Because the cited source of the "bombshell"--Joe Klein--says it is.

 

Oh, and the author of the piece pointed out that it was written as satire, albeit not very good. Quote:

 

"'If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny,' he said. 'I kind of get inspiration from Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. You want people to be let in and then at the end, they realize it, and either find it funny on its own terms or find their reaction to be funny.'"

Obama rips U.S. Constitution

Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'

 

Thanks for serving up this meatball WND, via our very own EVD!  Perfect example of how easy these partisan websites sell their propaganda to the public and the public buying it hook, line and sinker.  I won't even check for accuracy or selective reproduction of the text because what was served up is plenty good to prove my point.

 

Let's assume that this was a real interview (and it might be - this is different from the thesis hoax of a couple weeks ago where Rush looked like an utter fool) and the quoted text was Obama's actual language.  Now, let's analyze it piece by piece:

 

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would 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 OK

 

He is saying here that there were both victories and failures in the civil rights movement.  The victory was to invest rights in minorities that did not previously have them - e.g., blacks could now eat their lunch at Woolworth on the same condition as everyone else - you must pay for it.

 

That is all that is said.  Nothing more.

 

But, 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 it's been interpreted, and the 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.

 

What this means is that the Supreme Court stayed within the confines of its constitutional authority in its rulings on civil rights.  It was not a radical court as some have claimed.  There were some essential constraints that were placed on the court by the founding fathers and the Warren Court stayed within those parameters.  In essense, the constitution says what the government can't do and what it must do, not much else.

 

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, 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. In some ways we still suffer from that.

 

What he means here is that the Court was NOT empowered to bring about "redistributive change."  Any such measure would have to be by other means, but the civil rights movement focused too much on winning the battles in court and lost focus on the grassroots power of the movement that could have brought the community together in a coalition of powers.  It gets somewhat more difficult to understand what exactly he means here, but it appears he would have supported organizing among the people to form coalitions and apply political pressure to bring about change - i.e. voting blocks, lobbyists, etc.  Regardless, he is definitely not suggesting that any such goal could have been accomplished through the Supreme Court.

 

So, nowhere in the text which I am sure WND very selectively chose to reproduce does Obama "rip the constitution", nor does he "fault the Supreme Court"

 

EVD.... my friend.... you've been propaganized.... AGAIN by those big bold letters.  Try your own espoused strategy sometime and actually read and critically analyze what is written.... unless you like the taste of your own foot.

^But NOTHING in the piece coughed up by EVD is true. It is a known piece of satire, and a stale one at that.

Ram: Is there any way you can make the flag behind Boehner in your avatar flutter?

 

Can animated .gifs work as avatars? I might try it out...

 

Then I could constantly change the face in front of it to various Ohio politicians and celebrities.  This could be fun...

When I hit on the link posted by EVD, I get a 2001 radio interview that Obama did.... not the thesis hoax.  What I posted was verbatim from the transcript which surprise, surprise (after I listened to the whole interview) was reproduced selectively by WND.  Listen to the whole interview and it only hammers home the point I made above. 

 

Bottom line - Either WND is full of idiots or they think of their readers as idiots... there is no other explanation.

Elements of the 2001 interview are incorporated into the satire piece that WND and their ilk took for fact. Whatever. We're just contributing to their noise machine by posting about it, so I'll do my part and resume ignoring this sort of stuff.

Speaking of satire, here's some that actually has to do with John Boehner, the subject of this here particular thread which you are reading right now on your computer screen.

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/congressman_boehners_terror

I can't look at a pic of that guy without thinking of

 

Dude has a better tan than George Hamilton.

It's always sunny in West Chester...

Dude has a better tan than George Hamilton.

 

Ahahaha. I spent most of the summer outside with my shirt off and he's still darker than me.

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/my_constituents_care_way_more

O-H...

 

 

 

Well, he has a point you know...

O-H...

 

Don't you mean S-O-H...?

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

Well, he has a point you know...

 

Boehner has plenty of talking points.  That is what he is best at.

^This must be that return to civility that koow was hoping for.

^Boehner's "hell no" speech... yes, very 'civil'

The whole thing is very civil, after all "This is a big f*cking deal!" in the words of our VP.

 

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

 

 

You do know that the "Hell no, you can't" is in reference to writing bills behind closed doors and completely ignoring the promises of transparency?

 

But, apparently, "Yes, they can!"

You do know that the "Hell no, you can't" is in reference to writing bills behind closed doors and completely ignoring the promises of transparency?

 

But, apparently, "Yes, they can!"

 

They learned from Bush, apparently.

 

And, yeah, of course they can.  It's the law.  Just like Bush could.  Whether or not they should is a different question.

Can anyone name a single piece of legislation that more closely scrutinized and vetted than this health care reform bill?

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

 

Has anyone actually watched the link?

