So Obama will give up his 200K salary as President, then, right? I mean, it's only fair.

So, I'm guessing Charles has seen the video posted in the last thread?

RNC: Make an ad out of this thing STAT!

Truly unbelievable. But do they care or are they ok with this?

amazing video.

And in a fair world, this would be front page news WORLD OVER tomorrow... Weather you agree with it or not, it's earth-sneakingly opposite of what the American People want.

Obama on the 'Redistribution of Other People's Wealth'

There ya go. All fixed.

re: #5 ArmyWife

i Hope not!

Joe was right.

re: #2 arethusa

No. He is the Grand Puba who doesn't HAVE to give up jack taco. See Chavez, Stalin, etc etc.

Holy Hell! And they want to give Sarah Palin a hard time about not understanding the Constitution?!

The Constitution doesnt say what the Government must do on your behalf? The only thing I want the Government to do is leave me the fuck alone.

FUCK YOU BARRY!

i sent it to Levin. i dont know how to send to Hillaryclinton forum.

Does Rush have an email?
and should soemthing like this be sent via Drudge?

re: #4 Edouard

RNC: Make an ad out of this thing STAT!

There is just enough time to do it, too. And nobody could plausibly declare this out of bounds.

re: #9 willowone

Me either, but I must say the Dems I am close too (ugh) ARE ok with socialism. Makes my head explode.

If you are making over forty grand a year and you vote for Obama you are insane. If you make less than that and vote for him you are delusional.

re: #12 Sharmuta

send to Hillary forums?

Someone needs to archive this video before it gets pulled.

"It doesn't say what the government must do on your behalf."

Actually, it covers everything that the government must do on your behalf: Protect your rights by punishing those who initiate force against you. Any more or less, and you're trying to destroy the ideals of the U.S.!

Pray my friends that good will prevail against the evil forces in this world.

Imagine how people are going to react to hearing this given the way they reacted to what he said to Joe the Plumber. I can't imagine this gut being elected.

re: #16 ArmyWife

I would think they are the ages of my children than!

kids "Mom can ya buy me, What! mow the lawn? "

I'm sure Hannity will have this up tomorrow.

I'm amazed that wasn't scrubbed.

Bill of NO Rights (An oldie but a goodie)

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non Rights.

ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.
More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended.
This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm.
If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing.
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care.
That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government run health care.

ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.
We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job.
All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness.
Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
If you agree that a understanding of no rights is necessary to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty," I strongly urge you to refer this to as many people as you can, or link it from your own webpages. No, you don't HAVE to ... Nothing tragic will befall you should you NOT refer it. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to re-emerge in our society and flourish again. Thank you!

0bama's voice is friggin' annoying, especially the way he whistles when some words are announced.

Money get away
Get a good job with more pay and you're ok
Money,it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hans and make a stash
new car,caviar,four star daydream
think i'll buy me a football team

money get away
i'm alright Jack keep your hands off my stack
money it's a hit
don't give me that do goody good bullshit
i'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set
and i think i need a Lear jet

money,it's a crime
share it fairly,but don't take a slice of my pie
money,so they say
is the root of all evil today
but if you ask for a rise it's no a surprise that they're giving none away

I hope this video gets spread far and wide.

Reposted from the previous thread:

At the end of the movie, Three Days of the Condor, Robert Redford tells Cliff Robertson that he (Redford) gave to the NY Times the story of how a renegade CIA officer conconcted a plot that led to the murder of seven or eight people. Robertson replied "How do you know they'll publish it?" Not unlike the media's love affair with Obama.

But we can't tell that 0bama said this because this is audio- we don't actually see this coming out of his mouth.

/JustMyView mode off

re: #2 arethusa

$400,000 now. Changed in 2001. Still aint enough for me.

This is what a leftist intellectual sounds like when they preach to the choir. Frightening

I sent it to Rush Limbaugh - I have the special "private" email for subscribers. Makes me special, doncha know.

If you spread that bullshit around you could cover an acre.

re: #23 willowone

Sadly, they are the ages of my parents in law.

i wish i knew how to snapshot things, save Videos. all these things that i should know.

re: #2 arethusa

So Obama will give up his 200K salary as President, then, right? I mean, it's only fair.

$400k.

Plus expenses.

re: #31 Sharmuta

You forgot "And know one cares anyway."

re: #34 ArmyWife

nice i sent to Levin, Hannity> O'Reilly anyone?

re: #32 rightside

$400,000 now. Changed in 2001. Still aint enough for me.

That's the spirit!

BTW, the President gets a $169K/year pension after leaving office. We'll be paying Obama long after he messes up the country for us.

No surprise here.

I would venture to guess alot of Obama voters would agree with the whole idea of 'redistribution of wealth' its what the whole punitive 'tax on the rich' / 'windfall profit tax' is all about.

I always wonder if Obama and Buffett are such big fans of the Government controlling the money why don't they give the IRS some extra checks every year?

re: #27 jetprop

0bama's voice is friggin' annoying, especially the way he whistles when some words are announced.

what's up w/ that?
is he wearing ill fitting dentures?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Tell me how redistributing wealth and "reparations" accomplishes any of the above?

re: #36 ArmyWife

I don't get it.

re: #25 Quilly Mammoth

Somebody screwed up, thank God.

Legislating the redistribution of wealth sure sounds like socialism to me. It is un-fricking-believable that this guy is possibly about to win POTUS.

