Father-challenged Obama rejects Constitution, Founding Fathers
McCain should play Obama 2001 radio interview at every campaign event
Originally published by Mike DeVine, as legal editor for The Minority Report
Want to force the Drive-by media to cover Obama’s rejection of the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers and our Constitution that produced the greatest nation on Earth?
Then Obama should be the keynote star speaker at every McCain-Palin campaign event.
One has to question whether many voters that are up for grabs will immediately understand, given our woeful education system partially taken over by socialists that control the schools, Obama’s contempt for American exceptional-ism and the import of his words:
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 vest 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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d 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 people tried 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 it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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.
One of the, I think, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
McCain should play Obama’s voice over the loud speakers at every stop and then deconstruct his words as revealing a man that could not, in good faith, uphold the required Oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the precious document he trashes as “fundamentally flawed” above.
Obama sees the Constitution as only a negative document. It is, in that it limits government, but it also positively protects Liberty in so doing.
Obama loves government power, not Liberty for We the People and sees the Warren Court as not having gone far enough! Under a constitution written from the Marxist dreams of his once-met Kenyan “father” (Another Messiah’s with no birth certificate and questions about his father, but this one photo-shopped a fake one and dreams of an atheist Kenyan Father while studying at the knee of a Hawaiian.), not only would a Warren Court let off a murderer that wasn’t read his “Miranda rights”, it would make the government a conviction-proof robber of your wealth to spread around the ‘hood like a piece of the action by him as Boss/Godfather.
The U.S. Constitution is the oldest ongoing governing document on earth. The Liberty it unleashed has produced the marvel of what man can accomplish in the history of the world. How five percent of the world’s population can create such great technological progress and share it. How the poor here would be considered upper middle class most places since the 1830′s. How it set the stage for the only nation to fight a war and then eliminate slavery on moral grounds. How it is the magnet for the dispossessed and even put up a Statue of Liberty to beckon them.
How we produced enough wealth to build a defense strong enough to defend against enslaving megalomaniacs and be responsible for the greatest explosion of free peoples in history, within and beyond our borders in a benevolence unheard of by previous empires.
And as Colin Powell said before he lost his way, the only land we asked for from the liberated was enough to bury the dead that died for their liberty.
Obama considers that Constitution to be fatally flawed because it limits the power of government to control us.
My God! The miracle of the document is how it limits the government so that the potential of free human beings is unleashed.
Obama doesn’t understand that the “negative” document is under girded by a Declaration of Independence that sees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (especially including the right to keep the fruits of our labor as private property), as Creator-God given. He doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, that the secret to why we have so much wealth that he would like to spread to favored groups as pieces of the action is the incentive of the right to private property. God knows he admitted that the question of when humans get the right to life is above his pay grade.
No, Obama hates the Constitution and would rather July 4, commemorate a Declaration of Dependence on his government. How can he take the Oath? Especially on a Bible that contains within the other great pillar of our exceptionalism, i.e. Judeo-Christian values.
No, this is not a claim that he is a Muslim. In fact, this rooster could name many Muslims that I would happily vote for President given their love and allegiance for The Founders and the Constitution and their advocacy of our shared values.
But Obama, like many that attend Christian churches, has a different view. Let his own words indict his contrary world view.
And even there, he has a contrary view.
“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”
Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)
If that is so, Jesus wasted his time coming to Earth and he certainly did not have to suffer the pain of rejection and crucifixion if there are ways to God other than through Himself.
Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”
Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”
Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological gruel.
Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called a “false prophet.”
I hope some national journalist or commentator with knowledge of such things asks Obama about this and doesn’t let him get away with re-writing Scripture to suit his political ends.
Obama is not one of us.
I actually have sympathy for Obama and his father-, and mother-(she was a Marxist, too) challenged childhood. No one gets to pick their parents.
But we do get to accept or reject our nation’s heritage, a heritage, that in his case, provided him with a good life, liberty, including, education and the pursuit of happiness, including great wealth.
He explicitely rejects what produced that great life.
He rejects the Father of our Country.
We that embrace that George Washington and his fellow Founders of this nation and Framers of the Constitution, and who love the actual United States of America with its glorious history, must reject Obama and the America he would found, or reap the whirlwind.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson