Back in January, when he was in his Reaganesque mode, Obama informed us that he

wasn’t all that invested in the fights of the 60s and the 70s

and even used Reagan’s “excesses of the 60s and 70s” for them.

The newly surfaced 2001 interview reveals a criticism of those fight from the opposite side: the fights didn’t go far enough as they never got to realize that civil right: redistribution of wealth.

I always thought civil rights were about insuring equal rights to everyone. Boy, was I wrong!

It seems Obama thinks only a certain segment of the population has “civil rights” – the others need to pay for those. And it cannot be done by court, but legislatively.

Now that of course takes on a new meaning, considering that he did try to take back the freudian slip with Joe the Plumber

Obama told reporters his tax plan doesn’t “spread wealth” but “does involve spreading around opportunity.”

Personally, I continue to believe that Obama believes in nothing besides the fact that he deserves absolute power. Still, the idea that entitlement to someone else’s money is a civil right in his mind is very unsettling.

Just as DNC refused to consider gay rights as part of civil rights – because Donna Brazile thought it would offend some constituency, Obama seems to think in this interview that “civil rights”= rights of certain groups – the ones he was pretending to represent in 2001.

That was before he came up with the “post-racial” thinghie.

From the Fox article

delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

and the response:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have “nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut.”

All righty then. Go home everyone, nothing to see here.