Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 14:33 Post subject: Re: Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
Dragon Horse wrote:
What does the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution do?
Quote:
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What is meant by "general Welfare"? "Debts" and "Defence" are clear and unquestionable. Most Americans accept "general Welfare" to cover things like infrastructure. Many of us have accepted certain socialist, redistributive "general Welfare" programs such as Social Security. The majority of us DO NOT accept this to mean playing Robin Hood.
Quote:
When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
Lack of Support for Wealth Redistribution Spans Political Party, Income Groups
Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.
My conclusion is that the meaning of "general Welfare" is debatable and could surely be used to usher in additional methods of spreading the wealth around. What is not debatable is whether most Americans agree with such redistribution of wealth. Whether it's GW or BO, it's un-American, IMO.
What does the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution do?
Quote:
Amendment 16 - Income Taxes (ratified February 3, 1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I don't see anything about taxing one group of people to give the money to another group of people. Unless you read this differently than I do. I don't care how it has been interpreted, it does not say redistribute money. Also, it does not say withhold money that is earned either. That was supposed to end after WWII.
Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
Will MSM Continue Ignoring Shocking Obama 'Redistribution of Wealth' Audio?
By P.J. Gladnick
Created 2008-10-27 05:14
Once again we have another story that has been picked up in a big way by the Blogosphere but is currently being ignored by the mainstream media. And this time the story is huge. If you've seen the Drudge Report [1]today you will know exactly which story this is; the audio [2] of a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ FM in which Barack Obama explicitly calls for the "redistribution of wealth." You won't find any information about this blockbuster story in the MSM just yet but as been very typical lately, you can be informed on this topic on the Blogosphere including this report [3] from Steve Schippert of Wizbang who posted it at 1:20 this morning while the members of the MSM were complacently sleeping, comfortable in the knowledge that Obama probably had the election in the bag:
The audio of a Barack Obama radio interview below is stunning. Unfortunately, it will probably stun few. For once the word "Constitution" is mentioned, electoral eyes roll into the backs of voters' heads as memories of a boring high school history class in a hot, dusty classroom emerge in the place of contemplation of the founding principles of this nation.
Speaking of the Warren Court its interpretation of the Constitution during the Civil Rights movement, Obama said, "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 more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
Actually, it does. The federal government must provide for the common defense, a military to provide and ensure National Security. The "essential constraints" placed into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers was to ensure a limited government, not a pervasive and massive federal government providing all things to all people.
Obama laments in the interview that the Warren Supreme Court failed to reinterpret the Constitution to read into it what was not there: Redistribution of wealth for "political and economic justice in this society."
Barack Obama continues, and notes that one of the "great tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
For Obama, the redistribution of wealth is a civil right that the civil rights movement failed to attain. To Barack Obama, the redistribution of wealth is basic "political and economic justice," and one segment of society has the basic right to the money of other segments of society. He's very straight forward about this.
And while in the interview he did not think wealth redistribution could be affected through the courts, he was confident that it could be attained "legislatively." The reason the courts have not legislated this from the bench is that it requires the court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is wholly in conflict with the document - and its intentions - as written.
The prospects of an Obama presidency and a large democrat majority that leans far left in both the House and the Senate will set the stage for "legislative" imposition of the transfer of wealth to those who he views have a civil right to that money.
That this is wholly counter to the Constitution is of no matter. Congress will pass 'transformational' tax and health care legislation, Obama will sign it into Law, and the only thing standing between it and us is the Supreme Court, which could strike down the laws as un-Constitutional. But what will that Supreme Court look like after one or two Obama appointments? Will it have the will to do so, or will enough justices 'interpret' ('invent' is a more appropriate term) the Constitution in the manner Obama does?
It is surreal that this country is close to potentially electing a president who intends to govern with such clear disregard to the same Constitution he will be sworn to defend and protect. But imposed Socialism won't be un-Constitutional. It will instead be a heralded "transformation" in the name of "political and economic justice."
Your humble correspondent did notice one oddity. The source of this YouTube audio is Naked Emperor News [4]. And on that website is featured a Cafe Press link [5] that leads to a page selling "Hillary Electable" T-shirts. Is the Hillary War Room perhaps doing some extra-curricular work in the background? In any event it seems to be one of those things that makes you want to sit up and go...hmmm?
UPDATE: NewsBusters Tom Blumer has provided the transcript of this interview along with this exit question: "How many Chicago-area reporters, many of whom more than likely frequently listen to public radio, have known about this interview all this time and were hoping against hope that it had disappeared down the memory hole, instead of doing their job and telling us what he said?"
OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get 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 was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and 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 in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. And 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 and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
..... Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
Host: You mean the courts?
Karen: The courts, 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. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, 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, y'know, 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 mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....
