Taking issue with the Founding Fathers. “Just Words” Obama says about the Constitution.

“You know if you look at the victories and the 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 peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of 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 its 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 it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn’t shifted. And one of the I think the 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 and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” – Barack Obama, 2001 radio interview with Chicago Public Radio 
Why does this quote made in 2001 from Obama have the campaign worried?  How is this redistribution of wealth phrase different than Joe the Plumber’s answer?  There are a few reasons. 
1)  Barack Obama says in the opening sentence that the civil rights movement did not go far enough to correct past injustices.  In Obama’s view the Civil Rights movement allowed him to eat at his local Denny’s without being kicked out or forced to eat in another section.  It also utilized the courts more than it should have to affect change. 
2) Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to redistribute the wealth and in this quote we see that his agenda for change has always included that idea.  However, he again criticizes the Supreme Court for not venturing into economic inequalities that existed, and as he sees it still exist, in the 1960’s.  With two openings on the Supreme Court coming, this statement clearly shows what kind of Justices he would seek to place in the highest court. 
3) Most disturbing is Obama’s idea of “the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties”.  Thanks to a quick review of Wikipedia, a negative liberty is essentially a personal liberty that people have to pursue their interests whether they be economic or otherwise.  A positive liberty is a liberty that is collective or communal in nature and is used by leaders to promote programs for the good of the citizenry.  In other words,  if you make too much money those under you suffer so for the good of the people a leader will “tax” your money to give it to someone else.  Or anither way would be to say that guns kill people so for the good of the people their ownership should be curtailed.  Essentially Obama is laying out his plan to rewrite the fundamentals of the Constitution either through legislative or judicial means. 
4) Finally, Obama admits in 2001 that ACORN and other community groups would be used to advance his agendas when he states that community organizations were left behind by the civil rights movement and their influence should have been utilized more. 
Presumably Obama was not running for the Presidency in 2001 and thus these comments are his true feelings.  While some may find the redistribution theory alarming in Obama’s answer, what should be more disturbing is Obama’s willingness to call the Constitution flawed becasue it does not say what the government MUST do for the citizens.  This statement from 2001 is the clearest example yet of Obama’s theory on government and what he means by CHANGE. 

Thoughts of a gun clinging racist religious zeolot

 Frustrated that working class Americans in small towns are voting overwhelmingly for Sen Clinton in the Democratic primary,  Sen Obama, at a private fundraiser,  stated that these Americans are bitter Americans who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”.  Sen Obama could have said “Dumb hicks can’t think for themselves” as an explanation for his lack of rural votes and made his speech a few minutes shorter.

Having lived in one of these small towns that Sen Obama speaks of for most of my life, I can honestly say that we do not bring our guns to church on a weekly basis.  I can also honestly say the more LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (note the word immigrants does not denote only Mexican, illegal immigrants are illegal even if they are form Poland),  the better.  After all would I know the joys of Halushki without legal immigration?  Finally, I can also say that when we sit around after Sunday mass drinking from our full beer cans while we shoot the empties, that the discussions we have are more intelligent than shouting ” G-D immigrants took my job!, How ’bout that number 23? , boy is he tearin’ up the track today!” 

As a member in good standing of rural America, I am personally offended by the remarks Sen Obama made at this fundraiser.  I go to church on Sundays, not because I feel disenfranchised with America but because I believe in God and want to show him the respect He deserves.  We pray for America but not because of America.  I don’t go to church as a sign of hopelessness but as a sign of hope for my future.  Faith is personal not political, I would have thought Sen Obama would have learned that when Rev Wright’s racist and anti-American comments were the focus of his campaign. 

I also own guns and believe my rights under the Constitution are violated if laws are made to strip ownership of my guns from me.  I don’t cling to my guns for emotional support as Sen Obama suggested but rather hold on to them because I am afforded that right under the Constitution.  My kids will grow up learning the dangers and values of gun ownership because as Americans they have that right.  There is no sense of frustration at America or her politics/politicians as a gun owner.  In fact, just the opposite is true. I own guns because I love America and believe in her politics and politicians.  ( Not that if you don’t own a gun you don’t love America.)

I am also anti ILLEGAL immigration not because they sneak in at night, steal jobs and then send money back to relatives who repeat the cycle, all the while taking advantage of all the great things America can offer.  I am against ILLEGAL immigration because there is a way to legally enter this country, a way that my ancestors had to follow before they became citizens.  My ancestors had to learn English if they wanted to work or even get by in America.  They held on the traditions of their homeland, traditions I still enjoy today, while adapting to the American way.  In many cases immigrants benefit American society and add a dimension many other counties in the world can never hope to enjoy.  I am also against illegal immigration because in the warped political thinking of today’s liberal leaders, illegal immigrants argue for and receive more Constitutional rights than legal immigrants to or citizens of the USA.  Yes, we need a solution to the border issue, but simply put until a viable solution is on the table, ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL, there is no nuance here, unless you are a lawyer or politician in the Democratic party. 

 If Sen Obama knows the “buzz words” of racism as he has professed (see previous post about monkeys for more), then he should also learn that rural Americans know the “buzzwords” spoken about them that translate into the phrase “Dumb Hicks!” No matter how he tries to spin these comments, they will follow him into the general election.  Add this comment to his wife’s pride comment, Rev Wright’s statements and his “typical white person” comments and we have the beginning of a very bad campaign for Sen Obama.  But what do I know, I’m just a gun clinging racist religious zealot from PA. 


How Liberal can you get?

I readily admit I channel surf political coverage.  I like coverage from a variety of news outlets and see something new and different everyday.  However, CNN stopped me in my surfing last night when they called Vermont for Obama.  It wasn’t that he won, I thought it would just be a long night for Hilary at that point.  It was the coverage of one particular city in Vermont–Brattleboro. 

Last night, the citizens of Brattleboro passed a referendum stating that the town attorney should draw up indictments against Pres Bush and VP Cheney for crimes against the constitution and authorize police to arrest them if they entered  the town.  President Bush and VP Cheney were compared to Hitler as the petition for the measure was passed for signatures before being approved for the ballot by a select committee in the town.  

 The petition and passage of the referendum is laughable in its treasonous way.  Why didn’t they just vote to leave the Union?  However, it is more disturbing than laughable because these voters are a small sampling of the people who believe in Obama and his ultra liberal message.  Combine this referendum with the witch-hunt Rep Pelosi launched this week and you have the same old “hate Bush ” politics of Kerry and Gore, which worked out so well over the past few years. 

Obama’s message is one of bipartisanship.  His actions in the senate show that 96.5% of the time he is a Democrat first.  His support in Vermont only solidifies the position that he is so Liberal that the constitution does not matter and the principles of the founding fathers are only history and need to be revised to suit America today.