Oct 27 2008

O-Bomba Blows – His Inner Socialist Comes Out

Published by at 7:10 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Update: As of 7:20 PM Eastern this audio tape has had just under 1.5 million runs on YouTube – the message is getting out! – end update

Update from LJStrata – moving this back to the top post. Everyone must hear this radio show with BO in his own  voice.

A tape from 2001 exposes how marxist and socialistic Obama really is, to the point he believes the Constitution is wrong and is a barrier to the government seizure of assets and income for redistribution to those who did not take advantage of this country’s opportunities responsibly:

This is a devastating turn of events for Obama.

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “O-Bomba Blows – His Inner Socialist Comes Out”

  1. DJStrata says:

    People like the idea of having everything be equal but I heard an interesting story the other day. A man was at a restaurant and the waitress was wearing an Obama pin. When the man paid his bill he said I’m going to redistribute your tip to the homeless guy outside instead of giving it to you. And he did. I bet that was the last time she wore that pin to work. It may sound like a good idea to some but once they see their hard earned money slip away they won’t be in favor of it any longer. This idea of everyone being equal has become prominent because this country has become lazy. They think that they are entitled to everything rather than having to earn it. Take the redistribution of wealth or take the fact that Gov. Kaine (VA) is restoring voting rights to a record number of felons this year. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/kaine-restores-voting-rights-to-1500-felons-in-ele/

  2. Redteam says:

    in 1968, just before LBJ decided not to run for re-election, his people came up with a similar plan, it was to guarantee a minimum income for a family of 4 of $6800.00 per year. At the time I was making about $7000. I had my plans in to quit my job the day the bill passed, I figured I could easily make a couple thousand a year ‘under the table’ and that along with 6800, I could get a lot of free time to go fishing. Alas, the legislature recognized that a lot of people had similar plans so they killed the bill. I had to keep working. Seems Obama was only about 7 at the time, so he doesn’t remember it. Even then the Dems controlled the Pres and house and senate, but some of them must have at least had a brain back then, no evidence of that now.

    While I’m at it, let me say that for someone that is supposed to be polished and charismatic, Obama stutters and stammers much more(except when reading from teleprompter) than George Bush does. I guess they teach that at Harvard Law School.

  3. Terrye says:

    I don’t care what polls might say, most people do not want their income redistributed, maybe someone else’s, but not theirs.

    It is socialism. I think people should help people who need it. I think that is the humane and decent thing to do, but Obama scares me to death.

    I talked to a friend of mine today who said that some of the local deadbeats are planning on voting for Obama because he will send checks out to people. He has bought their votes for $300. Pathetic.

  4. bush_is_best says:

    You conservatives consistently forget something: not everyone in America is as mean spirited and selfish as you are.

    I want to hear ‘socialism’, but your ‘chosen one’ just nationalized the banks and put three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars into financial institutions that have spent the last decade being severely incompetent. You see the irony, right?

    Asking everyone to pay a little more in taxes when $0.18 of every tax dollar goes to interest payments, is, well, kinda reasonable…maybe?

    And trying to give the middle class a break to keep things rolling at the same time?

    If you don’t agree , those are fundamental beliefs that will never change and are perfectly ok. But to deny his altruism? Does he not care about people? To care about people less fortunate, is there not something at least a little honorable in that? and you reply with hate, hate and more hate?

    perhaps this opposition runs a little deeper than economic policies? hmmm…

    You all consider yourselves ‘Christians’ to one degree or another i assume. so you know, Jesus (Christ) then… where does he weigh in on the ‘parasite class’… where would he stand on helping out the bottom, not-as-fortunate-as-yourself class…

    vote for the grandpa, but be honorable and accurate in your assessment of your competitor. above all, in every sentence, be very very careful not to sound hateful. (HINT: It’s a losing strategy.)

  5. Birdalone says:

    CNN covered this tape at 6:00 p.m., and totally downplayed the importance with careful edit and a talking point…

    Redteam: your observation about the O’s stammering without a teleprompter? That is why he stopped doing those small events at factories. I figure he needs more nicotine. Whatever is wrong with Harvard Law School (so many choices), they actually do value articulate speech without notes.

  6. AJStrata says:


    I detect a clear note of fear in your lame attack …

  7. rayabacus says:

    And trying to give the middle class a break to keep things rolling at the same time?

    If you think the middle class is going to get a tax cut, go here and read this:


  8. breschau says:

    “This is a devastating turn of events for Obama.”

    Only if you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law, and/or have no comprehension skills. Lets hear from a law professor and a legal scholar about this, hmm?

    Ann Althouse: “If this alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason.”

    David Bernstein: “All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports “redistributive change,” a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.

    What I don’t understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge’s headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more “fairly” distributed than it is currently?