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

This is a despicable act against the Constitution and the will of the people.  Today the media and liberals are claiming victory.  Victory over what? The majority of the people?

Do you not have an answer to my question?  Name me one piece of significant legislation that was more open to scrutiny than this health care bill.

 

On the "backroom deals".... why are your GOP reps trying to block the "Fix-It" Bill, which removes those deals, if they are such a bad thing?

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

 

At this point, if there's any member of Congress who hasn't read the bill and the amendments, I have to ask: "Why the hell not?" This is a piece of legislation that has been dominating Washington and the media for months, cutting into other issues. It's been going on forever. There's been plenty of time for those elected to read important legislation to have read it.

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

This is a despicable act against the Constitution and the will of the people. Today the media and liberals are claiming victory. Victory over what? The majority of the people?

 

If this country did "what the majority of the people" wanted, this site (UrbanOhio) would not have existed.

Say what?

 

I wish the system went into place ASAP so the sick would get covered and people would stop dying from lack of coverage right now.

 

I want my free preventive care right now. I want to be covered by my parents right now. I want all the promises now.  All the taxes should go into effect right now too.

 

WHY WAIT?

At least we know why Boehner was so against the plan!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aa32kl.M09T4

 

Health-Care Overhaul Changes to Start Taking Effect This Year

By Shannon Pettypiece and Alex Nussbaum

 

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning today in just one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama.

 

I would like to see ONE name or story about someone who died because they could not get treatment.

I would like to see ONE name or story about someone who died because they could not get treatment.

 

Google works Dan -

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/

 

http://hubpages.com/hub/WhattheHealthCareBillMeansForPeopleWithPre-ExistingConditions (see the cute little baby at the end)

 

And then there are the children of these religious nutjobs which is not really relevant to the health care bill, but responsive to your question- http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DA:+Pa.+couple+prayed,+denied+care+to+dying+tot-a01612019962

Insurances will still reject experimental or risky coverage.  No company could afford not to.  Lack of available facilities will also result in more deaths.  This is where the death panels which you so deny will come into play.  They will weigh that 60% survival rate and deny coverage.  You really can't answer my question.  Nice try though with the religious nuts.

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

 

At this point, if there's any member of Congress who hasn't read the bill and the amendments, I have to ask: "Why the hell not?" This is a piece of legislation that has been dominating Washington and the media for months, cutting into other issues. It's been going on forever. There's been plenty of time for those elected to read important legislation to have read it.

 

This is such crap. These bills are full of legalese, and those who complain that lawmakers 'haven't read the bill' will pull up obscure passages and misinterpret them in an attempt to embarrass the lawmaker. It's not the lawmaker's job to read every bill; that's why s/he has staff. I wonder if many of the people complaining about this have themselves read (drafts of) the thing, or just relied on talking heads to 'tell them' what's in it. Total BS.

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

 

At this point, if there's any member of Congress who hasn't read the bill and the amendments, I have to ask: "Why the hell not?" This is a piece of legislation that has been dominating Washington and the media for months, cutting into other issues. It's been going on forever. There's been plenty of time for those elected to read important legislation to have read it.

 

This is such crap. These bills are full of legalese, and those who complain that lawmakers 'haven't read the bill' will pull up obscure passages and misinterpret them in an attempt to embarrass the lawmaker. It's not the lawmaker's job to read every bill; that's why s/he has staff. I wonder if many of the people complaining about this have themselves read (drafts of) the thing, or just relied on talking heads to 'tell them' what's in it. Total BS.

The only "crap" and "total BS" is your belief that Congressmen's staff read the bills.  Do you have any familiarity with how things have been run the past 15 months?  How many people do you know on the inside in either party?

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

This is a despicable act against the Constitution and the will of the people. Today the media and liberals are claiming victory. Victory over what? The majority of the people?

 

If this country did "what the majority of the people" wanted, this site (UrbanOhio) would not have existed.

What are you trying to say?

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

 

Has anyone actually watched the link?

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

This is a despicable act against the Constitution and the will of the people. Today the media and liberals are claiming victory. Victory over what? The majority of the people?

Victory over the idea that the country is essentially ungovernable, for one, i.e. that no significant legislation can be passed on its merits, without a "super-minority" obstructing it.

Hell no, you can't!

Yes, we can!

 

I'm seeing a great reelection commercial. Hope, change, and obstruction have been salient themes of this administration. What a great way to drive it home.

 

Has anyone actually watched the link?

 

He said "Can you say it was written openly, without backroom deals? Hell no, you can't. Have you read the amendments, etc. Hell no, you haven't."

 

This is a despicable act against the Constitution and the will of the people.  Today the media and liberals are claiming victory.  Victory over what? The majority of the people?

Victory over the idea that the country is essentially ungovernable, for one, i.e. that no significant legislation can be passed on its merits, without a "super-minority" obstructing it.

