetn to an Ohio plumber that he favors "spread[ing] the wealth around."

"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin. "No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change."

But Sunstein argued that in the context of a long, legalistic interview, the words referred to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues -- that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

A University of Chicago law professor who appeared on the 2001 WBEZ program with Obama, and who also supports him, Dennis Hutchinson, described the interview as "not a bombshell."

"He's saying you dont achieve stable social change through judicial activism," Hutchinson said. As for "redistribution of wealth," "that's what a progressive tax system does," he said.

"It's two minutes and 17 seconds of what I could say in front of a class," he said, suggesting reporters go back to speculating about Obama's cabinet picks.

UPDATE: The legal scholars over at http://www.volokh.com/ have a similarly underwhelmed take.

[MetalMeister]

Oh, excuse me.

He said redistributive.  Ah, semantics, in a word.

He is unmasked.  We now know what he is.

If the Democrats gain a super majority with a guy in the White House that is far left of liberal...

God help us!

Okay, he never said redistribution of wealth on the 2001 panel.

The Republicans completely misinterpreted his legal reading which was actually a conservative view point against judicial activism and had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.

[davidslane]

He said redistributive in reference sto aying that it wasn't the role of courts to rememdy past civil rights injustices through redistributive policies (which legally means in this case, any redress).

He wasn't refering to redistribution of wealth.


If you make less than $250,000 a year (like me and 95% of Americans and 98% of small businesses), vote for Obama.  The other 2% can vote for McPalin.

[jjj000]

Anyone have a final clarification on Obama's policy toward long term capital gains taxes and dividend tax rates?

If he wants to raise them, I expect the stock market will vomit if it becomes clear he will win...

[Depleted]

Horrible event today....A Plot to Assassinate Obama...Good thing the FBI stopped it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/10/27/plot-to-assassinate-obama-broken-up-atf-claims.aspx


One can only imagiune the Assassination Attempt possibilities.
This could mean the position of Vice President of the United States now becomes extremely important.

Waiting and watching....
For what it's worth, YC I also called two Fridays ago the bottom also,  in JDH's Bottom Survey, I think. It was the viscious deep spike that hit near 7773 on the Dow. Classic morning star with huge negative volume. There were lots of us who picked it.

Also, me thinks all the scared people out there who sold stock, and are buying US Treasuries, will do so for a 3 month short term.
If the puking started in the 3rd week of Sept, then they would expire near the end of Dec. That would mean, they come due, and the investor gives his head a shake, then realizes and jumps into cheap gold. This would create a vacuum in the treasuries, the US dollar would fall, and the gold, and silver metals could soar...what a start it could be in 2009 for PMs.....if that happens...      

Regards....d

[richmanch]

jj, the obama victory has been completely priced in in all this carnage. the election is signed, sealed and delivered. Anything could happen, I suppose, but the polling shows that this thing is over. If McCain somehow wins you will see 

a.) a pretty amazing, short-term stock market rally
b.) riots
c.) serious long term economic problems

I think Obama's going back to the tax code before bush, which would effectively raised capital gains tax. If anything, he will turn out to be more moderate on those matters. The only thing I would say about it is that all of the pro business tax codes, etc. has not been very beneficial to investors--look at DOW chart for the last eight years.

I also don't mind paying taxes. I think it's embarrassing that wounded soldiers return from iraq and have to get treated at run down dives like the walter reed hospital. I say, tax me and renovate that dump. Take a little more and hire some psychologists to help them cope.

This tax bs is just one more desperate grab from the republicans who have had no clear, consistent message. 

[jjj000]

jj, the obama victory has been completely priced in in all this carnage. the election is signed, sealed and delivered.

You really think so??  I don't.  I think what's happening now is all flushing of the bubbles and hedge fund money, and computer triggered cycle trading...

I don't think businesses or institutions with real capital gains to consider would sell out until after Obama won.  Why sell out early if you still have 2 months to do so after you find out??  That makes no sense to me.  Why price it in if you have the flexibility to wait and see when the potential loss for making the wrong call would be significant???

Come to think of it, though, any selling based on that kind of a decision would probably have very little effect on the markets after what we've seen over the past month anyway...

I also don't mind paying taxes. I think it's embarrassing that wounded soldiers return from iraq and have to get treated at run down dives like the walter reed hospital. I say, tax me and renovate that dump. Take a little more and hire some psychologists to help them cope.

This tax bs is just one more desperate grab from the republicans who have had no clear, consistent message. 

You gotta be kidding me rich???  What percentage of your tax dollars actually gets down to the street level??  I'd be surprised if 10 cents of every $1 paid in taxes is actually put to use where it is promised to go.

No thank you on higher taxes.  If I think the hospital is a good cause, I can make a personal donation.

I would rather they lower taxes by 25% across the board, and simply issue a charitable quota based on income.  Then we could all each decide where our hard earned money goes... rather than just blindly sending it off to fill the pockets of these corrupted bastards and their family members' businesses and lobby groups and the layers of executive level administrative crooks.

