''The year 2010 will be like no other in American history. It is not just another Carter era of sheer stupidity and incompetence. This is the real thing. This is what progressives have been working toward since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. We are living through a major historical time that may very well shape the destiny of the human race for centuries to come – or bring about its final demise.'' (and January 2013 could very well be the time that all the vultures come home to roost - MD)
In a 2008 radio interview, Barack Obama said:
" … 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 the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
I tell you, life isn't fair. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ever ventured into the matter of "redistributive wealth?" And what in the world were the Founding Fathers thinking about when they failed to broach the subject?
Surely it was an oversight that they never addressed the issue of taking your assets and giving them to your neighbor. Or perhaps it's just an indication that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison were cold, calloused individuals who enjoyed watching people suffer.
In the same interview, Chairman Obama went on to say that the Constitution "[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 … 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
Excuse me? Do on your behalf? Those stupid Founding Fathers again. They didn't even think to put in the Constitution what the government must do on your behalf. And what a tragedy it was that the civil rights movement didn't put together the coalition of powers that could bring about "redistributive change."
Forget the fact that the Constitution never mentions the redistribution of anything. After all, the debate is over: We all know that redistribution of wealth is the only moral way to operate a country, right? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120009