It's smoking gun time, folks. Whether the posse, as in the electorate, will, 1) ever get a whiff of what's coming out the barrel--namely, Marxist cant--or, 2) will care even if they do remains to be seen.

In this 2001 radio interview with then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, we hear this man who may be president discuss what he, coming at it from the  hard, hard Left, perceives to be the shortcomings of the US Constitution--namely, its supposed failure to provide for redistribution of wealth. Obama puts it this way:

...the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic  justice in this society. And 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 it 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 the state government must do on your behalf....

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 acitivities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change....

Who, but an outright Marxist could consider an absence of "redistributive change" in America to be a "tragedy"? Eight days out from Election Day, we finally know what Obama means by (Redistributive) Hope and Change (for the Masses). Will America now vote itself into a Workers Paradise?