Obama: "The Sumpreme Court never ventured into issues of restristribution of wealth"

MzEllen
Why do you defend Michelle? Do you feel sorry for her, as she is obviously too lazy, or incompetent (or both) to do it her self. She makes a post, usually a copy and paste from drudge or another site, with a comment that is often irrational hyperbole, then runs. I would encourage you to blog, you seem much more reasonable, and competent in reformed theology.

"I do"

If you blog, can you tell me where?
or
You do feel sorry for her.

Minnie:

Obama's words simply could not be more clear, and to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty, given the attempts to obfuscate and spin and the plain meaning of this passage, is simply amazing.

Shall we examine those words again?

1. The first sentence of Obama's statement sets up a two part dichotomy:

" . . . if you look at the (1)victories and (2) failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts . . .

Then, he defines that portion of the civil rights movement that falls into the first category, (1) success:

" . . I think where it (1) succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples — so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I’d be OK."

Then, he clearly defines that portion of the civil rights movement he considers a (2) failure:

" . . . 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."

Now, he discusses the cause of this (2) failure:

" . . . It [the Supreme Court] 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."

In other words, there was a "Failure" in as much as the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH by "BREAK[ING] FREE FROM" the essential constraints of limited government that were placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers in order to address issues of "redistribution of wealth."

This is not a man who respects and accepts the most basic premise of our Founding Documents. This is a man who sees that Document as profoundly flawed in as much as it didn't define what government must do on your behalf by way of wealth redistribution.

As the Court was "unable to break free of the constraints placed by the founders," to address redistribution, Obama laments the "tragedy" the the civil rights movement did not work to create the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about - AGAIN those words -"redistributive change."

This man is a socialist. All of his prior associations, allies and influences indicate that this is true - from the New Party to Wright to Alinsky to Frank Davis to Ayers.

The words out of his OWN MOUTH indicate this - and still you deny it.