RUSH: Now, the Obama audio that we played yesterday from the Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001, as expected, it has been spiked by the Drive-By Media. It's not being aired anywhere. I firmly believe, ladies and gentlemen, these polls are getting tight again exactly as I predicted. The TIPP poll is about three points or just a little bit under. Yeah, IBD/TIPP poll, 2.8, Obama's lead as of yesterday. All of this talk about landslide and it's in the bag and yet Obama spending all this time in these battleground states. So is McCain obviously, but we're being sold a bill of goods. It's time to show up and not be dispirited. It's time to get busy and to keep your spirits up here, folks, regardless what you hear in the Drive-By Media, because it's all pro-Obama.
Jay Carney has a piece in TIME Magazine, he doesn't actually say this, but I mean the implication, or the inference you can draw is, "Why doesn't McCain just quit? It's over, why doesn't he just quit? Make this official." I firmly believe that if the public can be made to understand the significance of that 2001 audio, that if they understand that Obama cannot in good faith uphold the Constitution because he dismisses it and he doesn't like it, he wants to change it, he doesn't like its limits on government, he looks at that as a problem. The limits of power on government in the Constitution, represents a problem to Obama. If people understand that he believes in a massive redistribution of wealth that includes raising taxes on everybody who pays income taxes, especially the middle class, then I think he can be defeated. I think this audio from yesterday that we had that's popped up everywhere can be a game-changer whether the media or the self-appointed elites on the left and right think so or not. And the fact that they're not airing this audio in any of the Drive-By Media is indication of that to me.
The people of this country love their Constitution, and the people of this country reject socialism, and they don't support an authoritarian judiciary. And this is the Obama agenda. He wants to unleash the full power of the federal government, especially through the courts, against the people, including the middle class. He views the government of the United States as a weapon, as an instrument to be used against people. And that's what throws him off about the Constitution. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. Now, the Democrats have made it clear here they want to create a permanent majority, they want to intimidate anybody who disagrees with them, and they want to squeeze the greatness and the independence out of the American spirit. This is precisely what they want to do.
Wayne Huizenga, owner of the Miami Dolphins, has gone public and said, (paraphrasing) "I want to get rid of this team before the end of the year, 'cause I don't want to pay Obama my capital gains taxes when he raises the rate next year. I'd rather give the money to charity," said Wayne Huizenga. Now, Wayne Huizenga started from nothing. Wayne Huizenga does more for people than the federal government could ever hope to do in an effective way. He is a multibillionaire. He has employed people. He is generous beyond anybody's ability to understand. He is not particularly political. I've been on golf trips with Mr. Huizenga. I've been down to Miami Dolphins games with him and I'd call him a friend. He's not a particularly political guy. He looks at the government as something that's gotta be dealt with in the form of his doing business, and regardless who wins, he's gotta find an accommodation. But for him to say that he wants to get rid of the team here before Obama's tax increases go into effect is profound.
Obama wants to squeeze the greatness and the independence out of the American spirit. I know a lot of Democrat voters, by the way, who have held Obama fundraisers and who support Obama, who at the same time are going to try to divest themselves of numerous assets before the end of the year in anticipation of Obama winning and raising the capital gains rate. So there's a lot of people that understand what Obama represents and what he poses, but for some reason -- you could get into psychological analysis, try to figure out why they just can't bring themselves to oppose what he's going to do even though they admit that it is affecting the way they're going to govern their lives and run their businesses. "Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he's looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite GOP charges that it would be a disastrous Nov. 4 outcome. 'Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance.'"
Now, you remember all through 2005, 2006, the Democrat mantra was, this is one-party rule, this is unconstitutional, this is not right. By the way, the Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate. That is a far different thing if the Democrats pick up 60 seats in the Senate. You can write the history of the country for the next 25 years in advance if they get 60 seats in the Senate, pick up another 25 to 30 seats in the House of Representatives. Pelosi, by the way, was one of those people caterwauling and wailing and moaning about one-party rule when the Republicans ran the White House and the Senate and the House. The Republican Senate majority was what, one or two votes? Six votes? And we had a bunch of recalcitrant liberal Republicans that voted with the Democrats half the time anyway. And when we had our majority, we undercut ourselves, Gang of 14, all this other rigmarole. Pelosi, in the home stretch of the presidential campaign, says, (paraphrasing) "Don't be afraid of Democrat control. In fact, Democrat control will end up being more bipartisan than if Republicans are able to stop us in the Senate." Well, let me explain how she means this.