Sometimes I think I am living in bizzarro world. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Channeling Jim Nabors as Gomer Pyle--Surprise Surprise Surprise!
Mainstream Media will not tell just like the LA Times- so what else is new? The Fifth estate took over the 4th estate (the media) and they may have won. Just keep repeating- Bradley effect Bradley effect!

Here's a tool for anyone who is afraid this will get 'scrubbed'

Just put in the url of the video and download it on your hard drive.

[Link: www.techcrunch.com...]

re: #44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Tell me how redistributing wealth and "reparations" accomplishes any of the above?

It doesn't, which is why it opens the Bill of NO Rights (Rights you don't have, in other words)

WHAT!?!?!

re: #45 willowone

Unless your children are in their mid to late 60s, they aren't your children's age. The ones I am talking about are my age (37, so think 35-40) and my parents in law, (60-70 age bracket).

Would not Obama's approach be stealing?

It certainly has no freedom in it.

I cannot believe that the citizens of this country would vote this man in.

He will wreck us by penalizing productivity and rewarding slack.

We will get less productivity and more slack.

Too bad McCain wouldn't mention this sort of thing.

Sam Zell, he's coming for you, boy. Release the video before it's too late.

re: #31 Sharmuta

Yea' but, you know,

How can you tell a Democrat is lying?

His/her lips are moving.

this is so damning.
he is a communist. plain and simple.
nothing abt. him suggests otherwise.
NOTHING.

re: #50 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, he's got to make back some of the billion dollars he spent to get there.

He needs to give half of his campaign cash to the McCain campaign.

Spread that wealth around!

I just buzzed this on Yahoo. I hope others will help it gain votes.

Scratch my comment in #51. I read it too fast.

re: #11 ArmyWife

No. He is the Grand Puba who doesn't HAVE to give up jack taco. See Chavez, Stalin, etc etc.

I think the common spelling is "Grand Poobah!"

re: #32 rightside

$400,000 now. Changed in 2001. Still aint enough for me.

I dunno, it's not much in NBA terms, but what would you have in mind? Remember, it includes meals, health care, and access to Camp David.

re: #40 willowone

nice i sent to Levin, Hannity> O'Reilly anyone?

They'll use it. This'll be on The O'Reilly Factor by Tuesday. And it'll cost Obama a full point in the polls at least.

re: #59 pablito

He needs to give half of his campaign cash to the McCain campaign.

Spread that wealth around!

It's "economic justice" doncha know.

re: #54 Ojoe

I think he knows, and is a saboteur.

re: #49 middlecon

ty, i really need to do this type of thing to help.
thanks for a skill.

Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of the “redistribution of wealth.”

But he's not a Socialist, 'cause Warren Buffet supports him.

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

One

Billion

Dollars

has been spent to put this man in the White House.

Chump change for the position...

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

(cursing) WHO is he selling out to, raising this amount of cash!

re: #41 arethusa

Hell, once you are elected to the house, you get a lifelong pension, IIRC. Two year term, and we pay for the rest of our lives.

And this man taught law? I can't get over his comment about the Constitution being restrictive of government.

Yeah, barry- that was the point. Government can't take away my guns. Government can't restrict my speech. Government can't make me testify against myself. Government can't deny my right to a trial by a jury of my peers. Government can't try me for the same crime twice. These are good things, moron!

And he's also wrong about what the government must do on my behalf. There is a duty which the government must do on my behalf- defend this country from enemies, enforce the law, and uphold the Constitution.

But I get you barry- damn that Constitution and it's remarkable ability to prevent marxism, eh?

What a genius Obama is! He's got it all figured out. Just take money from one person and give it to another. Such originality. I am sure no one has ever thought of THAT one before.

Sheesh...

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

One

Billion

Dollars

has been spent to put this man in the White House.

There is still a possibility that all that cash investment will have no return.

Holy shit!

Did he actually say the Warren court wasn't that radical because it "didn't break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers"?

Is that what I heard?

re: #65 Dark_Falcon
good deal.

I have it downloaded and saved, in case it gets removed.

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

One

Billion

Dollars

has been spent to put this man in the White House.

And how much of it came from - er - questionable Mideast sources via credit card?

re: #58 nyc redneck

this is so damning.
he is a communist. plain and simple.
nothing abt. him suggests otherwise.
NOTHING.

Like father, like son. His father's thoughts on economics read were much the same. Reds, both of them Reds.

re: #67 jaunte

I don't think he knows, I think he is monumentally stupid.

re: #43 nyc redneck

what's up w/ that?
is he wearing ill fitting dentures?

LOL.that or trying to sound intellectual, I presume..or it's that hypnotist thingy :-)

There are some typos that concern me, not the least of which is the use of "to" when "too" is mandated.

But, the whole is WONDERFUL.

re: #66 pablito

It's "economic justice" doncha know.

re: #76 Van Helsing

Holy shit!

Did he actually say the Warren court wasn't that radical because it "didn't break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers"?

Is that what I heard?

He and Michelle are going to wipe their arses with the Constitution.

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

One

Billion

Dollars

has been spent to put this man in the White House.

When you're fishing for big fish, you use big bait.

Can someone give me a link detailing Obama's lack of a security clearance?

re: #34 ArmyWife

I sent it to Rush Limbaugh - I have the special "private" email for subscribers. Makes me special, doncha know.

LOL!

re: #76 Van Helsing

Holy shit!

Did he actually say the Warren court wasn't that radical because it "didn't break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers"?