That "super minority" consisted of the entire GOP, many Democrats, and even a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.  The whole scheme was barely passed on the reconciliation technicality.  No other sweeping legislation has ever passed with so little support.  This is not something to celebrate.

 

From their seats in the Capitol building, the country is supposed to be mostly ungovernable. The one-size-fits all legislation coming out of DC is not how America is supposed to work. Why else do we even have states, counties, cities, etc? 

 

It all stems from the "healthcare is a right" falsehood.  This isn't even a good bill when you look at the numbers.  The problem of cost isn't even addressed, it's just passed to the ever invisible "rich taxpayer" who has had a free ride for too long.

This is not something to celebrate.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

This is not something to celebrate.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Yeah...when the next President is the most right-wing President ever you'll have no check on his power since the judiciary has been silenced and he will have the power of Executive Order which under Bush and Obama now trumps law.  How can liberals be so awake during Bush and so asleep during Obama?

John Boehner is nothing but a blowhard embarassment to Ohio and the U.S.! The latest polls show a favorable view to the healthcare bill. I can't wait until November when the rest of the Republicans, and dimwitted Democrats, get voted OUT!!!

John Boehner is nothing but a blowhard embarassment to Ohio and the U.S.! The latest polls show a favorable view to the healthcare bill. I can't wait until November when the rest of the Republicans, and dimwitted Democrats, get voted OUT!!!

It would be great if all members were replaced ever two years (term limits please!), but that won't happen.  And sfbob, you do realize SF isn't the whole country right?  Pelosi has an 11 percent approval nationwide and I'm guessing you're part of that 11 percent.

Yeah...when the next President is the most right-wing President ever you'll have no check on his power since the judiciary has been silenced and he will have the power of Executive Order which under Bush and Obama now trumps law.  How can liberals be so awake during Bush and so asleep during Obama?

No, I am still pissed about some things. The (Iraq, Afghani, Drug) wars, the Patriot Act, and hate crime legislation, for example. I'm not ruling out supporting a third party. Don't mistake not being libertarian for not being awake. I also have gripes with the healthcare bill, but not ones you would agree with.

Scrabble is that all you have? To blast me about Pelosi? Actually since you brought her up she is actually pretty bitchin and has bigger Kahuna's than all the Repubs in Congress put together!

I wasn't blasting you about Pelosi, just stating the facts. No biggie.

For some perspective, maybe we should mention that Boehner has a whopping 15% approval rating.  Higher than Pelosi, but less than one-third that of 'The One'

I consider myself a conservative, but I really think Boehner is doing the party a disservice.  Instead of simply throwing up roadblocks to the healthcare reform at every avenue, how about floating an alternate set of plans, with how to save money and increase coverage?  He comes across as a bit of a know-it-all and that doesn't play well with most people.

I wasn't blasting you about Pelosi, just stating the facts. No biggie.

 

I don't think facts are part of the repertoire sfbob brings to the table here.

 

For some perspective, maybe we should mention that Boehner has a whopping 15% approval rating. Higher than Pelosi, but less than one-third that of 'The One'

 

Approval ratings for individual members of the House are amongst the most useless statistics out there.  Their job is to represent the people of their district, what someone in California or even Cleveland things of Boehner doesn't matter, at all.  They're actions can affect everyone, but the only people they have to answer to are the ones in their district.

Approval ratings for individual members of the House are amongst the most useless statistics out there.

 

Tell that to your comrade.

^ Maybe you should direct that comment at Scrabble, who was the one that started waving such numbers around. Hts121 was just continuing this practice, since it became relevant to the conversation.

I would like to see ONE name or story about someone who died because they could not get treatment.

 

Tell you what, DanB, I can give you a bunch of stories. Stories of people with diabetes who would cut their pills in half and take them half as often as prescribed because they couldn't afford them. Stories about people hospitalized with respiratory insufficiency because they couldn't afford their asthma medications.

 

Believe me, it happens.

 

The problem with the health care bill is that it could have done much more with so much less. It should have (and in some cases, did):

 

1. Ban experience rating. All subscribers pay the same fee.

2. Eliminate the antitrust protections currently afforded health insurance.

3. Eliminate state regulation of health insurers and make it Federal.

4. Eliminated tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance and tax it as you would wages or salaries.

5. Placed a cap on non-economic damages for malpractice.

 

Item 4 would force more people to truly look at the cost of their health plans which, in the case of employer-provided health care, comes out of their wages.

 

Items 1, 2, and 3 would not only allow for greater competition, it would provide an impetus to consolidation of health plans. A larger risk pool means that the overall cost goes down.

 

Item 5 would help to address defensive medicine.

 

You don't need a big bill to do any of these things. Instead, what we have is a huge bill which will, eventually, get us there but not without unnecessary cost, pain and suffering.

 

So who thinks we'll have a Speaker Boehner next January?