    It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.”

    It certainly is around here.

  9. bush_is_best says:

    AJ – If I was governed by ‘fear’ then I’d be a republican.

    I clearly am not. I just picked your group of right-wingers to debate/make fun of, until we see this thing through… plus I learn a bit by participating…

    I came here to learn more, but the focus of your commentary is more narrow than I imagined, being that the POTUS’s job is so complex and both candidates bring positives AND negatives.

    There is so much that you IGNORE, and that, well, is quite unrealistic considering whats going on ‘on the ground’

    It’s also mean spirited and bias to the point of reinforcing stereotypes and I find it amusing more than informative. If you took McCain more seriously, I’d take you more seriously… but bashing Obama, and anyone who disagrees with you, including fellow republicans, is, as far as ‘fear’ is concerned, quite telling. And its exactly what you should get in return.

    OBAMA is gonna win because this country deserves him after what conservatives have put it through. I’m gonna continue to try and get you and your readers, not to agree with me, but to merely ponder exactly why that is.

  10. robert c verdi says:

    People should get the chance to thrive, not be duped into a unsustainable economic system that benefits a few corporations, interest groups, and incumbent politicians, all paid for by you and me. You know BIB, in what way do Obama’s ethanol policies benefit the people. What about the carbon caps where energy companies get a back door tax pit in them and in turn transfer the cost onto us. A cost by the way that will be regressive in nature as the working and middle class fight to keep every penny. This doesn’t even factor in the general affluence and advancement we have seen over the past 30 years, how did it come about? IN 1980 Reagan and Thatcher began the hard fight away from the state, in that time period we have see the fall of the berlin wall to technology advances that boggle the mind. Coincidence? Do you increasing the marginal rate to 39%, with corresponding increases in capital gains, and increase in the gasoline tax, is some how the recipe to creating a wealthy society? And how long before all of our rates are increased as the shortfall grows?

  11. owl says:

    A few nights ago, Hannity asked Palin about Obama associating with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc. She came back with ‘I think a better question would be what do all these people see in Obama?”

    Reparations. Redistribution. They have all been working on this plan for years. Throw in Farrahkan with Rep Conyers, Maxine Waters.

    The best picture I have seen that shows what Obama really feels is the one with the flag, Hillary, Bill Richardson, Obama and someone else? They all have their hands over their hearts, except Obama. This was before he found it necessary to wear a flag pin and surround himself with flags.

    He really believes what is on this tape. He will have the Congress and the media to put it into action. Scary as hell.

  12. Terrye says:

    Obama has made a lot of promises and he has not even come close to explaining how he will keep them. I am not rich, I never will be. But I don’t want to lose my job because Obama forced some idiot draconian taxes on my employer.

    Everything you buy, from food to gas to clothing to health care will be effected by these kinds of policies and Obama just blows right past that. He does not even acknowledge the fact that small businesses will be hurt by his demand that they provide health care for people or pay fines.

    And what about that health care program of his that costs more than 800 billion? Is he going to pay for it by taxing the rich {as if he were not one himself} or by levying a new payroll tax like we already pay for social security? So far the details are not clear on this, just like so many other things.

    But if Obama gets people fired, kills the economy or slaps new payroll taxes on people they might wish they had been more aware of who he was earlier.

    So far he is promises, smoke and mirrors and attack ads.

  13. Terrye says:


    That is so dramatic. After what conservatives have put the country through. gag me. For one thing, the country is not starving, this is not the Great Depression, for another the Democrats have been there the whole damn time.

    In fac, the Democrats have been running Congress for two years. And what have they done other than harass Bush and blame him for everything from bad weather to their own stupidity?

    Imagine how different Bush’s time in office would have been if Clinton had killed Bin Laden a decade ago and resolved the stand off with Saddam. After all to hear the Democrats tell it there was nothing to worry about where Saddam was concerned, so why all the saber rattling and bombing of Iraq in the 90s? No, if the Democrats had taken care of the problem instead of dumping it on Bush there might well not have been a war.

    Add to that the mortgage meltdown. If the Democrats had not changed the rules in the 90’s in an effort to give housing to all sorts of people and if they had not used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy all those loans, there would not be a huge problem today.

    No 9/11, No war, no meltdown. So who put who through what?

    And no one is picking on Obama for Chrisake. That is so hysterical.

  14. Dc says:

    Does it surprise me/us that Obama is a far left leaning liberal and associates with same..who believe in such things? Hell no! Anybody who’s looked at his record or listened to him (prior) to this campaign would know that. The problem is….that’s not what he’s running on, nor is that his “message”, nor his stated plan …and he and his campaign deny that he ever did or meant or even said such things.

