We don't even know who Obama is

— A bombshell was released this weekend when a copy of an interview by Obama on WBEZ-FM, Chicago Public Radio, from 2001 was found (bold italics added):

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society ... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. ... I think that you can craft legal theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

Class warfare rhetoric is one thing. But as Obama’s comments to Charlie Gibson indicate, Obama disapproves of the very notion that people should be successful. Why is making the wealthy poorer “fairness,” even when the poor also get less money? The goal is not to help the poor, it's to keep the wealthy from getting too much. It is apparently better that everyone be poorer than it is to have everyone have more money but a greater dispersion of income.

How is simply giving people money a way to make sure that they “have a chance for success too”? Obama might end up giving people who currently aren’t paying taxes even more money than they currently get from the Earned Income Tax Credit. But he will be doing so at a real cost: he is creating a high effective marginal tax rate that will keep them poor and keep them dependent on the government largess.

Obama’s tax credits are phased out as people earn higher incomes — that is, the government takes money away from you as your income goes up. Someone earning an extra dollar at $40,000 will find that income taxes alone will take 40 cents from that dollar.

Obama’s old comments from WBEZ seem impossible to ignore. Put aside that Obama obviously doesn’t believe that affirmative action represents redistributive justice. Saying that the Supreme Court “never ventured” into “redistribution of wealth” rules that out.

Obama’s constant theme is of transferring wealth, to “spread it around.”

There is so much else beyond his statements. Obama surrounded himself with people who were socialists and communists. Obama’s minister of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright with his black liberation theology, a religion described as turning “Jesus into a black Marxist rebel.” Father Michael Pfleger, another Obama spiritual adviser, is also quite leftist. And his associate William Ayers apparently told an author, who was writing a book on 1960s radicals shortly before the foundation was set up in 1995, that “I’m a radical, leftist, small ‘c’ communist.”

In April Obama was caught on tape telling San Francisco donors, in a meeting that was closed to the press, that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, [small town Pennsylvanians] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It was a very elitist left-wing statement. But the despising of people turning to religion is certainly something held in common by those on the far left.

During the presidential campaign Obama’s past positions have generally been ignored. Why wasn’t there one single question during the debates as to why Obama has so radically changed his positions on so many issues within just a few months?

Who is Obama going to put on the Supreme Court? With Democrats controlling a filibuster-proof Senate, will we be seeing the most extreme left-wing academics in law schools fill up the courts?