President Barack Obama has had many things to say about the Constitution, and America. He has talked about both in radio interviews as a State Senator, and in his two books. In the months and weeks that preceded the election, we heard then Senator Obama talk about transforming the United States. As President, he has recently spoke of the problems of a tough, messy democracy. A cursory look at his words and deeds set forth a thesis from the President; one that is far more insidious than is being reported.
The words of the President have a long and sordid history, yet put together a simple strand of belief. A look at his books, gives the start of the string; the desire to search out Marxist professors. (Certainly, one could go further back, and a review of PJTV personality Bill Whittle’s expose on Obama’s history would be good for those people.) It was with Marxist professors that he felt most comfortable. It was with these teachers that he saw role models. It was within their teachings he found his own salvation – which leads to his talking far too often about our collective salvation as the way to a better tomorrow.
This fascination, and the desire for like-minded role models, led him (via his wife, Michelle Obama) to the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, where he spent 20 years. He did not spend them repudiating the viciousness of his chosen spiritual leader, he spent them reveling in it. Obama formed a mindset that we see today, focused on the collective over the individual. He formed his understanding in Black Liberation Theology, which former congressional candidate Chrystopher Smith refers to as the single reason why Attorney General Eric Holder was given the job, and why it will take the most extraordinary of circumstances to make Obama remove Holder. (Gunwalker may be that extraordinary circumstance…time will tell.)
As a state Senator in Illinois, President Obama gave an interview to a local radio station where he was discussing civil rights and the courts, and it moved into a conversation on the Constitution. Obama, a supposed Constitutional scholar, did not spend much time in praise of the first of its kind, one of a kind document. Rather, he derided it. In the 2001 radio interview Obama specifically stated that the “problem” with the Constitution is that it is a grouping of “negative liberties.” Paraphrasing, he said the Constitution states what government can not do to you instead of what the government must do for you.
The Constitutional scholar has a problem with the basic tenets of the Constitution, as his entire basis (home life, college, spiritual adviser) put forth a competing (failed) theory of how the world should work. The Constitution, based on the concept of Natural Laws as described in the Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – says man should be able to live without being told how to live (by a King or a centralized government.) Obama states that government should do more for people, which historically comes at a “Freedom Cost.”
(NOTE – The “Freedom Cost” is the same as the idea of “Opportunity Cost” in economics. It is the Freedom lost in the guise of alleged government support or safety. Therefore, the Freedom Cost of ObamaCare, for example, is the loss of choice (Freedom) in one’s medical decisions. Some may consider that ObamaCare is about wealth redistribution, not medical care. I do not argue this. It is just another Freedom Cost to Obamacare.)
In the lead up to the 2008 election, then Senator Obama spoke to a crowd of thousands, and crowed with great passion, “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” If it weren’t for Glenn Beck, that phrase would have simply dropped under the radar. At most, it would simply have made some on the political right say, “What is he talking about?” It’s the same way most right-leaning people took to the phrase “Hope and Change.” They are words that mean nothing in the macro sense. It’s flowery rhetoric. But, to the individual, they force a personal reaction. That is why Obama used them, and continues to use them. But what, then, could the majority of people have thought about “fundamentally transforming” the United States? Was it about extricating ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan? About curbing runaway spending? About forging stronger relationships with our allies, and establishing new relationships with our enemies to bring about lasting peace? Quite obviously, the answer to those questions is no.
In the recent debt limit debate, the president spoke frequently, giving multiple press conferences to demonize the political right while offering no solutions of his own. During this time, he gave a speech to the racist organization La Raza at their annual convention in Washington, D.C. In this speech, he said the following about immigration reform, and “other” subjects:
“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written,”
The words stun. While the press may play on the theme of doing things on his own, the real incendiary statements come just after. His statement of our system, our democracy, our Constitution is not one of praise. It is one of disgust. In front of La Raza, a group that believes in open borders and intimidation, Obama is letting his disdain for the our system of government, our system of laws, be known. He is pining for the better tomorrow, where he is not burdened with a system that prevents him from fashioning immigration policy in his image (in La Raza’s image.)
Just a few weeks later, after the signing of the debt limit increase – and the ensuing Dow drop of 200, then 512 points – President Obama spoke on the evening of his birthday, during a $38,500 a plate celebration. He stated:
“When I said ‘change we can believe in, I didn’t say change we can believe in today. I didn’t say ‘change we can believe in tomorrow,’ not ‘change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time. Because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
The pattern is now formed. Never mind that we are a republic, and not a democracy. That isn’t the point. It is the continued attack on our system. The problem, according to Obama, is not him, or his policies, or his big government point of view. The problem, as previously stated – going as far back as 2001 – is the Constitution; “…this big, messy, tough democracy.”. As he frames it, the rule of law keeps getting in his way of doing what he thinks is best for all of us. As my colleague at PJTV, Katie Pavlich, reminds in her article on Townhall.com (with a H/T to HotAir.com):
FLASHBACK: Gee, sure would be easier to President of China
Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
His upbringing, his college desires, his spiritual leader, his own words, his own actions and, most recently, his clear-as-day assault on the Constitution, and how much easier his job would be without it. (Even the First Lady has been commenting recently on how hard President Obama works, how gray his hair is getting. Perhaps he would be more energetic, getting more sleep, if it weren’t for this tough, messy, Democracy?)
President Obama is actively engaging in a pre-meditated attack on the United States Constitution, and the American way of life. His words are not missteps, like 57 states or the insulting inability to properly pronounce the word corpsman. Obama is attempting to plant the seed into the already vitriolic and boisterous Progressives that the problem with America is the thing that makes America great – the rule of law that does not allow government to rule us. (A very disappointing note for Valerie Jarrett, whose slip of the tongue before Inauguration Day may have been more telling about Obama’s desires than we realize.)
While Progressives, the main stream media and Obama devotees will attack this thesis, the words of the president throughout his known history can not be undone, or misconstrued. Obama has an obvious dislike for the Constitution, and, as president, a true hatred for the things that get in his way – like the rule of law, and Congress, and open debate, and the Tea Party, and questions from the press or others Americans.
Recently, I was sent this cartoon from a friend of mine in Tampa Bay, which originally ran in the Chicago Tribune in 1934:
In the bottom left corner, it shows a man (perhaps Leon Trotsky?) writing on a placard. On top, as a title, the character wrote, “Plan Of Action For U.S.” Underneath that, the character has written:
SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!
Under The Guise Of Recovery – Bust The Government – Blame The Capitalists For The Failure – Junk The Constitution And Declare A Dictatorship
Next to that, in small letters, as if a commentary from inside the Trotsky character’s head, it reads, “It Worked In Russia!”
There is no claim being made that President Obama is working towards a dictatorship. But President Obama has clearly shown that he has a vehement disdain for the Constitution, and is actively engaged in sowing the seeds of derision and division in an attempt to bring about its modification, its ineffectiveness or it ultimate demise.