Let me explain what Pelosi means when she says that total Democrat control of government from the White House to the House to the Senate will end up being more bipartisan. It means that she intends to be nicer to Republicans who can't stop her. Bipartisan, as she's defining it, she's not gonna start ripping them as much, she's going to be nicer to them, she'll let 'em go to the committee hearings now and then, they'll let them have their votes, but they're not going to have a chance of stopping anything, it will be more bipartisan, there will be less arguing. That's what she means, there will be less arguing, there will be less acrimony, and isn't that, of course, what we all want? So the language is being polluted, a number of other things are being perverted and polluted here at the same time. Now, there's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Steven G. Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
His piece today is entitled: "Obama's Redistribution Constitution: The Courts are Posed for a Takeover by the Judicial Left." Yeah, we're going to play the audio of Obama from 2001 every day this week. We're going to play it every day. People need to hear this. I firmly believe that this is very effective. People like their Constitution, people don't like socialism. By the way, I was on Greta Van Susteren last night right off the top of her show at ten o'clock, and I wish this had clicked in my head earlier in the day yesterday. I was watching Dick Morris on Hannity prior to the Greta show and Morris was making the point that this was horrible what Obama is talking about, socialism, and the American people don't want it, and I got to thinking, something just struck me, how many people under 50 actually know what it is, based on the American public education system and university education, and those who do know what it is, I wonder how many know it's bad? It may be taught as something wonderful. It's probably being taught as something fair and great and something to which we should aspire.
So I began thinking back in my own life. When did I learn, who taught me about socialism and communism? In my case, it was my parents. My dad was first out of the box. Remember, I've told you that I first started paying attention to all this when I was nine during the '60 campaign, and that's when he started telling me about socialism, the progression to communism, Nazism and all of these things. And I'm trying to think, since I knew it before I went to school, I'm trying to remember if I actually learned it in school. Now, this is not to put down the public school system when I went there, but I remember some of the teachers hating communism and so forth. They hated communism, but I don't recall socialism. It probably was, I just don't remember it. So you need to ask yourselves, those of you who know what socialism is, who told you what it is? Where did you learn? One of the best books written on socialism is by Friedrich von Hayek, there's no question about that. A number of great books. They're really labored reading because he's brilliant, and you have to reread a bunch of things. Constitution of Liberty, Road to Serfdom. Road to Serfdom is just profound, and he also spent time at the University of Chicago. Yes, he did. His books might have been published by their press, I'm not sure which.
But here's Calabresi. I'm going to read his last paragraph, Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments. "If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food. Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms," and that's what Obama says he wants to do.
He wants judges who understand suffering. He wants judges who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government -- see, he knows the Constitution, too much time to start changing that around. Just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff.
RUSH: Here's Dick Morris last night on the Fox News Channel. He was on Hannity & Colmes, and this is his explanation of socialism and redistribution and how it's worded.
MORRIS: To use the phrase "redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice," that is 1970s, 1960s radical code words for socialism. What that is, that vocabulary I recognize perfectly, 'cause back then I used to hang out with those guys.
COLMES: You did?
MORRIS: Not the Weathermen.
RUSH: That was Alan Colmes, saying, "You did?" You hung around with those guys? Don't forget, Morris used to work for Democrats like Bill Clinton, so, yes, he's well aware of how they do it. And this is the way socialism is taught in schools these days: "redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice." So you put the word "justice" next to "socialism," and it will fool a bunch of idealistic utopian-inspired kids, students and so forth. That's why I speculated last night that a lot of people may not really know what it is. Basically... You know what it is? To be quite honest, folks -- and this is going to tear some of you. (interruption) No! I cannot believe what I am seeing! Say it's not true! Oh, no. I do... Oh, no, no, no. I knew it, but I was hoping. Oh, no. (pounding desk) Barack Obama was given a Pittsburgh Steelers jersey with his name on it. Awe! (crying) Oh. I know the NFL is socialistic, but don't tell them that, they don't like to hear that they're socialist. The Green Bay Packers board of directors gave me a little grief over that once. (groans) I knew it. I knew it, but I just didn't want to see it. You know, it's sorta when you have a daughter, she goes on her first date: You know what's going to happen, but you don't want to be there. (laughing)You know, you just don't want to see it.
Socialism is the soft word for communism -- and communism, of course, is only uttered by people with Bill Ayers and so forth. They do it with a small "C," but it's basically the state running your life because you've ceded all liberty to them. When you allow the state to arbitrarily take from some under the pretense and premise that they're going to "redistribute it for social justice and economic justice..." They're going to take from people who have too much, and that will be decided on by the state. The state will determine who has too much, and at some point it will be decided that everybody has too much, or that the way to equalize things -- and this is the thing that you have to understand about the left. I don't care whether you call it socialist or what have you. They never want to equalize societies by elevating those at the bottom of the economic ladder. They want to equalize society by taking from those at the top and make everybody equally miserable near the bottom.
