Posted on 10/30/2008 6:01:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Well, now we know why Barack Obamas been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.
Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.
The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obamas utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by equality, when he says, the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
Bad? Sure. Because now its not just spread the wealth a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). Its that redistribution of wealth is part and parcel of Obamas vision of what is political and economic justice in this society.
But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was not radical enough, in its pursuit of civil liberties, because [i]t didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.
If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you dont understand, or youre already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of political and economic justice if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.
I have written elsewhere of Obamas potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, Hed never do that; the Constitution prevents it.
At this point, any belief in Obamas respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitutions limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named Fairness Doctrine has already put the First Amendment in Obamas sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as political and economic justice?
These views are why Obamas acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite by any means necessary philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency.
The rest of Obamas observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, negative liberties. But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things government must do on your behalf.
Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are endowed by our Creator; not by any government.)
Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him or the government he wants in place to give us rights we dont already have.
This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers. This is no bill of rights, it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found guilty would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all Americans private property.
I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too. Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle wont be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office?
The second group consists of disgruntled so-called conservatives like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. Im not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that theres no such thing as evolution.
Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.
This clown is full of disdain and rebellion toward this country. He's trying VERY hard to suppress it now; to remain calm, cool and collected.
If he happens to win this election, the stops will be removed and we will see an angry gangland-type punk emerge.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: If they make a mistake, I dont want them punished with a baby.
Obama Lies; The Constitution Dies.
ping for later
He is a globalist. Globalists believe that the nation state is an obsolete concept. They believe that nationalism is the root cause of war. Nationalist symbols are considered obtrusive and therefore offensive elements toward the global “communisty”. Spelling intended.
By who? The great supporters of the Constitution Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
A very good article. You might want to keep this one for future reference. If Obama is elected, our constitution may suffer a death by a thousand cuts.
One candidate threatens to remake the Constitution, the other promises to uphold it and in both cases, their individual histories indicate that is exactly what they will do. As such, 0bama is in the "enemies, foreign and domestic" category and voting in such a way to make him president is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
What would Reagan do? He'd vote for McCain.
It’s better that 0bama not be made president in the first place.
How will a president whose occupation of the office is a _violation_ of that Constitution, uphold it?
- John
“A President who does not uphold the Constitution MUST be removed.”
What a joke. The constitution is whatever the supreme court SAYS it is. And the Obamaster will likely appoint at least 3 members. The lower courts are already infested with leftist party hacks. The ones Obama will appoint will be even worse, especially with no Repub party to oppose it. Look at the supreme court of NJ who allowed the Lout ot replace Toricelli even though the law clearly stated they couldn’t. The Sup court in Fl that allowed vote counts to be extended indefinately despite clear staute to the contrary. These days the judgements are based on party affiliaton, not the law.
Clinton trashed it 24/7. Bush 1 was no respector of the Constitution. Reagan? Not bad at all... Carter - ugh.
... and so on.........
I’ve been told that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
“Ive been told that there is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Thank god for the reset button on the constitution. Too bad it will never be used.
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.