Barack Obama in 2001.
An analysis.

…There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing…
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes…
we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of which makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough…
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 do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
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…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pat Crowley
Pat Crowley
15 years ago

really, do you ever think for yourself?

15 years ago

really, do you ever think for yourself?
Nice comeback Pat. Did you not have enough time to type President Bush’s name or that of Karl Rove while you were penning that biting comment?

Tom W
Tom W
15 years ago

>really, do you ever think for yourself?
Well gosh darn, it appears that he does!
Imagine, thinking for oneself instead of adopting what the collective, or union boss, tells one is one’s opinion. What a concept!

15 years ago

Of course the press didn’t break this story.
I’m certainly not the most conservative person that posts on this blog, but even I have come to the conclusion that the concept of an objective media seeking to publish the truth no longer exists (with few exceptions).
The sooner that the public accepts this fact, the better they will be able to filter the news that is provided to them.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.