Most of the major talk shows have been hitting this hard today but in case you missed it:
Now, in a bombshell audio interview just discovered buried in public radio's deepest vaults, solid evidence has emerged that Obama truly does believe in a socialistic redistribution of wealth.
This tape provides the smoking gun evidence of Obama's real political views that his critics have been seeking for well over a year.
The video, currently available on YouTube (at least until its pro-Obama censors remove it, that is). Obviously coming at a time before Obama was on a presidential political trajectory, the then-state senator is overt in his push for outright radical socialism, if not marxism.
During the interview, Obama and a caller discuss how to most effectively bring "redistributive change", telling her that the legislative process is more effective than the court system for creating economic "reparative work".
The radical rhetoric heard in this interview is in sharp contrast to the carefully-chosen words used on the campaign trail. It exposes Obama's true fringe-extremist agenda, but it's up to talk radio, blogs and outraged voters to spread the word.
Monday, October 27, 2008
2001 Interview with Barack Obama: He's A Communist!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It seems--if we are to believe the polls--that no matter the evidence against BHO, no one cares. It seems to make absolutely no difference. Someone today said, "America is starstruck!"
God help us.
America is and has been a very socialist country. Wasn't the World Trade Center built, financed, and run by a government entity? Isn't the current bailout and government takeover a prime example of central planning and operation by the government of private business?
I was in radio when the "fairness doctrine" was in place and have been since it was removed and I can tell you from PERSONAL experience, I like it much better now.
Why?
In 1980, on a top 40 MUSIC station, during the political season, we had a Democrat senator locally who ran a bunch of ads. We will take ANY money we can get in radio, so of course we played it.
We were then required not only to offer the opposition the same amount of time at the same price, which is fine, but we HAD to air his side whether he paid or not. SO, what happened was, we had to write an ad for the Republican who did not have to pay for that ad, because the "fairness doctrine" required it!
That is why it is a stupid and unnecessary evil.
The airwaves may be public, but the frequency that the radio station broadcasts on is NOT. My boss OWNS 1430 AM in this area, and as any good capitalist knows, if we do something or say something that ticks off our audience, they will go somewhere else.
That is FAIRNESS!
Air America has proven very clearly that "progressive" or liberal talk, is crap and NO ONE listens nor do advertisers want it.
That is how it should be, and if under and Obama administration, the "fairness doctrine" is brought back, you will have a ton of crappy radio and tv and this time, you won't be able to change the channel!
oops wrong comment on wrong post :)
Again, Bill, I agree with you on some of this. The fact that the other side doesn't have to pay is ridiculous. Maybe that should be part of the new stipulation if Obama reinstates it. That's just not good capitalism!!
And we could argue all day again about liberal or progressive talk radio, but the statistics clearly show that conservative listeners are less educated than their liberal counterparts. People love Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus because they think those guys share their views even though they have been discredited over and over with their lack of facts and distortion thereof. I always find it amusing that Limbaugh points his finger at the "elite", but doesn't owning a $23 million house put you in that category? From my experience, conservative listeners seem to be much more gullible than the other side. My conservative friends rarely question people like Rush and Hannity and that scares me! Air America is also boring! They don't scream and yell and interrupt each other nearly as much! I think if properly marketed, we could get stuck with many more Bill Maher's which would also bother me.
As for the airwaves, how can they be public and privately owned all at once? Aren't they leased by the government?
And we already have plenty of crappy radio and T.V!
Post a Comment