Is that what I heard?

Yes, that's what you heard.

re: #81 Ojoe

I hope your interpretation is right.

re: #73 Sharmuta

And this man taught law? I can't get over his comment about the Constitution being restrictive of government.

Yeah, barry- that was the point. Government can't take away my guns. Government can't restrict my speech. Government can't make me testify against myself. Government can't deny my right to a trial by a jury of my peers. Government can't try me for the same crime twice. These are good things, moron!

And he's also wrong about what the government must do on my behalf. There is a duty which the government must do on my behalf- defend this country from enemies, enforce the law, and uphold the Constitution.

But I get you barry- damn that Constitution and it's remarkable ability to prevent marxism, eh?

OK, this audio simply has to become part of the campaign.

Would someone who's a touch typist please transcribe?

44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Tell me how redistributing wealth and "reparations" accomplishes any of the above?

That's easy:

Redistributing wealth and "reparations" will establish "social justice", insure domestic Tranquility by forestalling rioting in the streets and promote underserved welfare, among other benefits.

//

re: #79 erisldysnomia

That is the 64,000,000 dollar question.

re: #86 TheMatrix31

Can someone give me a link detailing Obama's lack of a security clearance?

Not a requirement for being elected POTUS

It's like he doesn't get that our rights are unalienable and derived, not from the government, but from God.

He fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence!

re: #83 MandyManners

There are some typos that concern me, not the least of which is the use of "to" when "too" is mandated.

But, the whole is WONDERFUL.

Trivial shit but, it still bugs me. I'm not saying I'm perfect but, I don't put up an ad on YouTube.

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

One

Billion

Dollars

has been spent to put this man in the White House.

Soros can't be POTUS, so he's buying himself one.

You do know that he also plans on having those who make over $250,000 return the tax cuts that they received for the last eight years because it is only fair.

I sent to Drudge.

His reach, if he picks it up, is tremendous.

Saving for Greatness
by Luke Setzer

Your savings, believe it or not, affect the way you stand, the way you walk, the tone of your voice -- in short, your physical well-being and self-confidence. A man without savings is always running. He must. He must take the first job offered, or nearly so. He sits nervously on life’s chairs because any small emergency throws him into the hands of others.

Without savings, a man must be too grateful. Gratitude is a fine thing in its place. But a constant state of gratitude is a horrible place in which to live. A man with savings can walk tall. He may appraise opportunities in a relaxed way, have time for judicious estimates and not be rushed by economic necessity.

A man with savings can afford to resign from his job if his principles so dictate -- and for this reason he will never need to do so. A man who can afford to quit is much more useful to his company and therefore more readily promoted. He can afford to give his company the benefit of his most candid judgments.

A man with savings can afford the wonderful privilege of being generous in family or neighborhood emergencies. He can take the level stare of any man ... friend, stranger or enemy. That ability shapes his personality and character.

The ability to save has nothing to do with the size of income. Many high-income people spend it all. They are on a treadmill, darting through life like minnows.

The dean of American bankers, J.P. Morgan, once advised a young broker: "Take waste out of your spending; you’ll drive the haste out of your life."

If you do not need money for college, a home or retirement, then save for self-confidence. The state of your savings does have a lot to do with how tall you walk.

re: #59 pablito

He needs to give half of his campaign cash to the McCain campaign.

Spread that wealth around!

YES ! Social justice!

re: #94 Sharmuta

It's like he doesn't get that our rights are unalienable and derived, not from the government, but from God.

He fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence!

For the One Government IS G-d.

To that insipid little tune,

"Barak is going to bleed us..."

re: #88 Charles

I find it hard not to let loose a string of curse words on hearing that...

re: #94 Sharmuta

It's like he doesn't get that our rights are unalienable and derived, not from the government, but from God.

He fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence!

He might understand it but, HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT.

I want my constitutionally enumerated negative rights upheld by the courts of economic justice. It is only fair.

/sarc

re: #85 razorbacker

When you're fishing for big fish, you use big bait.

Then the Dems are certainly fishing for a master fish.
;)

re: #28 MarkX

Pink Floyd?

re: #98 Syrah

He'll only cover it if you carve a backwards B in your face.

re: #58 nyc redneck

this is so damning.
he is a communist. plain and simple.
nothing abt. him suggests otherwise.
NOTHING.

Yes.
Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection
[Link: www.usasurvival.org...]
Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection
[Link: www.usasurvival.org...]

re: #93 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nope. Its automatic when in that position - even if he couldn't get one if he applied to be a janitor as NSA.

ok, it's downloading, now i'll have to learn how to retrieve it.

re: #101 FurryOldGuyJeans

There is much idolatry swirling around the Obama "phenomenon".

re: #86 TheMatrix31

Can someone give me a link detailing Obama's lack of a security clearance?

I think I've heard before that elected officials don't have to be approved for security clearances?

Anyone know who originally posted this at YouTube ?

'Cause you can be sure, as in Joe the Plumber, they're going to be toast.

Obama said,

"Generally the Constitution is a Charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do to you, it says what the Federal Government can't do to you.."

I disagree with Obama's very pessimistic view of the US Constitution. It is not by any stretch a charter of negative liberties. Sod off swampy.

Let's make this go viral.

re: #113 Ojoe

There is much idolatry swirling around the Obama "phenomenon".

Obama is the Messiah, after all.

Truly shocking. A major candidate for President fails to understand the point of the Constitution was to limit the power government had over We the People.

