President Obama: Extremist radical in his own words

President Barack Obama holds a press conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, Dec. 20, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
President Barack Obama holds a press conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, Dec. 20, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

HOUSTON, February 23, 2014 — President Obama has worked to maintain a moderate pose during his time in the White House. It hasn’t been easy.

Obama is almost always tethered to his teleprompter when speaking in public; on the rare occasion that he takes a question at a press conference, the question is almost certainly planted and known to the president beforehand. There is good reason for his handlers to keep him on a short leash; when he accidentally speaks his mind, he has a history of saying radical and extreme things, on a host of topics.

On the Constitution 

In 2001, when Barack Obama was an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, he said the following in an interview with Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM:

“But, 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. To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The biggest concern raised by this comment is that Obama disagrees with the fundamental premise that differentiates our founding document from any other in history: The Constitution is intended to limit the government’s power and reserve as much power to the people as possible. It has been obvious during Obama’s time in office that he retains this disregard for any limitation on federal power over our lives.

On religion 

In his second full length autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama discusses Islam and his concerns in a post 9/11 world (p. 126, paperback). He writes, “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Almost 10 years later he got that chance. Two weeks and one day after terrorist attacks on our unguarded compound at Benghazi, Libya killed four Americans — including the ambassador — Obama gave a speech to the UN General Assembly. In that speech — delivered to leaders from all over the world — he said that the attack was caused by a YouTube video that slandered the prophet Muhammad. He said that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The President must have forgotten to mention that in America, the First Amendment guarantees our right to most every kind of speech, including speech that insults Islam and the prophet Muhammad — at least for the time being.

On energy and the economy 

President Obama has always actively lobbied for a cap and trade program which will have absolutely no positive effect on net greenhouse gas emissions, but will force a major transfer of wealth from big companies and big countries to small countries and small companies. As candidate Obama said to Joe the Plumber in October, 2008, “When you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody.”

[youtube] [/youtube]

Obama really means that when government steals money from a disfavored group of people and gives it to a favored group, it will be good for everyone in the favored group and the government that has just bought their votes. You’d better donate to the right party, Joe.

In January, 2008, candidate Obama was asked about his energy policy and specifically how his policy would impact the coal business and consumer energy prices.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Later in the same interview, he added, “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”


This quote is a perfect example why Obama’s current handlers do their best to keep him on script.

On the military and homeland security

In July, 2008, at a campaign rally, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”


The extremist left, and followers of Saul Alinsky in particular, have always advocated for a “civilian national security force.” They do so out of concern that the military as structured would not support a socialist or communist state due to its strong allegiance to conservative values. This is the last time Obama said this on record. This comment puts the Obama Administration’s purchases of hundreds of millions of bullets and semiautomatic weapons for agencies like the Post Office, Treasury Department, IRS, and other entities that would otherwise have no reasonable need for military grade weaponry into perspective.

And it should scare the hell out of all of us.

On the American standard of living

As a devout radical, Obama is a true egalitarian He believes that all societies and people should do with the same amount of resources, goods and services. Forced equality never raises the lower class up to the standards of living of the better off; it does the exact opposite. It brings successful people down to the level of the unsuccessful.

Obama warned us that through his egalitarian policies, Americans’ living standards will be forced to drop, as they plainly have and will continue to. At a campaign rally in 2008, he discussed his concerns with American usage of energy relative to the rest of the world when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK … That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

This was the last time his handlers allowed him to discuss this topic so candidly.

As Van Jones, Obama’s Green Jobs Czar and outspoken communist revolutionary famously said, “I’m willing to forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends.”

Indeed, his good friend Obama has done a tremendous job following this advice and, in doing so, he and his radical buddies are slowly achieving the fundamental transformation of this country; exactly the way Obama told us he would.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • mrmike

    What else would you expect from a Communist ?

  • David Molinarolo

    And yet there are some out there who still think Obama is a moderate and not radical enough for them. Alan Colmes is one such example. Bob Beckel, perhaps another. But I’ve got a relative or two, or three, that also thinks this way. If there ever came a day where this country would fall into another Civil War, in my case, it truly be be cousin against cousin.

    • EdWatts

      I have a daughter and son-in-law on the dark side! Could I squeeze the trigger? I think so, but one can never know until the situation presents itself.

  • ParkerShannon

    The University of Chicago Law School posted a statement Obama’s claims to be a “professor”: “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as ‘Senior Lecturer.’

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a instructor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as an instructor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

    • James R. Edwards

      Obama taught three subjects while he was there, all of them having to do with race and the 14th Amendment. I took similar classes at my law school, particularly “Race and the Law.” We were not taught any law, but we were taught that blacks cannot be racist because of their history of being discriminated against because of their race. A professor whom I sincerely respected made this claim and adamantly and loudly disagreed with anyone who dared claim otherwise. It made me lose some respect for one of the few professors who allowed me to have a voice at that school.

  • Tim Kern

    Consider the cheek of this guy: after over 200 years of fine-tuning the greatest Constitution ever written, and a dozen generations of Americans’ pulling together to make this country as good as the efforts of countless millions can make it, He has a better idea, and He wants to “fundamentally transform America.”
    We should be wary of any such egotistical, sociopathic, destructive narcissist.

    • James R. Edwards

      … and the only reason that all of his failed, Big Government ideas and policies have failed in every single society in history that has ever tried them is because they were not blessed to have been led by the Messiah. With Obama’s leadership these ideas that have NEVER proven to work throughout history will miraculously work brilliantly under his leadership. He truly believes this

  • acmaurer

    Nothing particularly new here, but when you put it all together, it presents a convincing picture. And there are no countervailing arguments on the other side, to show he’s NOT a radical.

    • Sol Saguaro

      Sure there are. He gets most of his political campaign contributions from Wall Street financial institutions. He has never prosecuted a banker or corporate CEO for breaking the law. He’s a Harvard graduate whose social network is other powerful individuals. Calling him a radical is so far off the mark, it’s no wonder that political opposition founded on such fallacies goes nowhere. It’s like starting a race at the gunshot, running backwards.

  • D. Brown

    Obama did mention our First Amendment rights in his 2012 U.N. speech. Thus his statement, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Islam.” is referring to those whose behavior creates discord. He really believes that socialism is the answer to the world’s problems and naysayers must be quieted, and we must all change our way of thinking to tolerance and submission to our leaders. I believe in his mind those who disagree are merely ignorant and need to be educated to his brand of truth where evil doesn’t exist.

    • James R. Edwards

      I will begin being tolerant of Islam/Sharia whenever those who believe in Sharia begin to tolerate “infidels.” I wont go as far as the Muslims do, I wont say that it is God’s will to kill and make second class citizens of Muslims as the plain text of teh Koran says over and over again regarding infidels.

  • Sol Saguaro

    Absurd. Obama’s first loyalty is to hedge funds and such on Wall Street. Is that radical?