    His campaign claims any indications or quotes or etc..that suggest that Obama believes in far left liberal policies (such as those he has worked his entire career to foster and support, along with the myriad of people he now denies (like William Ayers), are simply distractions created by Fox news and the McCain campaign by taking those things out of context. And the reason for that is….he’d NEVER get elected president if he ran on them!

    But,…we know different don’t we. Obama denies the very horse he road in on….and says…that’s not my horse. And even if you had film of him riding it….interviews with him declaring it….he would deny it, call it a distraction, a misrepresentation, etc. But, I don’t think any of us have to worry about this…..Obama “will” win. Even if he has to use legal and procedural means to do so….as he has done so to win nearly every race (including the nomination) he’s ever been in.

  15. J.D. says:


    “Not everyone is mean-spirited and selfish as we are…”

    Study after study shows that conservatives and people of faith are far more generous than their liberal counterparts. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    While liberals on average make 6% more, conservatives give 30% more than liberals. In 2000, Gore gave .2% of his income to charity. Statistically, those who believe strongly in personal responsibility give 4x more than those who ascribe to the Robin Hood, take money from the rich to give to the poor, mentality. Ultimately, the difference comes from a religious vs. a secular worldview. Yes, we hated Christians give more.

    And you should be proud of the Obamas. They gave 1% of their income from 2000 to 2004, and upon entering the race for the presidency they raised their giving to a whopping 5%. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMxMDk1MDNlMjI2NTQwYmE5NjEwZTJkZTM2YjRiNzI=

    As for hate, the criticism on this board leveled toward the policies Obama is proposing is legitimate debate. Occasionally someone chimes in on a more personal level, but nothing said here has come close to what you can read on Kos, Huffington, or hear from the enlightened View panel.

    Remember, Obama sees us as bitter clingers, the Murtha Media thinks we are all racists, and blogs like this one may get the Joe the Plumber treatment, investigated and shut down when the Fairness Doctrine is realized. We can already see how dissent and tough questions are not tolerated and punishment will be swift and decisive. We are passionate, because we do not want to see the land of the free and the home of the brave transformed into a socialist people’s republic or another mediocre, European nanny-state.

  16. dave m says:

    rumors of a mistress (allegedly) sent to Martinique for the duration.
    pictures and story available at http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com

    Blackfive, a milblog, broke the story, and now that website seems down.

  17. sbd says:

    Something is about to break from Drudge!!

    This is currently the Headline with no link as of yet.


  18. dave m says:

    There is a very well written article at the top of Pam Gellers Atlas Shrugs
    discussing the extreme unlikeliness that Obama could have been
    born in Hawaii using timeline data about Ann Durham. It also goes on
    at length with an excellent historical summation of all of Obama’s
    radical associates. I highly recommend it.

  19. sbd says:

    SHOW: All Things Considered (NPR 4:30 pm ET)
    October 28, 1994
    Transcript # 1649-7
    TYPE: Analysis
    SECTION: News; Domestic
    LENGTH: 635 words
    HEADLINE: Charles Murray’s Political Expediency Denounced

    Commentator Barack Obama finds that Charles Murray, author of the controversial “The Bell Curve,” demonstrates not scientific expertise but spurious political motivation in his conclusions about race and IQ.

    BARACK OBAMA, Commentator: Charles Murray is inviting American down a dangerous path.

    NOAH ADAMS, Host: Civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama.

    Mr. OBAMA: The idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course. Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century. The arguments against such dubious science aren’t new either.

    Scientists have repeatedly told us that genes don’t vary much from one race to another, and psychologists have pointed out the role that language and other cultural barriers can play in depressing minority test scores, and no one disputes that children whose mothers smoke crack when they’re pregnant are going to have developmental problems.

    Now, it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that with early intervention such problems can be prevented. But Mr. Murray isn’t interested in prevention. He’s interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It’s easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray’s calculations. After watching their income stagnate or decline over the past decade, the majority of Americans are in an ugly mood and deeply resent any advantages, real or perceived, that minorities may enjoy.

    I happen to think Mr. Murray’s wrong, not just in his estimation of black people, but in his estimation of the broader American public. But I do think Mr. Murray’s right about the growing distance between the races. The violence and despair of the inner city are real. So’s the problem of street crime. The longer we allow these problems easier it becomes for white America to see all blacks as menacing and for black America to see all whites as racist. To close that gap, we’re going to have to do more than denounce Mr. Murray’s book. We’re going to have to take concrete and deliberate action. For blacks, that means taking greater responsibility for the state of our own communities. Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline and self-respect are somehow outdated.

    That being said, it’s time for all of us, and now I’m talking about the larger American community, to acknowledge that we’ve never even come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children. Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should pay off handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s the result of a moral deficit.

    ADAMS: Barack Obama is a civil rights lawyer and writer. He lives in Chicago.


    The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.