BHO and the Constitution

[ruffcountry]

copied and pasted from Pittsburgh Tribune Review

 

Barack Obama, exposed: View of constitution

 

 

By Cal Thomas

Sunday, November 2, 2008

 

 

The October surprise of this presidential election might just turn out to be a seven-year-old interview with Barack Obama in which he strongly suggests that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his desire to redistribute the nation's wealth.

 

So, how does Sen. Obama credibly take the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he thinks it impedes his socialist agenda?

 

Is socialism too strong a word? Consider one of its definitions from dictionary.com and tell me it is something other than Obama's economic philosophy:

 

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

 

A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station.

 

According to Politico.com, in that interview, Obama, "reflecting on the Warren Court's successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights," said, "I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples."

 

He has it backward. The Creator already endowed black people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr. Any rights that are "vested" in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people.

 

Endowed rights are "unalienable" and what America did was to finally recognize those rights.

 

Obama continues with a comment that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

 

Does he mean that for real "justice" to have been achieved, the Warren Court should have taken from the rich and given to the black poor?

 

Obama never said what would happen once the redistributed money ran out. Perhaps this was not to be a one-time event but a lifetime of "reparations" for slavery, as some other left-wing black leaders have proposed.

 

On Bill O'Reilly's Fox show last Monday night, former Democrat vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro defended high taxes in New York and Obama's pledge to raise them nationally, saying, "At least they're not taking it all."

 

It may have been an attempt at humor but this betrays the Democratic Party's attitude: They feel they have the right to say how much of your hard-earned money you can keep.

 

Actually, we should be telling government how much of our money we will allow it to spend. Anyone hoping to make more money and improve his life will have to work even harder to overcome Obama's redistribution plans.

 

Obama thought the Warren Court should have "broken free" from the constraints placed on the Constitution and the courts by the Founding Fathers and Framers.

 

This is remarkable hubris.

 

Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you ... what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

 

That's because the Constitution is about liberty and protecting citizens from oppressive and invasive government.

 

This is scary stuff. That it is only now surfacing is another reminder of the poor job the mainstream media have done in vetting Obama.

 

Barack Obama thinks the Constitution and the country it helped create should be remade in his image. He wants to be a Founding Father of a different America, one that would bear little resemblance to the country we have known.

 

This is radical in the extreme and Obama, along with his many acolytes who are itching to get their hands on unchecked political power, are a danger to this nation's survival.

 

John McCain stands in the way of a complete liberal coup that would transform America in ways the Founders and Framers and most Americans would oppose.

 

McCain might be dull at times.

 

McCain might have run an imperfect campaign.

 

McCain should have spent more time exposing Obama as a radical socialist instead of worrying what the media would say if he did.

 

But John McCain is a patriot who has proved his love, service and dedication to this country in ways that Obama cannot begin to achieve or appreciate.

 

Electing Barack Obama president of the United States would be a roll of loaded dice. We will live (and possibly die) to regret it.

 

Republicans have made many mistakes and deserve the punishment they are now getting. But the one charge that cannot be laid at their doorstep is that they wanted to rewrite the Constitution and weaken the country.

 

Barack Obama will do that and more. Wake up, America, and stop flirting with this guy because you are flirting with disaster.

 

Cal Thomas, a USA Today and nationally syndicated columnist