Hawkeye's Blog

Back in 2001 Seven years before Barack Obama’s "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a campaign issue, the current Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview that the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally FLAWED Constitution that does not mandate or allow for the "Redistribution of Wealth"…

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to..

"break free from the essential constraints in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth."

But then Obama, then an Illinois state senator, said that the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.( Because COURTS are ALSO bound to that very SAME Flawed Constitution )

He went on to say,

"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. It says what the states can't do to you. It says what the Federal Government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or the state governments 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."

Now.. "What’s the PROBLEM here",,you ask..Well..Beyond the fact that Obama has Demonstrated a PROFOUND departure from the intended ROLE of the Constitution,, he is willing to FUNDAMENTALLY change the ENTIRE Scope of the role that the Constitution PLAYS in Our Society..

His Disrespectful Reference to the Constitution as a "Charter of Negativity" and a " Fundamentally FLAWED Constitution" show that he has as Little Respect for that Documant as he does for ANY American Icon such as the American Flag..

Now..HERE’S something that the ACLU doesn’t WANT you to KNOW or WORSE yet,, to Understand…

As originally intended,,

The Constitution does NOT grant you ANY Positive Rights..in FACT,,there are ONLY three Positive rights enumerated in ANY of our Founding Documents and they are "Endowed" by OUR Creator,, NOT the Constitution..

THEY are,,,LIFE,,LIBERTY and the PERSUIT of HAPPINESS..

The Constitution is a Document that DIRECTS the PROHIBITIONS of the GOVERNMENTS in their DEALINGS with those THREE rights and THAT is it's ONLY Intended Function..

For Instance,, the Prohibition of ANY Law AGAINST Free Speech automatically RECOGNIZES and Respects the Positive right of LIBERTY.... In Passing a Negative Law AGAINST Murder you are recognizing and respecting the Positive right to LIFE.. and SO it goes..The TEN Commandments are the SAME way..

The Constitution,, for instance,, NEVER says that YOU have the right to Free Speech..It ONLY says that the Government cannot abridge or otherwise PROHIBIT that right..The LACK of such prohibitions RESULTS in your FREEDOM to speak your mind without FEAR of Government Intervention under the RIGHT of LIBERTY..

And THIS does NOT prohibit an Individual from doing so..THAT IS COVERED BY CIVIL LAW UNDER "CIVIL RIGHTS"..

Now..LET"S take Home ownership,, as but ONE example of the Obama Doctrine,, and see where Obama’s "Second Bill of Positive Rights" will take us..

Right NOW you have the ability to OWN a Home under the "PERSUIT of Happiness" "Right" endowed by OUR Creator IF INDEED you were to actually PERSUE that end..

Under Obama’s Doctrine of the "Second Bill of Rights".. EVERYBODY would have the RIGHT to own a Home at BIRTH ..

Sounds pretty Compassionate doesn’t it??WHO but a RWNJ could POSSIBLY be against THIS??

Until you realize that,,

By BIRTH you would have that right and it would FALL upon the Government to PROVIDE that home..in OTHER words..we would ALL pay for EVERYBODY to OWN a HOME..

And Since it’s a RIGHT..It would be up to the Government to INSURE that that individual ALWAYS had a home no matter HOW they took care of the LAST one..NOT owning a home or losing a home because you either Couldn’t or Wouldn’t be able to MAINTAIN a Home would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

And let’s not EVEN get into the LEGAL Litigations of ONE person’s CLAIMS to compensation should HIS house NOT be as Good as he percieves another’s..

This Redistribution of Wealth Doctrine that has been sparked by the Current Class Warfare Tactics of the Obamessiah,, the ONE who would bring us ALL together,, represents the Greatest Threat that THIS country has EVER faced,,IN time of War or NOT..

Our Founding Father's thought LONG and HARD about these weighty issues and the Constitution,, AS IT IS,, was the result..It was NOT by accident that we see this revered Document in the form that it is..

Spreading the Wealth will inevitably and invariably become,, as it has ALWAYS become whenever and wherever it has been tried,, synonymous with the Spreading of MISERY..