(Note: This is a long post as it is a bit of a round up)
I've been telling some of my non-blogging readers and friends about the following two videos, to gasps of incredulity and am posting the material in this post "for the record":
So, should we sign a contract without reading it? Come on! The first thing most of us learn about signing papers laid before us: "Read before you sign!" Yet, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi uttered words that have to rank up there with the craziest political statements ever. I call for her to be brought up on charges of political malpractice. Information about political malpractice HERE; please take a moment to read the link.
The second video, quite an admission, and additional material are below the fold:
And who can forget the following statement?
As for the health-reform act itself, read the following from the March 23, 2010 New York Times (hat tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):
In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth InequalityA reminder from a previous post here at Always On Watch:
For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
...This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate....
In case you can't access the above audio, what Obama said:
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.
Add it all up, and it should be clear to any thinking person what this administration is all about. Change, all right, with the hope being overturning the America as we know her.