What does the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution do?
Quote:
Amendment 16 - Income Taxes (ratified February 3, 1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I don't see anything about taxing one group of people to give the money to another group of people. Unless you read this differently than I do. I don't care how it has been interpreted, it does not say redistribute money. Also, it does not say withhold money that is earned either. That was supposed to end after WWII.
If I take tax from your income and build a bridge in rural Arkansas you consider that what? Is that not "redistribute"?
Dragon Horse, using taxpayers dollars for the Country (or its individual States) for things like defense and infrastructure make perfect sense and are not "redistribution" of wealth. It is us paying for the protection and upkeep of our own country.
If you and your wife make $300,000 a year, but my family is unemployed and/or on welfare and/or on disability and not paying ANY net income taxes, but you pay 36% in taxes AND I get a check in the mail from Uncle Sam, just for existing, paid for by YOU, then THAT is clearly redistribution of wealth.
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 14:58 Post subject: Re: Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
If I take tax from your income and build a bridge in rural Arkansas you consider that what? Is that not "redistribute"?
That is very true. Most constructionists argue that this is unconstitutional as well.
It wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for FEDERAL personal INCOME taxes. This is why I am against the raising and for the lowering of federal personal income taxes ALWAYS and in every way. There are so many other types of taxes that could either clearly be used federally or, without question, remain in a State. When all of this income tax money goes to Washington, then our Reps. have to scrabble to try to get some back for their State. A flawed system at best.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 15:00 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
Dragon Horse, using taxpayers dollars for the Country (or its individual States) for things like defense and infrastructure make perfect sense and are not "redistribution" of wealth. It is us paying for the protection and upkeep of our own country.
If you and your wife make $300,000 a year, but my family is unemployed and/or on welfare and/or on disability and not paying ANY net income taxes, but you pay 36% in taxes AND I get a check in the mail from Uncle Sam, just for existing, paid for by YOU, then THAT is clearly redistribution of wealth.
Yes it is and it would eventually bankrupt the system and really tank the economy.
Sonia, the redistribute thing is only part of it. The larger issue for me is that the man thinks he can interpret the Constitution as he ses fit. That's very dangerous. Especially if there are no checks in the Congress. On the other hand, it might be the wake up call that is needed, because if we get this package this year, in 2010, there will be a massive overhaul, IMO.
Dragon Horse, using taxpayers dollars for the Country (or its individual States) for things like defense and infrastructure make perfect sense and are not "redistribution" of wealth. It is us paying for the protection and upkeep of our own country.
If you and your wife make $300,000 a year, but my family is unemployed and/or on welfare and/or on disability and not paying ANY net income taxes, but you pay 36% in taxes AND I get a check in the mail from Uncle Sam, just for existing, paid for by YOU, then THAT is clearly redistribution of wealth.
Yes it is and it would eventually bankrupt the system and really tank the economy.
Sonia, the redistribute thing is only part of it. The larger issue for me is that the man thinks he can interpret the Constitution as he ses fit. That's very dangerous. Especially if there are no checks in the Congress. On the other hand, it might be the wake up call that is needed, because if we get this package this year, in 2010, there will be a massive overhaul, IMO.
I understand, Dean. Here is a man who has taught Constitutional Law, yet sees fit to try to (MIS)interpret the Constitution and worse. If you look at the article I just posted, the author, Gladnick, made a very good point. I hadn't really registered the part where Obama said:
Quote:
At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf.
Of course, as Gladnick notes:
Quote:
The federal government must provide for the common defense, a military to provide and ensure National Security.
Part of that I had already quoted above from Article 8 about the powers of Congress. So, does Senator Obama, the Constitutional Scholar, still believe that our U.S. Constitution makes no provisions for what the government must do on our behalf? Why should that surprise me? His running mate thinks the VP has no role in the Legislative Branch.
If I take tax from your income and build a bridge in rural Arkansas you consider that what? Is that not "redistribute"?
No, that's capital overlays.
But seriously, we are not talking about tax and spend policies, earmarks or pork that benefit the 'common good'. No, Obama's (i.e Marxist) 'wealth redistribution' plan will probably be more in line with 'reparations' or more 'tax credits' for the bottom 25% who don't even pay federal income taxes as it is now. It is these people who, in the words of Bill Cosby, 'are not holding up their end of the bargain'.
I, for one, am not talking about the 'working poor' either. These people W-O-R-K! I don't mind more benefits for them as these families contribute to our economy (ditto certain illegal Mexicans trades).
Case in point: When I used to work in case mangement for social services (i.e. welfare), many of these single mothers would receive thousands of dollars back in taxes from their tax-free welfare checks.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 15:15 Post subject:
Sonia, I have twice asked for articles or publications regarding the Constitution authored by the Constitutional Scholar, Obama.
