Posted on 11/12/2012 1:51:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 11/12/2012 1:56:02 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
It is clear that Obama hates the U.S. Constitution. Has himself stated that it's a flawed document and it and the courts do not go far enough in saying what the government must do for you on your behalf in regards to social and economic justice and the redistribution wealth. He says the courts have failed to remove the constraints on government from doling out social and economic justice, so it must be done legislatively.
In a 2001 interview, Obama says:
"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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would 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 OK.
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.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was 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."
And more recently, President Obama threatens that if he cannot get the congress to move, he will find ways to go around it. He will rule by executive order and do whatever it takes to get around the congress that stands in his way of correcting the wrongs in the constitution.
And during the campaign, President Obama instructs his followers that if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. And in the very last days when he thought he was losing the election, "President" Obama reaches out to "his" community with the call to "Vote for revenge!"
It's clear that not only does Obama hate the constitution, he hates the rule of law, hates liberty, agrees with Rev Wright his mentor that America should be damned by God and calls for violence and revenge from the bully pulpit!
The admitted Marxist Obama swore an oath to defend the constitution but is now aiming to destroy it by his own hand, and to destroy American liberty, all in the name of economic and social justice, redistributionism and REVENGE!
A true leftist revolutionary wannabe dictator now sits on his throne, scheming to mete out his brand of justice and revenge, unencumbered by the "flawed constitution," the courts, the threat of removal by election or, with traitor Reid in charge, removal from office by impeachment.
Will Obama become America's Cesar, er, Hugo Chavez? The socialist democrat Dream Act is the vehicle to get it done.
NOT ON MY WATCH!!
This is treason!!
And the wimps in the GOP are too afraid to take this obvious leftist treason head-on. Worse, they're urging that the Republican party must move left!
We must RESIST such tyranny to the hilt!!
If not us, who?
If not now, when?
Fixed it for you.
The biggest enemy we have is the democrat/media complex.
If we don't defeat the Hollywood/academia/democrat/media axis, we'll lose no matter how pure we are and how hard we try. I don't know how we do it, but this is an undeclared war we are losing.
And the admissions he made in that 2001 interview you cite are what our side failed to publicize in 2008 and in 2012, and to define him by, because that is enough to define the man’s foreign views. Communist, communist, Marxist, marxist, that should have been the election slogan of both McCain and Romney. Instead, both acted as if Obama fit somewhere on the scale between Nixon and Kennedy, while Ron Paul was the crazy radical.
I agree 100%
1st. about Obama hating America
2nd. about his already having performed treasonous acts by not supporting the laws he swore to protect.
3rd, about our Congress not having the balls to meet the SOB head on.
;-)
How many freakin "third parties" do you want? There's easily over fifty right now.
Just get the TEApublicans into power and get-er done. We don't have time to waste on this self-defeating claptrap.
I concur.
You were quite clear on that. I for one haven't and won't advocate violence, but as a practical matter, we ALL should be prepared for it should it come to that. Objectively speaking, there seems to be an outside chance it could be foisted upon us.
As far as CWII goes, we're clearly in the beginning stages of a "cold" civil war now.
That's were the leftist leadership is coming from and they've raised their hordes of followers and imitators like Barry on rousing tales of throwing firebombs at “the man” telling them they have to live up to that standard.
So, why would they do anything except laugh their butts off at people who claim to be committed to their beliefs but lay down and take it over and over like slaves in a ho house?
Talk is cheap and when conservatives can't consistently put a loud and rowdy crowd in the street to raise hell at every little thing and at the very least screw up city budgets by costing a lot of police overtime, the left sees whatever else they do as just talk.
JMHO
The Civil War II ping isn't advocating Civil War in America, but does follow the trends that may lead to that regrettable situation.
Which is exactly what Ubama is leading us towards with his "Revenge" and "Get in your face" comments.
Progressives can only progress so far until we start rolling them back, that is when they get desperate and violent.
...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...
When elected officials and bureaucracies act outside the law they are simply lawbreakers. When the majority of the people vote in favor of the lawlessness that has greatly manifested itself in the highest offices they have withdrawn their consent to be governed by a constitutional government. By what legitimate basis does the United States of America, as a Constitutional republic, still exist?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
'The People' no longer support that. They voted in support of lawlessness from the highest office on down. They voted against the rule of law. By referendum we now have a banana republic. The USAINO.
I say that we should hasten their revolt by letting der obamafuhrer crash and burn! They will only revolt when they quit getting "free things". Republicans could help this along by minimizing their participation in the economy. In addition, any Republican who can retire should do so immediately, any in the military should leave as fast as possible, any underwater on their mortgages should walk away, and any facing bankruptcy should go ahead and file.
We'll see how many obamaphones can be purchased then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
