2001 Radio Interview with Obama reveals Marxist beliefs

[Evan Miller]

On youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

Investors Business Daily covers at at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309999370915090

IBD: The real, unguarded Barack Obama has been exposed, and Americans
should hear it for themselves before they make the most consequential
electoral decision of their lifetime.
Speaking to Chicago public radio station WBEZ seven years ago, then-
Illinois state Sen. Obama reflected on the history of the civil rights
movement.
"Where the movement succeeded," he said, "was in court-imposed
remedies regarding segregation and voting rights."
But where it failed was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into
the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues
of political and economic justice in this society."
The man now a week away from possibly being elected president then
lamented that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused" that
it veered away from action to "put together the actual coalitions of
power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some
ways we still suffer from that."
"Redistributive change" — so that's the kind of "change we need" and
"change we can believe in" that a President Obama would give America.
Exactly as he told Joe the Plumber.
It's pretty hard to spin a term as obvious as "redistributive change,"
but the Obama campaign is doing its desperate best. He was actually
defending conservative legal principles, an Obama legal adviser
absurdly told the Politico Web site.
The 2001 interview also finds an unwary Obama saying the Supreme Court
under Chief Justice Earl Warren — which in Warren's 1953-to-1969
tenure was the most activist and power-grabbing in U.S. history —
"wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."
Asked by a caller about further "reparative economic work" from the
federal courts, Sen. Obama replied that he was "not optimistic about
bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," but
that "any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for
bringing about economic change through the courts."
As president, however, "economic change through the courts" would be
only a Supreme Court appointment or two away, supported by dozens of
Obama's lower-court appointments.
Congress too is eagerly getting ready to enact "redistributive
change." Last week, top House Democrats discussed taxing Americans'
pretax contributions to 401(k) plans, with the promise of tens of
billions of dollars in new government revenues every year — plus
forcing workers to invest in government debt, shifting trillions of
dollars from private savings to government control.
Could that be part of what Obama meant in Colorado this weekend when
he warned, "make no mistake . . . we will all need to sacrifice"? Was
it part of what running mate Joe Biden meant last week when he said of
corporate executives, "their pensions go first"? Do workers' pensions
then "go" next?
Too many Americans think this radical urban organizer is just another
Clinton or Gore. But a vote for Obama is a vote for socialist
"spreading of wealth," as Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber, and a
vote for "major redistributive change," as he put it in 2001.