Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Why did it take so long for this to come out?

Sheila Liaugminas | Tuesday, 28 October 2008

A radio interview of Sen. Obama from 2001 airing many views that form his political ideology has just surfaced.

One that leaps off the page is his view of the Consitution as “a charter of negative liberties.” For the “Got Hope?” crowds, NRO says look at this, in the candidate’s own words.

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top [of the snip of Obama’s radio interview]: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

Whittle makes the point that while this is socialism, many people just don’t care that it is. So he appeals to what all Americans should ostensibly still care about, the founding values of this country.

I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear:

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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.

Nor was it intended to.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw…

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

One week out, we collectively may be about to elect a president most of us do not really know. And the media have facilitated that campaign’s unprecedented trajectory.

This Obama interview was only one more important body of information they kept from the American public. It came to light because of one guy.

It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

Shame on the media, Whittle says, and they have lately brought plenty of that on themselves.

I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

I (and many other people in media and organization work) have received email from another private citizen who wanted to find out as much as he could about the candidate who is seen as the likely next president. This man is pro-life and very concerned about the extremism of Barack Obama on abortion. He did the investigative research the media have not done, and put together a lengthy, detailed, well-referenced report on the candidate. I’ll be putting up some of it in posts to come…some of what this one citizen took upon himself to produce.

What other citizens do with this information will help determine the results of next week’s election, one way or the other.