Listen to this audio of a radio show interview with Senator Obama - and then his recent comment to Joe about redistributing wealth for “all those behind you”. What Senator Obama is bringing to the American presidency at a time when Democrtas are the majority in the house and senate is a policy that allows HIM to decide who makes too much money and who makes too little.

Here is a transcript, as well. Read for yourself.

You know, If you look at,um, the victories and failures of the civil rights movement,um, and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights,ah, in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. Ah, But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, uh, and, sort of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

And, Uh, To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, ah, 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 Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. 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, uh, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, uh, I think there was a tendancy 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 you bring about redistributive change. Um, and, uh, In some ways we still suffer from that.

Caller: Hi, um, The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is, um, with econmic change. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place (the court) for reparative economic work to take place or would it be legislatively?

Obama: Youknow, maybe I am 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. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Obama goes on to discuss what the court was willing to do outside of ordering redistribution of wealth in America.

Something you should beware of in Politics. Anyone who things the court should be used to repair economic equality issues and anyone who thinks that the failure of the court to do so is a tragedy that can be addressed legislatively and calls this effort “reparative economics” or “redistributive change”
Here is the audio in its original form.

Hat tips: Hot Air, Stop the ACLU

I know there will be many who delve into the rancorous rhetoric that has become our tribal warfare every 4 years in America. You will hear about Senator Obama not being willing to suspend his campaign to save America, but will take 2 days off to visit his sick grandmother or other such nonsense.  This is my prediction and I am waiting to see who does it first.

I want to extend my family’s personal best wishes to Grandma Madelyn Payne Dunhamand the Obama family. I sincerely hope all turns out well and she makes a full recovery to witness the history that will have been made regardless of the outcome of this election. I am sure Grandma Dunham will be proud in any case.

God Bless.

Of late, there have been a number of articles and blog posts pointing to the evidence of Barak Obama’s Marxist political theory. It is interesting, to say the least, but it is also going to be completely ineffective as a tool to defeat him in November.

I am not debating that Obama is a Marxist. His own words and associations reflect a long-held belief in class struggle, liberation theology, and alienation of those who produce vs. the owners of the production. I am also not trying to define Obama’s Marxism - mostly because we don’t call it Marxism anymore. Marx himself has become irrelevant to the 31 flavors of “Marxism”, which have evolved in various places across the world. That Obama leans toward a “Marxist” view of the world is easy to see for anyone who chooses to remove the rose-tinted lenses.

The issue at hand is more about whether Obama’s Marxism is a relevant criticism of his policy ideas with a goal of using the criticism as a means to expose and defeat him. To my mind, the answer is no.

Most Americans really have no idea what Marxism is. Some may equate it with the former Soviet Union, but Marxism was dead there within a few years of the 1917 revolution. Soviet policies and world view were based upon Communism and Leninism, which is an entirely different animal.

Additionally, the impact of calling someone a Marxist in America is trivial. IT will be seen as nothing more than a rhetorical name-calling with the intent of smearing the good Senator. This isn’t because people can’t believe it is true. It is more because Americans have never been exposed to Marxism as a threat to the nation, as have countries in Europe. It is an undefined experience in the minds of most Americans - the word has no value to cause shock and investigation.

Those who consider themselves Marxist also don’t understand the criticism. Most who define themselves as such are folks who study Marxism - and are more likely to be “classic Marxists”. Obama is certainly not one of those. His political theory is borne in a hybrid - Neo-Marxist tendencies to be certain, but Barak Obama has lived in the cultural Marxist environment of Reverend Wright. Indeed, his Marxist theory - instilled in Barak by his activist mother - was the bases for seeking out Revered Wright’s church as a place to organize blacks for social and economic revolution.

However, many Americans have been blissfully ignorant, and some by choice, at what Barak Obama espouses as his defining world view. The vast majority of these folks are as ignorant about the threat Obama’s Marxist political theory is to what they know today. in the 21st century, Marxism simply has no meaning in America.

So, calling Barak Obama a Marxist is a great way to define him as applies to his policy beliefs. As a criticism, it just doesn’t work.

The Obama Campaign has been plagued with folks who have had to step aside in order that their issues “not detract from the campaign”. Even after winning the Democratic Presidential Nomination, he’s not out of the woods.

Jim Johnson was part of the search team for a viable VP candidate for Obama - he stepped out because of his ability to get mortgages from the CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation - one of those democrat-described brutal land sharks of lending. Hypocrisy is bad for a campaign.

That leaves Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy to get the work done. Now, no one is going to dredge anything up on Ms. Kennedy - it just isn’t done in this country. Eric Holder, however, is another story.

Mr. Holder served in the Clinton administration and was responsible for vetting the then president’s pardons. Mr. Holder recommended the pardon request of fugitive Marc Rich, who was under indictment for 51 counts of fraud, tax evasion, and illegally trading with Iran. The pardon launched an investigation, as Rich’s wife was a big donor to Democratic causes and candidates.

My folks raised me to believe you can tell a lot about a guy by the people around him. Indeed you can.

Barak Obama, despite the Jim Johnson setback, will shortly be presented with a “short list” of VP candidates. Most of us have mentioned that the inclusion of Hillary Clinton would constitute a Dream Ticket for Democrats in the general election. Despite Hillary’s strengths, the weaknesses and image issues will be too much for a successful outcome. However, the ability to rally many of those who supported Clinton in the primary is crucial.