If he wins and raises the taxes I ain't paying- come and get me! Have most of the nation join in and watch the laws change retroactively! Get impeachment proceedings ready for him.

Under Obamunism, the only question is it there will be blood or there may be blood. Only Obamunist Democrats believe the may part. They are fantasist's.

re: #71 Ojoe

The point of militant socialism is to ruin the country. THEN to reshape it in the fashion they want. Google the Cloward-Piven Strategy for details (for one, as posted on American Thinker).

re: #94 Sharmuta

It's like he doesn't get that our rights are unalienable and derived, not from the government, but from God.

He fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence!

He was saying it like was a bad thing that the Constitution defined what the Government wasn't supposed to do to you.

I knew he was a commie rat bastard, but this is just... enough. Too much. I hope I hear a lot about this tomorrow.
Sure as hell I'll be talking about it.

re: #93 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Not a requirement for being elected POTUS

Whoops. I read too fast and read POS. :D

A brilliant find.

This might just do it.

So, if the dems take the house and the senate and the WH, then, the change in legislation that Barry Hussein favours over using the courts will be a piece of cake...

But, but, but, I was only eight years old when Ayers was doing those awful things and besides, I thought he had been rehabilitated

re: #93 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Not a requirement for being elected POTUS

Yes, I know. It's for a personal argument. I figure you guys would be able to help me out. Here's what the guy said:

---

@ Matrix: if Obama were really a person with proven clear ill intent towards the United States, I'd doubt the FBI and/or Secret Service would let him anywhere near the Capitol Building when he went to report to work every day. Security in national government buildings in DC has tightened considerably since 9/11, and I'd doubt they'd let someone with strong ties to terrorism walk in and out of any major executive building unchecked, let alone work as a United States senator in the Capitol building. Beyond that though, a hypothetical question: suppose Obama is elected. What are the consequences of that, in your honest opinion, specifically with regard to the things you've been posting?

re: #115 erisldysnomia

Anyone know who originally posted this at YouTube ?

'Cause you can be sure, as in Joe the Plumber, they're going to be toast.

Will YouTube yank it?

I thought that he only had 100+ days as senator. This interview from 2001 has him as a senator 8 years ago. What gives?

re: #117 MandyManners

ace of spades maybe?

re: #119 Sharmuta

Truly shocking. A major candidate for President fails to understand the point of the Constitution was to limit the power government had over We the People.

I doubt that he fails to understand the point, he just wants to change it.

re: #81 Ojoe

He knows, Ojoe.

re: #103 Iron Fist

Look at it this way: Obama's spending cash like it was water, he's got the Media fully behind him, and this should be a Democratic year, and still Obama can't close the deal. If the election were even remotely fairly reported Obama wouldn't stand a chance. If he wins, it'll be because he successfully hid his real agenda.

Truly true, and truly amazing.

re: #55 Eeyore Trout

Too bad McCain wouldn't mention this sort of thing.

What if he does?

This is the bit that jumped out at me:

...and 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. 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.

Translation: you're too stupid to know how to take care of yourself, so we're going to do it for you. Whether you like it or not.

re: #116 Mich-again

Obama said,

I disagree with Obama's very pessimistic view of the US Constitution. It is not by any stretch a charter of negative liberties. Sod off swampy.

Pessimistic?!? The negative liberties were the whole idea! America's major fight for the past 200+years has been to try and keep it that way!

re: #76 Van Helsing

Gee, kinda hard not to get the impression that he doesn't like the Constitution.

re: #110 Kreuzueber Halbmond

I can understand Communism in Hawaii. Before Capt. Cook, there was a King, and the King owned everything, even your own person. if you owned something it was because the King allowed it.

Not that far removed from Communism, when you ponder it a bit.

re: #133 Racer X

What if he does?

He might win the election.

re: #124 vxbush

Whoops. I read too fast and read POS. :D

Also accurate in Barry's case

I don't see the video. Anyone else?

re: #127 MandyManners

Will YouTube yank it?

If they do, I think enough people have archived it and will put it on available servers.

re: #127 MandyManners

Will YouTube yank it?

I've got it saved and ready to repost at YouTube and many other numerous sites if that happens.

re: #128 swamprat

I thought that he only had 100+ days as senator. This interview from 2001 has him as a senator 8 years ago. What gives?

State Senator

re: #2 arethusa

So Obama will give up his 200K salary as President, then, right? I mean, it's only fair.

$400K now...

re: #140 SeafoodGumbo

I don't see the video. Anyone else?

it's a radio show

Wow. I listened to two minutes of that interview.
I never have heard such a barrage of closely spaced buzzwords
in my life.

re: #128 swamprat

I thought that he only had 100+ days as senator. This interview from 2001 has him as a senator 8 years ago. What gives?

State of Ill. senate.

re: #128 swamprat

I thought that he only had 100+ days as senator. This interview from 2001 has him as a senator 8 years ago. What gives?

That may be his term as ILL Senator, not U.S. Senator.

re: #128 swamprat

I thought that he only had 100+ days as senator. This interview from 2001 has him as a senator 8 years ago. What gives?

He was an Illinois state senator before being elected to the US Senate in 2004.

obama is literally trying to buy the presidency. he is in all the swing states boring the hell out of people w/ 24/7 propaganda.
that could back fire on him big time. just imagine hearing his bs night and day non stop.

re: #117 MandyManners

Let's make this go viral.