RUSH: Let's now go to Obama from the 2001 audio from his appearance on a Chicago public radio station. We have a couple of bites -- actually more than that, but two or three of them here will make the point. Here he laments that the Supreme Court has never waded into the redistribution of wealth.
OBAMA: 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 peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But 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.
RUSH: He's complaining. That's not the purpose, and that's not the role of the Supreme Court. When you hear some of the opinions of the Founders on this whole concept you'll be shocked and you'll understand exactly how radical Obama is. He is complaining that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice." Now, when you start taking the law... You know, the definition of justice has become wide open. As many people as you talk to, you can find as many different definitions of it. But when they throw the word "political and economic justice" -- and this is not legal justice. You know, legal justice is an entirely different thing than political and economic justice, and Obama wants the court to be concerned with economic justice. He wants legal cases that end up before federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He wants judges on those courts to look at economic and political aspects of the case, not the legal definition of justice, because the legal definition of justice is not what he's interested in. Economic justice. Punishing achievers. Labeling them guilty when they haven't done anything. Now he complains that the Warren Court was not radical enough and calls the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties."
OBAMA: 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 has been interpreted -- and 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. 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, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.
RUSH: By the way, have you noticed something, folks, that when he's in this interview, there are no uhs (or very few). There are no uhs and ahs and uh, and, things like that. Do you know why? 'Cause he's not worried of saying the wrong thing here. He's a state senator in Illinois; he's talking to friendly people on a local Chicago public radio station. So he's not concerned whatsoever about saying a wrong thing here, so there aren't any stutters. The reason he stutters and pauses -- "uh, ah" -- because he covered his bases. He makes sure he doesn't tell you the truth in this campaign of what he intends to do. He doesn't like the fact that the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties." Negative liberties meaning that the Constitution spells out limits on the government.
See, he loves government. He wants the government to have positive rights. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you, when you follow his lingo here. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. So he clearly wants the Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. The choice of preposition here is interesting to me. The federal government can't do to you...? He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty and the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Life, of course, coming first because if there's no life, then you don't pursue liberty or happiness; you don't have liberty.
If you're killed in the womb, you certainly have no liberty and you're not going to have a chance to pursue happiness. That's why this right to life is so crucial in a government such as ours chartered as it was by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. So he is just outraged here. He's very frustrated that the Constitution doesn't give anybody in federal government, state government the right to do things to people -- and he wants that to change. "Doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf," although it does. It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf. Among those is protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- and of course it spells these things out. He doesn't see it that way. He then tells a caller here that he's not optimistic that the court can do this redistributive thing.
OBAMA: I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time.
RUSH: So he's just not optimistic. The court is just too bulky. The court cannot do this redistributive thing. It has to be done other ways, and he adds this.
OBAMA: Yeah. And the courts just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
RUSH: He just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities. That is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery. We're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter, where he can't sit at the front of the bus. He's angry about this. He's an angry, angry radical. He wants the courts to change this because the Constitution is too immovable, and then finally this bite...
OBAMA: I think we can say that, uh, uh, the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and, uh, -- and, uh, that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two viewers are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that, uh, it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
RUSH: "[T]he fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," and that fundamental flaw, the belief that it still exists... By the way, the Framers did agonize over what to do about the slave population, but they were trying to put together a union and they had these slave states and the northern states. They agonized over this, but they left a system to get rid of it, which is what has happened. But as far as Obama is concerned, the original flaw of slavery still exists, and this is what he and Bill Ayers are busy trying to teach as many young people in America as possible -- deep flaws; never fixed anything -- and if he gets the judges that he wants on all the federal courts, he can redistribute anything we all have, easily as pie, without changing the Constitution at all.
RUSH: Here's a good rule of thumb, folks, if you're trying to find out if something is socialist or not, and these terms are almost exclusively used on the left. You do not hear conservatives talking about economic justice, social justice, in the way the left means it. For example, in your neighborhood, if there is a school, a such-and-such School for Economic and Social Justice, it is a Marxist school, it is teaching socialism and redistribution of wealth and so forth. Any time you hear a leftist anywhere talk about economic justice, political justice, social justice, understand that what they're talking about is using the power of the state to take from those who the state thinks have too much, or to punish those the state thinks does too much, all for the purposes of equalizing people who are supposedly at the lower end of the scale. But that's not the actual end result or the desired end result. The desired end result is nobody having any liberty. The state being responsible for everybody's welfare, or as many people as possible. This is the desire.
Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Here's a Founding Father who wanted nothing to do with redistribution. Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, again: "Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." They argued, the Founders argued over this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare, what are people going to think that means? There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution. "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." This is the thinking of many the days of the founding, and that is what Obama wishes to overturn.