Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth
October 27, 2008 · 23 Comments
I cannot even believe this. First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places. Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section. Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:
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.
Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution. This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point. Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away. It is not a document of “negative liberties”. The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government. Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And the courts are not meant to be radical. Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges. And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.
Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.” It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”. This is everything! The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom. What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live. Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler. They’ve got the wrong man.