The virus isn't the video though, it's Obama. < Agent Smith > Barack Obama is a disease. And we... are the cure. < /Agent Smith >

re: #116 Mich-again

Obama said,

"Generally the Constitution is a Charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do to you, it says what the Federal Government can't do to you.."

I disagree with Obama's very pessimistic view of the US Constitution. It is not by any stretch a charter of negative liberties. Sod off swampy.

No- he's right. It is negative liberties on the government- but that's exactly what it was supposed to be! Limiting the power the government had on the liberties of the people. His problem is that it limits the government's powers, which makes it harder to impose marxist ideology.

I think he not only misunderstands the Constitution, he hates it.

re: #140 SeafoodGumbo

I don't see the video. Anyone else?

It is a recording of a radio broadcast. Did you hear it?

No wonder they have encouraged early voting.

Why is it that I don't think all the billionaires around Obama will be redistributing their wealth?

This audio apparently has been on the website for a while. What happened to opposition research?

re: #94 Sharmuta

It's like he doesn't get that our rights are unalienable and derived, not from the government, but from God.

He fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence!

But. But. Hasn't he been told he is God?

How's this YouTube piece doing on the social networking sites?

re: #119 Sharmuta

Truly shocking. A major candidate for President fails to understand the point of the Constitution was to limit the power government had over We the People.

Shocking? The American people think that they're (we're) too well insulated to get a shock.

Experience is a harsh teacher, but effective.

re: #156 Soona'

But. But. Hasn't he been told he is God?

No, Government is God, He is the Messiah.

re: #117 MandyManners

Let's make this go viral.

Yes- Lizards- give this post a Buzz at yahoo and use the "Share This" feature.

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Too bad McCain wouldn't mention this sort of thing.

Uh, he's been mentioning it all over the place. In fact, a member of the Kansas City Star editorial board decided he didn't like it, so he announced that socialism is a code word for black.

I heard this somewhere, once before. Nevertheless, it will never make the MSM.

What bothers me is that this is going to be a close election.

It. Should. Not. Be. Close.

Doesn't ANYONE (other than a Lizard) understand our Constitution anymore?

re: #127 MandyManners

Will YouTube yank it?

Let them. I have it downloading now and I'll re-up it if they take it down, with full credit to the original author of course.

re: #99 gmsc

Thank you .I am sending a copy to my son, who never met a dime he didn't want to spend.

re: #153 Sharmuta

That won't stop him from swearing to uphold it.
Not for a minute.

This is looking less like an election and more like a media led coup de tat with an aim towards sizing power and doing away with the constitution as we know it.

re: #147 Jimash

Wow. I listened to two minutes of that interview.
I never have heard such a barrage of closely spaced buzzwords
in my life.

I listened to it a second time and it scared the shit out of me (and my wallet).

Mom always said "don't play ball in the house."

(Obscure Brady Bunch reference)

re: #127 MandyManners

Will YouTube yank it?

No, there is nothing to object to in this. They may review it, but I would expect them to leave it up.

re: #146 erisldysnomia

re: #154 Syrah

Thanks. I do now. The sound was off.

re: #76 Van Helsing

Holy shit!

Did he actually say the Warren court wasn't that radical because it "didn't break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers"?

Is that what I heard?

Destroy the Constitution then rape the Nation to fulfill a twisted sense of social justice doesn't exactly build bridges unless the primary building materials are matches, kerosene and TNT. Barak Obama thinks the ends justifies the means.

This audio was scrubbed from wbez website I believe ...when I was looking around some time ago I saw an audio of Ayers and another professor on the wbez website in the archives of google ...there was one of Senator Government but it was taken out of the archives ... wonder how this person got the audio ... there must be some in Chicago who do not want this guy elected ...now if only they would come up with more ...here is where it was and you cannot access it now ...

[Link: web.archive.org...]

re: #108 poopeedoo

check

re: #135 gmsc

The BOR is concerned with that but in there it doesn't distinguish what the things the States can't do to you as opposed to what the Feds can't do to you. Your rights are inalienable. Its not as if some can be violated by the Feds and others only by the States. Thats my point. And BTW, the bulk of the Constitution was concerned with the sharing of power between the States and the Federal Government.

And it was summed up in the 10th amendment which says..

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I think that is what Obama was confused about trying to inject the 10th amendment into the civil rights discussion.

Obama desires a USSA-United Socialist States of America.

"Mr. Obama, tear down these walls."

Read this for an upper!

SNIP:

I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV. She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia–and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa.

She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was “worth a bucket of warm piss”.

I'm going to flog this link again, to Stanley Kurtz' fine piece on Obama's early political career. It helps illuminate some of the themes dramatized in this tape.

Kurtz:
"Obama's overarching political program can be described as "incremental radicalism."
...
"Fundamentally, he is a big-government redistributionist who wants above all to aid the poor, particularly the African-American poor. Obama is eager to do so both through race-specific programs and through broad-based social-welfare legislation. "Living wage" legislation may be economically counterproductive, and Obama-backed housing experiments may have ended disastrously, yet Obama is committed to large-scale government solutions to the problem of poverty. Obama's early campaigns are filled with declarations of his sense of mission-a mission rooted in his community organizing days and manifest in his early legislative battles."

[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

O/T to a minor degree, but did anyone see MTP this morning and come away with the feeling that Tom Brokaw is really going to vote for McCain?
There was just something about the end of the interview, a tone... it made me feel as if he was pulling for him.
So not NBC of him, and he was careful not to let it show, he thought... but in the middle of the palpable bias of his colleagues, there was just something different about the way he approached McCain.

Maybe its just me, but when I hear the words 'repairative' and 'distributive' the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

re: #159 FurryOldGuyJeans

No, Government is God, He is the Messiah.

That's right. How unwashed of me.

re: #142 gmsc

How do you save it?

re: #170 oh_dude

Mom always said "don't play ball in the house."

(Obscure Brady Bunch reference)

Brady Bunch reference . . . YES
Obscure . . . NO

Sooo... can anyone verify the actual turnout at the Ø gathering in CO today? Was it ONLY 100,000 as claimed by the MSM (ABC Radio)? Surely it MUST have been at least 2x 3x that. My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, though I won't do a spit take when I hear the real count - I'll probably weep instead.

re: #153 Sharmuta

No- he's right. It is negative liberties on the government- but that's exactly what it was supposed to be! Limiting the power the government had on the liberties of the people. His problem is that it limits the government's powers, which makes it harder to impose marxist ideology.

I think he not only misunderstands the Constitution, he hates it.

Could he hate a "living and breathing "document?

re: #143 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #149 FurryOldGuyJeans

re: #150 talon_262

re: #143 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

ok! Thanks, guys.

This is the #1 video on Breitbart right now

re: #178 Typicalwhitey

I'll just ignore all polls, thank you very much. Why waste skull sweat trying to refine dross and dreck? :)

re: #109 Killgore Trout

He'll only cover it if you carve a backwards B in your face.

Cheer up Kilgore.

There will be plenty of time for long faced hopelessness after the riots, recounts and lawsuits.

re: #181 MrPaulRevere

Maybe its just me, but when I hear the words 'repairative' and 'distributive' the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

No. No, it's not just you.

Social justice should do it for you, too.

re: #186 n in wi

Could he hate a "living and breathing "document?

Why not? He hates living and breathing babies from botched abortions.

Put a McCain/Palin 08 sign on your front lawn.

re: #38 itellu3times

$400k.

Plus expenses.

And a really cool jet.

re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

...And eff all you zombie Obamunists too!

TRANSCRIPT:

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

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 vest formal rights 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 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. And to that extent as radical as 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m 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. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Punished with a baby government whose powers are restricted.

Abortion!

Finally at LGF.

he starts by talking about how the success of the civil rights movement did not go to the extent of addressing economic injustice. when he and the caller start talking about legislation to address reparative issues, I believe they mean reparations for African-Americans, and not so much as a socialism-for-all mindset that he seems to be pursuing now. in either case its wrong, just an observation.

Gerardo is panicking on FoxNews right this minute over our attack on a Syrian village. He is calling it a serious international crises.

Just notice all the things from the preamble to the Constitution that he is ignoring:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Items in bold are things that Mr. Constitutional Law Lecturer is clearly ignoring. It comes from the people, not the courts. The actions described in the document are so determined by the people to create a better union, establish justice, etc. The common defense is handled by the government. The welfare of which it speaks is a general welfare, not a redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots.

It's amazing how he can read the same document as us and come up with diametrically opposite views. But then again, he wants to ignore this document.

re: #195 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And a really cool jet.

Soon to be renamed Air Force The One!

re: #202 doriangrey

Please.

re: #186 n in wi

'Living breathing ' is moonbat speak for ' creeping and encroaching '.

re: #198 Alouette

Did you transcribe that yourself or do you have a link?

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time; I'd read The Fountainhead in college.

Here's an excerpt from the part I read today (Ivy Starnes is explaining her "enlightened" business philosophy to a suitably appalled Dagny Taggart):

Our plan? We put into practice that noble historical precept: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Everybody in the factory from charwomen to president, received the same salary–the barest minimum necessary. Twice a year, we all gathered in a mass meeting, where every person presented his claim for what he believed to be his needs. We voted on every claim, and the will of the majority established every person’s need and every person’s ability. The income of the factory was distributed accordingly. Rewards were based on need, and the penalties on ability. Those whose needs were voted to be the greatest, received the most. Those who had not produced as much as the vote said they could, were fined and had to pay the fines by working overtime without pay. That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love of their brothers.

Book is 51 years old. Rand had Socialism's number, way back then.

...and the novel is kind of...hot...in places. Wasn't expecting that; maybe if I'd read it in college I would have overcome my liberalism sooner.

re: #183 sngnsgt

How do you save it?

I'm on a Mac, so I used Tube TV.

If you're on Windows, try Ares Tube.

re: #153 Sharmuta

I get the part about negative liberties, I was pointing out how the words..

It says what the States can't do to you, it says what the Federal Government can't do to you.."

And I don't see the Constitution quite like that. That leads one to believe that certain individual rights are State-granted and others are Federally granted. That misses the whole point. Your rights are inalienable. Neither the State Government nor the Federal Government granted them to you.

re: #204 arethusa

I heard "Air Peace by The One". Force is so...agressive.

/

re: #202 doriangrey

Gerardo is panicking on FoxNews right this minute over our attack on a Syrian village. He is calling it a serious international crises.

For him if he loses bowel control that is a serious international crisis.

re: #119 Sharmuta

Truly shocking. A major candidate for President fails to understand the point of the Constitution was to limit the power government had over We the People.

Oh, he understands. That's why it has to go.

re: #207 Syrah

Did you transcribe that yourself or do you have a link?