The real dream ticket doesn’t include Clinton. While not nearly as radical as Obama, Clinton is still pretty far left. The Democrats are not going to win in November by concentrating on the left, they have that bagged. They need to appeal to those so-called moderates in the Democratic and Republican parties. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel, John Edwards, Chris Dodd - these are not the dynamic personalities needed in November.

No, the real VP candidate for a dream ticket has to consist of Kathleen Sebelius. She will appeal to those who are left of center and right of center - and may even garner some of the more conservative voters. She was on the short list of John Kerry VP candidates and has been widely supported in Kansas.

Sebelius is anti-gun, she wants to spend more on education, didn’t support Kansas ban on same-sex marriage, and wants to spend more on education. She describes herself as “personally pro life” but has received condemnation as supporting pro-abortion policy - I have not yet verified her abortion policy record.

Sebelius comes with no baggage, personal or public, that my initial research has been able to disclose and she has only her state record to defend. I think Sebelius would fix the Obama campaign in something that resembles more than just calls for “change everything”.

I am wondering how this actually plays out, despite my belief that an Obama/Clinton ticket will not happen for personality reasons alone. The paradox - The dream ticket will be a nightmare administration. Especially for the participants.

Hillary still says she can win and Obama probably has the nomination wrapped up by the end of this week. Will Hillary bow out and support Barak? Will she go to the courts over Michigan and Florida being divided up even-steven? Will the dream ticket arise from the ashes of the party polarizing primary?

We’ll know by the end of the week, won’t we?

With much celebration, Kentucky and Oregon brings “the milestone” to Senator Barak Obama - that of the majority of pledged delegates. Yet, Hillary Clinton agues that Florida and Michigan - discounted as a punishment to those states because they presumed to change their primary election dates without permission from the DNC - would deliver her the popular majority of votes.

Hence, the “dreaded milestone”. Democrats cannot escape the difficulty they have created for themselves - having to themselves reject who they think should the first woman president or the first black president.

Couple this with the complete mismanagement by the DNC of the primaries with a system designed to divide people who would typicaly be of like mind - now add the Florida and Michigan debacles. The democrats cannot even effectively manage their own primary process. Hillary’s campaign is $12-odd million in debt and someone - presumably the DNC or Obama - is going to have to buy that debt from her campaign before she will go away.

And with all this, people think the Democrats can actually lead the country. Interesting.

Barak is now an honorary member of the Crow nation.

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Traveling though Montana on Monday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., made his first stop as a presidential candidate to an Indian reservation - and got a little more than expected.

Obama was adopted as an honorary member into the family within the Crow tribe that inhabited the reservation - who gave the presidential candidate a new name and new parents.

“Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish” was the honorary name given to Obama meaning, “one who helps people throughout the land.”

Barak Hussein Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish Obama does have a nice ring to it. It lends itself a great deal to the identity politics Barak Obama has used to such great success with the liberal voters of America.

Think of this for a moment. The beauty of America is encapsulated in our ability to form a common fabric - America - from so many disparate cultural influences. That is the American Dream in a nutshell. The ability to live to the level of your ambition regardless of where you came from. Ambition dictates what you are willing to do to accomplish your goal - how hard you are willing to exert yourself to fulfill your dream.

However, Barak Obama tells us the American Dream is something else. He tells us it is to be awarded something simply by wanting it. If you want a college education, you should have it. If you want success, America owes that to you.

Barak Obama understands that united, we stand - and united, we will stand against his leftist ideals. He thinks he can focus on those things which have the most potential to divide us and we will be too mystified by his mantra of “change” that we will not understand what he is doing.

Barak Obama is wrong. He can’t change Americans and he can’t redefine the American Dream.

Ok - Senator Obama has just gone into the realm of the ridiculous.

Obama’s willingness to sit down with the Iranian president demonstrates Obama’s lack of understanding of international relations, McCain said during a speech in Chicago, Illinois.

“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment,” McCain said. “Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess.”

Obama quickly responded during a speech in Billings, Montana, asking why the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was afraid to talk to Iran and that it was the “Bush-McCain” war policy in Iraq, not diplomacy, that would make Iran stronger.

“Make no mistake, Iran is the single biggest beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,” the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination said.

“Thanks to George Bush’s policy, Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation. John McCain wants to double down on that failed policy.”

Because of George Bush’s policy. For a generation.

First, George Bush may have been in office a lot longer than you can stand - it may feel like a generation to you - but 8 years does not a generation make.

Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation because of Jimmy Carter’s policy. A policy that was ill-equipped to deal with the demands of Iranian Islamo-fascists (although we didn’t call them that back then). A policy so entrenched in a lack of resolve during the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution that the message sent by the Carter Administration was ” we are weak”. A policy grasped by leftists in Congress as a Hail Mary pass of appeasement while Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. The same policy Jimmy Carter is now peddling with Hamas. That you don’t realize that worries a lot of people - hopefully enough to defeat you in November.

Senator Obama - your claim that everything wrong in the world is the fault of President Bush is ridiculous. Your entire presumptuous foreign policy rhetoric is ridiculous.