If you think raising and paying more taxes is going to help anything... you really just haven't been paying attention.

Sorry to get political... but I'm just tired of hearing it.  All they want is to steal your money.  If you're buying into some kind of altruistic political hope and change movement you are seriously fooling yourself.

Seriously, if Obama was such a great leader of the people and pillar of hope and change... where the hell has the guy been for the last 10 years?!??  How many of you have actually heard of the guy up until 8 months ago??  If he was such a true champion of the people you'd think you'd have actually heard about the guy doing something... for someone... sometime... somewhere??  Hell even Tipper Gore did more than this guy over the last 15 years, even though I don't agree with her at all.  Guess he was just too busy writing his own memoirs.  Twice.

They just want your money.  Both sides.  Don't kid yourself otherwise.

And that's why I have to vote Republican.  Like I posted weeks ago... before even McCain started using the strategy... we need to keep the branches split politically, so at least they will cancel each other out.  It's the only hope I see remaining.

It's a corrupted, broken system, and an Obama administration will not change a damn thing other than taxes and the boundaries of some congressional districts.

By the time Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as our THIRD President, the government was already completely corrupted.  He himself said the country needs a revolution every 20 years to root out the crooks and start anew.  We're about 210 years overdue, folks...

OK, I'm done

[MetalMeister]

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.'

- Thomas Jefferson

[richmanch]

well, i'm not kidding at all. I definitely see your point. While I don't think the govts the answer--I'm not too worried about some of the money slipping through the cracks, or lining a few pockets. It's really not that big of a deal. The largest welfare state in the nation is Kansas (when you calculate federal farm subsidies per capita). How is that the free market?
 
I just think if people want roads, police, bank bailouts (401k protection), cia, homeland security, war to secure oil, education, etc etc, it costs money. I'm tired of politicians just saying less taxes less taxes. The firemen in my town have to walk around in traffic with a boot, basically begging for change. It's the annual "fill the boot campaign." They need it for their gear or whatever. I think it's dumb, and I'd prefer my elected officials just man up and say we need to raise a little tax money for this stuff.

Obama is just a garden variety democrat. Has done nothing, I agree. But he's smart and calculating, and that counts for something. McCain is kind of dumb and emotional. In a perfect world, Obama would be the understudy to someone else. A year ago, I would have said McCain prez and Obama vp...fine, whatever. We'll see what kind of president obama turns out to be. He can't be any worse than Bush.

[sidewinder]

Amen, Rich.   Just a few mor months of Bush.  With the economy is such a bad state I feel sorry for the next president whoever.  Odds now 5 to 1 on Obama.

[Uboat]

Sorry to get political... but I'm just tired of hearing it.  All they want is to steal your money.  If you're buying into some kind of altruistic political hope and change movement you are seriously fooling yourself.

I also consider the political system corrupt and an enrichment process for a privileged club.
It is a continuation of the feudal system of past centuries, an exploitation of the masses for the benefits of a small wealthy ruling class which pulls the strings of puppets, which are the elected top officials.
Although I prefer Obama over McCain, his win will give the Democrats unchecked control and increased temptations in a corrupt political system.

[sunseeker]

Excerpts from a very irreverent satirical program on the BBC last night:

Obama will it be a landslide?

I don’t know about a landslide but the CIA will probably find some other way to get rid of him.

In the 1929 crash they were jumping off buildings.
Why aren’t the bankers jumping now?
Jump you f*-*-*$.


Disclaimer. The views expressed are not necessarily those shared by Sunseeker, his family, or associates, and are not in no way an endorsement of such actions.

[MetalMeister]

So let me try to focus in on the idea here.

If we tax the rich (people, according to Obama, who make over 250K per year) we are taxing the people who have the drive and the ingenuity to create businesses that make up most of the jobs here in the US.  Doesn't something seem like wrong 7th grade math to everyone here?  We end up shooting ourselves in the foot by taxing the rich.

We lose job because they in turn send more of their money offshore where taxes are less and capital increases are far likelier. Why not let them keep their money here, and invest it so there are more jobs created?

Sorry to get political... but I'm just tired of hearing it.  All they want is to steal your money.  If you're buying into some kind of altruistic political hope and change movement you are seriously fooling yourself.

I also consider the political system corrupt and an enrichment process for a privileged club.
It is a continuation of the feudal system of past centuries, an exploitation of the masses for the benefits of a small wealthy ruling class which pulls the strings of puppets, which are the elected top officials.
Although I prefer Obama over McCain, his win will give the Democrats unchecked control and increased temptations in a corrupt political system.

[MetalMeister]

The bankers are like everybody else with money, now.

They have so much of it in offshore accounts, foreign businesses, and foreign real estate - that they don't need to jump because they can just get on a plane and say hasta la vista, baby.