I can refer to several articles regarding the Contitution authored by a person I regard as a Constitutional Scholar, Alan Keyes. I can also point to books written by others I regard as Constitutional Scholars such as Mark Levin and Judge Roy Moore.
Sonia, I have twice asked for articles or publications regarding the Constitution authored by the Constitutional Scholar, Obama.
I can refer to several articles regarding the Contitution authored by a person I regard as a Constitutional Scholar, Alan Keyes. I can also point to books written by others I regard as Constitutional Scholars such as Mark Levin and Judge Roy Moore.
I am waiting for Obama's work.
You've already witnessed his "work". If he becomes President, we will probably see much more of his Constitutional "work". Especially if the Dems get the super-majority that many in the mainstream media have been predicting.
This video is all over talk radio. What about the "mainstream media"? I see that Fox News has this story at the top of their front webpage. I don't see it on the front webpages of CNN or MSBNC, though. Probably a non-story to them. They've still got links to the video of Biden asking that anchorwoman if she was joking. No bias there, huh? He gets dealt a legitimate blow, but they make the anchorwoman out to be the victim. Sorry, Barbara West. I hope they don't use those Ohio government computers to investigate you like they did Joe the Plumber.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 17:15 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
This video is all over talk radio. What about the "mainstream media"? I see that Fox News has this story at the top of their front webpage. I don't see it on the front webpages of CNN or MSBNC, though. Probably a non-story to them. They've still got links to the video of Biden asking that anchorwoman if she was joking. No bias there, huh? He gets dealt a legitimate blow, but they make the anchorwoman out to be the victim. Sorry, Barbara West. I hope they don't use those Ohio government computers to investigate you like they did Joe the Plumber.
MSNBC will put an Obama spin on it of course!!!! Like the Wright issue, they and others in the Liberal media, will be dragged in kicking and screaming. I really hope they do not change.
You just cannot ask the darlings of the liberal media a legitimate tough question. Not allowed. If you do get it out, be prepared for a backlash. Did I miss something here?? Is this the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics???
Last edited by DChapman on Mon 27 Oct 2008 17:20; edited 2 times in total
Biden says paying taxes is patriotic. Obama considers taxing the rich to give to the poor "neighborliness". (See video at link below.) Aren't the qualities of being patriotic and neighborly contingent upon them being VOLUNTARY? Is compulsory patriotism patriotic? Am I being neighborly when I have little to no say in where my tax dollars go? Working class, middle class, wealthy, and filthy rich people give money to the poor ALL THE TIME. It's called charity and the organizations we give to are much more effective and less wasteful than the federal government. Just say no to higher taxes.
This video is all over talk radio. What about the "mainstream media"? I see that Fox News has this story at the top of their front webpage. I don't see it on the front webpages of CNN or MSBNC, though. Probably a non-story to them. They've still got links to the video of Biden asking that anchorwoman if she was joking. No bias there, huh? He gets dealt a legitimate blow, but they make the anchorwoman out to be the victim. Sorry, Barbara West. I hope they don't use those Ohio government computers to investigate you like they did Joe the Plumber.
MSNBC will put an Obama spin on it of course!!!! Like the Wright issue, they and others in the Liberal media, will be dragged in kicking and screaming. I really hope they do not change.
You just cannot ask the darlings of the liberal media a legitimate tough question. Not allowed. If you do get it out, be prepared for a backlash. Did I miss something here?? Is this the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics???
Hey, I just re-read what I wrote and realize it might not sound right. I don't mean they are making her sound LIKE she is a victim. I mean they have victimized her! Poor Barbara. Poor Joe. Poor U.S. Constitution. Nobody's safe.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 17:28 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
Biden says paying taxes is patriotic. Obama considers taxing the rich to give to the poor "neighborliness". (See video at link below.) Aren't the qualities of being patriotic and neighborly contingent upon them being VOLUNTARY? Is compulsory patriotism patriotic? Am I being neighborly when I have little to no say in where my tax dollars go? Working class, middle class, wealthy, and filthy rich people give money to the poor ALL THE TIME. It's called charity and the organizations we give to are much more effective and less wasteful than the federal government. Just say no to higher taxes.
That's because Obama and Biden are smarter than us. So if they say paying more taxes is patriotic and neighborly, then it is. After all, Obama is a Contitutional Scholar who is Ivy League educated. Biden is a lawyer trained at Syracuse. They know better what to do with our money than we peasants, especially the ones who live in the "red states".
They are just so smart.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
What is not debatable is whether most Americans agree with such redistribution of wealth. Whether it's GW or BO, it's un-American, IMO.
Poor Barbara. Poor Joe. Poor U.S. Constitution. Nobody's safe. 
