Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama Outed

Thanks to the discovery of a radio interview from 2001, the true intent of Barack Obama- who has tried desperately to obfuscate his "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber- comes out.

Not only is he radically in favour of a redistribution of wealth but he sees the Constitution as an obstacle to achieving his aims.

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

I'll let Bill Whittle run with this one for he does it so well-

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

Much has been written in the past few weeks about an Obama administration transforming America into something else entirely, about his Presidency bringing the US to a point of no return. Well, the new evidence is in and those predictions seem to be absolutely and positively correct.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think 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 Constitutionat 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, 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.

Remember, if he's elected President then he will decide on nominations to the Supreme Court- and it's abundantly clear what that will mean. Note too that while there have been differences between Democrat and Republican before about interpreting the Constitution, none thus far have been as radical as the change Obama wants to see. For him the Constitution is something that gets in the way of the government doing what he thinks it should.

Here's Hot Air's take-

Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama’s vision.

The stakes in this election just got higher.

No comments: