October 27, 2008

Latest Pajamas Media Column (‘Obama’s Redistributionist Obsession’) Is Up

Filed under: Economy,MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:40 am

It’s here.

It’s important.

It relates to this bombshell video from 2001 of Obama revealing, among other things, that redistribution of income and wealth is his most important core value — “more basic” than the human rights in our Constitution.

I am intensely grateful to PJM for getting the column posted virtually instantly.

Also: Even if you don’t go to the column, don’t miss this vid of Obama mentor Father Michael Pfleger telling whites that they have to give up their “401 funds” as reparations.


UPDATE: Other related SOBer posts — Freedom’s Right, Darke Blog, Maggie Thurber, Keane Observations, Andy’s Angle.

UPDATE 2: Busted myth of the day — Hillary Clinton’s vaunted opposition research. How could her peeps not find this interview in the space of over a year?

UPDATE 3: Other bloggers on this — Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Vinny at Ace’s Place, Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt’s Place, Bill Whittle at National Review, Powerline, and a much longer list at Memeorandum.

UPDATE 4: Rush’s point today is totally on — “I don’t see how Obama can take the oath of office.” He’s totally antagonistic towards the Constitution he would be swearing an oath to uphold.

UPDATE 5: Bill Whittle rips the media –

I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

….. Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.



  1. This morning at work, I send the link about Obama’s radio interview to seven different people I know, four of whom are in my office. Sorry to say that no one cares! They actually laughed at me! And half of these are people who voted for Bush four years ago!

    This Obama interview means something to we conservatives. But I’m afraid we’re not in the majority on this. Most people have made up their minds and they’re not listening anymore.

    One guy said to me, “Oh, you right-wingers are always crying wolf about something. What are you gonna call Obama next, a Nazi?”

    It’s depressing. Look at the polls, even in places like Virginia and North Carolina. Not to mention Ohio and Florida. I have to be a realist here. I knew this would happen as soon as we nominated McCain instead of a real conservative.

    I think McCain’s goose is cooked. No matter what we do.

    How can anyone think that McCain has a ghost of a chance anymore? Sad to say, it’s over.

    Comment by Jimmy Cap — October 27, 2008 @ 10:45 am

  2. #1, not buying it:
    - Battleground is at 3 points.
    - IBD/TIPP is at 3.2.

    If only 2% are either Bradley effect or lying to the 80% Obama-supporting poll workers to avoid antagonism, it flips (4% swing).

    Even if you buy the fact that he’s ahead nationally, which I don’t, I think Obama’s Electoral College situation is such that he could get more total votes by winning certain states in lopsided fashion, yet lose the EV, maybe even significantly — proving once again the genius of the Founding Fathers he so despises. For presidential election purposes, we are a confederation of states, not a group of people.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 27, 2008 @ 11:52 am

  3. #2, exactly. The “swing” (idiot) voters may not care much about life, liberty & pursuit of happiness let alone the Constitution…
    but don’t even think mess with their 401k!

    Comment by Rose — October 27, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

  4. Jimmy Cap, McCain will win NC. Talk otherwise is foolish.

    Comment by Ben Keeler — October 27, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

  5. Jim, this comment from Pajamas is appropriate, since you deigned to post the same comment there — twice, and to e-mail me and post here:

    “Hey JimCap: if you are going to troll at least remember how many times you have posted the exact same troll message.”

    Comment by TBlumer — October 27, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

  6. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in property rights, it’s clear from this tape.

    If it wasn’t clear before.

    Comment by Mark McNally — October 27, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

  7. [...] BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’Obama’s Redistributionist Obsession’) Is Up [...]

    Pingback by Scroll For Updates: Video: In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” t — October 27, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

  8. Tom, when did you become concerned about redistribution of wealth? Way back on September 4th, we discussed Sarah Palin’s major redistribution, and it didn’t seem to bother you in the least. Please read comments 13-15 here:

    Comment by Tony B. — October 27, 2008 @ 9:29 pm

  9. That is as weak an argument as you’ve ever made. The government made a surprise surplus due to oil and gave people their money back on a capitated basis instead of hoarding or wasting it as most states do.

    Don’t bother responding unless you have something substantive.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 27, 2008 @ 11:02 pm

  10. Tom,

    Palin signed into law a windfall tax that took money from oil company stockholders, most not residents of Alaska, and cut $1,200 checks to every resident of Alaska, most not stockholders. 7 Palins and 670,000 other Alaskans now participate in this redistribution of wealth. Why aren’t you screaming “socialism!?”

    Comment by Tony B. — October 27, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

  11. It was NOT a windfall tax, it was royalties based on oil extracted.

    That moose doesn’t hunt.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 12:46 am

  12. If it isn’t a windfall tax, how did the receipts grow to exceed Governor Palin’s expectations to such an extent that she had $1200 per resident to either, 1) give back to the rightful owners or 2) give away to Alaskans? It was a windfall generated by the steep increase in the price of oil. Palin signed this component into law and Palin distributed the spoils to her constituents and family. Look it up. I did.

    Comment by Tony B. — October 28, 2008 @ 12:58 am

  13. #11, LOL!

    Comment by Rose — October 28, 2008 @ 7:41 am

  14. Under your logic, any increase in economic activity or prices leading to more revenues for the government is a “windfall.” This is absurd, but to put a point on it, in OH in 2005 there was a surplus which the gov responded to by lowering the next year’s income tax. Same general idea, and a generally good thing. What’s the big problem? There’s nothing even in the neighborhood of socialism here, and whatever “argument” you thought you had is out of steam.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 8:32 am

  15. A smart fellow at the Cato Institute calls it correctly: “As Chris Edwards noted, Palin has a spotty record on tax issues, mentioning the windfall profits tax on oil companies and noting she’s offered only minor tax breaks.”



    Comment by Tony B. — October 28, 2008 @ 8:53 am

  16. #15, PJM comment 90 closes the argument:


    The money given to Alaska residents isn’t socialism and isn’t welfare. The oil belongs to those residents in the first place, not the oil companies, and they are being compensated for it. ….. The money paid to Alaska residents is generated by severance fees on the oil the lessees actually pump, as is done in many states, btw. That’s no different, really, from when oil companies drill on private, as opposed to public, land. They pay the owner of the mineral rights some kind of royalty or percentage fee based on the barrels pumped.

    The system of paying Alaska residents out of oil severance taxes has existed for decades. Gov. Palin didn’t start it, she just negotiated a better deal for Alaska residents.


    This is the last Palin-related comment. It’s off the topic, which is Obama, and redistributionism at the top of the ticket — unless you want to argue that Biden is less of a socialist than Palin. Isn’t it funny how Obama doesn’t even meassure up to Palin, let alone McCain?

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 9:33 am

  17. #15, you never listen, do you? Why should I listen to you any more?

    I guess from now on I’ll just have to figuratively hit you over the head instead of politely suggesting that an off-topic item that should really never have been started has been beaten to within an inch of its life. If that’s what it takes, that’s what I’ll do.

    On to other posts, please (or, I should say, d***it).

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 11:16 am

  18. Did you see this quote?

    A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”


    Comment by Phil — October 28, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.