Transcribed here

re: #208 Palandine

I've re-read those recently myself.
Prescient, wasn't she?

re: #205 ArmyWife

Please.

You do know what I am talking about right?

re: #202 doriangrey

Gerardo is panicking on FoxNews right this minute over our attack on a Syrian village. He is calling it a serious international crises.

Maybe the prophetic Joe Biden was a few moths early on his prediction. I did mark his words.

re: #56 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Sam Zell, he's coming for you, boy. Release the video before it's too late.

I wonder if Sam Zell is in on the con, along with George Soros. Maybe Obama promised these multibillionaires that their wealth wouldn't be confiscated. They aren't the "little people" so they don't have to worry. In fact, they think they'll get richer and more powerful.

re: #214 Alouette

Transcribed here

Thanks.

re: #198 Alouette
wow

OBAMA: Maybe I’m 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. The institution just isn’t structured that way

So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts

re: #131 wolfie

I don't want to think anyone could be that bad.

Though I'm but a mere college student, I plan to be successful once I'm done here, and God willing maybe even earn more than the magical $250k/year (gasp).

I intend to do this on my own merits and without any gummint aid. And when I do, I fully intend to enjoy the fruits of my labors.

Maybe that sounds boastful or haughty-but it's not supposed to be. What I'm trying to say is, when I hear "Redistribution of Wealth" all I can see it as is "Redistribution of my Potential."

I don't know how so many of my peers could see it otherwise, particularly any of those with drive or ambition. I guess my parents just raised me well.

re: #202 doriangrey

Gerardo is panicking on FoxNews right this minute over our attack on a Syrian village. He is calling it a serious international crises.

The prolonged existance of Geraldo truly is a serious intergalactic crisis.

re: #169 Racer X

I listened to it a second time and it scared the shit out of me (and my wallet).

Fortunately I am used to not having any money.
But after hearing Senator Obama's words, I actually fear for my "stuff".
You can scoff, but I like my stuff.

The point about the negative rights creating a wide vista of liberty as
opposed to a delineation of rights that lock you in a box, works for me.
Thank you Buzz, etc.

Radical Economic Change and Halloween is on Friday...Fright Night!

Jeez, I crack open the laptop tonight.. "let's see what's going on in the world". Right there on the front page of LGF is my worst nightmare. A quote from a guy who isn't just ignorant, or naive.. a guy who has the background to know the complexities of the question of The Wealth of Nations. And he does not believe in it. And he has the law background to put it into the proper context in the American judicial history. And, who is being carried by the msm mosh pit to the presidency. And if he makes it to the stage, he will stand there along side Pelosi and Reid - all three branches. All old enough to know better, and all willing to do what they'll do anyways.

I hope everyone in the swing states watch the Obama channel. And I hope they understand how insane it all is.

re: #198 Alouette

TRANSCRIPT:

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

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 vest formal rights 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 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. And to that extent as radical as 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m 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. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Reading it makes it even more scary.

My thinking is he is not going after the usual redistribution of wealth, he is going after reparations for the blacks. And it just so happens that we have a Treasury Secretary sitting on a $700 billion bag of money, that is looking for a home. Lots of hands grasping at it... who will win?

The Manchurian Community Organizer.

re: #222 FortunateSon

Actually you want the magic 125K as long as it's just you. The 250K number, I believe, is for couples filing jointly.

re: #202 doriangrey

Gerardo is panicking on FoxNews right this minute over our attack on a Syrian village. He is calling it a serious international crises.

Oh noes!

This is what Joe Biden was warning us about!

_{Like anyone gives a rats ass about Syria.}

Why do the President (and Congress for that matter) get paid at all. Hell, they all leave office with a thousand times more than when they got there. And most of 'em have money when they get there.

re: #210 Mich-again

That's why I said he fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence. He fails to understand the very reasons why this country was founded.

re: #217 n in wi

Maybe the prophetic Joe Biden was a few moths early on his prediction. I did mark his words.

months,not moths

re: #218 Promethea

I wonder if Sam Zell is in on the con, along with George Soros. Maybe Obama promised these multibillionaires that their wealth wouldn't be confiscated. They aren't the "little people" so they don't have to worry. In fact, they think they'll get richer and more powerful.

Soros

In the same vein as the topic, try this article: We Don’t Need Another War on Poverty. It's good refutation of Obama's animating principles.

re: #216 doriangrey

yep! as in "Oh, please, Geraldo. This is SO not an international crisis".

How do I know? My husband is still downstairs - not on post taking care of bizz- ness, not packing, but surfing the net.

re: #212 FurryOldGuyJeans

For him if he loses bowel control that is a serious international crisis.

Well, this could very well be Bush's October surprise to Obama. A Bay of Tonkin into Iran as it were.

re: #236 n in wi

"months,not moths"

I was enjoying a mental image of Biden in a Silence of the Lambs poster.

re: #234 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Why do the President (and Congress for that matter) get paid at all. Hell, they all leave office with a thousand times more than when they got there. And most of 'em have money when they get there.

It's in the Constitution that they will be compensated. They are, of course, allowed to waive that compensation anytime they wish, but they don't.

re: #208 Palandine

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time; I'd read The Fountainhead in college.

Here's an excerpt from the part I read today (Ivy Starnes is explaining her "enlightened" business philosophy to a suitably appalled Dagny Taggart):

Our plan? We put into practice that noble historical precept: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Everybody in the factory from charwomen to president, received the same salary–the barest minimum necessary. Twice a year, we all gathered in a mass meeting, where every person presented his claim for what he believed to be his needs. We voted on every claim, and the will of the majority established every person’s need and every person’s ability. The income of the factory was distributed accordingly. Rewards were based on need, and the penalties on ability. Those whose needs were voted to be the greatest, received the most. Those who had not produced as much as the vote said they could, were fined and had to pay the fines by working overtime without pay. That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love of their brothers.

Book is 51 years old. Rand had Socialism's number, way back then.

...and the novel is kind of...hot...in places. Wasn't expecting that; maybe if I'd read it in college I would have overcome my liberalism sooner.

A couple of videos and audios you might enjoy:
Anthem (audio reading of a shorter work with a similar theme, also by Ayn Rand)
"This is John Galt speaking...": This is a series of videos of John Galt's speech at the climax of the book. You might want to save this for later, so as not to spoil your enjoyment of Atlas Shrugged.

re: #202 doriangrey

Everything is a major crisis to Geraldo. He's pissed that hurricane season is over.

re: #153 Sharmuta

No- he's right. It is negative liberties on the government- but that's exactly what it was supposed to be! Limiting the power the government had on the liberties of the people. His problem is that it limits the government's powers, which makes it harder to impose marxist ideology.

I think he not only misunderstands the Constitution, he hates it.

You are EXACTLY right, on all of your points tonight Sharmuta. You get it - let's trust that there are enough of us out here that also get it!

We the People will not go quietly !

re: #229 Dasher

Something is saying "You are not it, ArmyWife"

re: #234 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Why do the President (and Congress for that matter) get paid at all. Hell, they all leave office with a thousand times more than when they got there. And most of 'em have money when they get there.

I read somewhere that Pelosi plans to pass a Congressional pay raise after the election. (As well as a host of other needless things.)

re: #5 ArmyWife

My Liberal friends are totally okay with this. Products of the government schrool monopoly.

Fred

re: #233 Racer X

Oh noes!

This is what Joe Biden was warning us about!

_{Like anyone gives a rats ass about Syria.}

Israel does. . . psss, fellow Jews, do you REALLY want to pretend that the one will be a friend to Eretz Israel?

Wake the hell UP!

that caller "Karen" sounds like a plant to me. too rehearsed and a softball question.

Spread this around the Internet, folks. It's why we have the ShareThis button. Post it to every social networking site you can.

It's important. This is our last chance to prevent America from making a really really bad decision.

re: #215 Van Helsing

Are you the same Van Helsing who runs the 'moonbattery' site? If so you do great work.

re: #237 buzzsawmonkey

Bounty is paid for left front foreleg only.

No, then we might end paying them welfare for their disability. For the men, let's take their balls. If they riot for Obama, they shouldn't be reproducing.

re: #236 n in wi

months,not moths

With Biden anything he says tends to draw flies so why not a few moths? ;)

You guys might have to translate the transcript into "understandable terms" for those who are our "targets" for this video. Many of them have no reading comprehension ability.

re: #252 Charles

On my site, sent to friends, shared with FB.

re: #235 Sharmuta

That's why I said he fails to understand the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence. He fails to understand the very reasons why this country was founded.

Hi Sharmuta, hope you're doing well. It seems now like he understands it, and still thinks it's Wrong, All Wrong. He says "reinterpretation" - that doesn't mean we were interpreting it wrong the whole time.. it means he wants to use maneuvering and bullying to have the interpretation changed.

Ooh you did make this a topic! I hope the media is forced to whitewash this too.

re: #229 Dasher

Conyers will put the Slavery Reparations bill up for a vote this coming session, just like he does every session. This time may be the magic BB.

re: #223 Quad Mocha Matti

If geraldo did not exist, we would have to invent him. Personally, I watch him every chance I get. ...Like the reporters who would follow Gerald Ford around, waiting for another pratfall. He is sincere, and fun, but he's no Bucky Fuller!

re: #239 Dark_Falcon

In the same vein as the topic, try this article: We Don’t Need Another War on Poverty. It's good refutation of Obama's animating principles.

CORRECTION: "We Don't Need Another War On PROSPERITY"

re: #41 arethusa

That's the spirit!

BTW, the President gets a $169K/year pension after leaving office. We'll be paying Obama long after he messes up the country for us.

Hey, the country could always go broke and not have the $169K/year.

re: #252 Charles

I've emailed it to every blog I read and Drudge.

re: #208 Palandine

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time; I'd read The Fountainhead in college.

Watch out for that stuff, it'll put hair on your palms.

But yeah, there is nothing new under the sun.

re: #251 alien_mind

that caller "Karen" sounds like a plant to me. too rehearsed and a softball question.

Nah, just a typical public radio listener, a sycophant.

re: #43 nyc redneck

what's up w/ that?
is he wearing ill fitting dentures?

If he were he would be following the footsteps of a great American President (George Washington).
George and he have nothing in common.
Not service to the nation (Washington served our nation in uniform during a time of peril, Obama accuses our military of atrocities while they are confronting the enemy on the battle field).
Not in who his associates are (George Washington's asoociates were Thomas Jefferson, Adams, Ben Franklyn... Obama's associates are Ayers, Wright and various other terrorists and racists).
Not resisting our enemies foreign and domestic.
Not believing in the principle of the sanctity of private property.
and not especially honesty (George Washington was known for his honesty... need we continue?)
NOTHING.