This is the real CHANGE he is talking about

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by KING64, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    May 11, 2007
    Washington State
    There are many scary things about Obama as president but the one that bothers me the most is what he will do with SCOTUS. If elected he will appoint at least one, very likely two, Justices of SCOTUS.

    He said:

    "When our forefathers crafted the Constitution they were operating with a blind spot. The Constitution has flaws that continue to this day."

    Disclaimer: I am citing this statement from memory and it may not be EXACT but it is definitely the message Obama was offering.

    Can it be any more plain what his goals are? To affect the CHANGE he is really after he will have to CHANGE the makeup of SCOTUS and thereby CHANGE the Constitution by interpretation.

    How is it that so many people cannot see this? Or do they really care? :(
  2. SolidVFR

    SolidVFR New Member

    Jun 26, 2008
    He is scary. I only wish that the poeple supporting/voting for him get what they are asking for. But why drag the rest of the country down as well? The liberals have and are destroying this country.

  3. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA

    Here's the catch, he is almost definitely talking about Slavery. He was pretty careful here, which is actually surprising (particularly since this is back from 2001). He very clearly said there was a flaw with the US Constitution (slavery) and that they worked with a blind spot (racism). Probably the only troubling content here is that he said it continues to this day, which technically could be true as the effects of slavery do still exist today.

    Honestly, from a hardcore republican... I don't really think there is much to this, unfortunately. Which would explain why this hasn't been thrown around much (particularly since it is from 2001).
  4. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    May 11, 2007
    Washington State
    You make some points there, Vladimir. The problem is this has been a pattern with many of his comments and speeches. He skirts around issues and makes statements that will be interpreted in different ways by different listeners. This is necessary during a campaign. The delivery has been very effective for Obama. He is not stupid and he definitely has the appeal of a good orator. He knows his strong points and naturally uses them to great advantage.

    My main point is that one of his strategies, possibly his main strategy, will be to mold SCOTUS to bring about many of the CHANGES he wants rather than issuing edicts (to the extent presidential powers allow) or simply utilizing the avenue of drafting bills to be presented to Congress. Don't get me wrong, he will present plenty of bills to Congress but I see the potential for much more damage through his crafting SCOTUS in his image. Unsavory bills that become law can more easily be rectified than overturning majority decisions by SCOTUS. We will be forced to live with those a long time. Obama is looking further ahead than just a term or two as president. Justices of SCOTUS are around a lot longer than an elected office holder.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  5. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    King, Rosy posted a link to the whole interview.

    Listen to this while you still can.

    Or read PART of it below.

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT[​IMG]RUSH: Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a "constitutional professor" or a "constitutional scholar." In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutionalist professor. He studied the Constitution and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution. He thinks it is flawed. Now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he? He says, "And to the extent as radical I think 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. 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."
    [​IMG]Good Lord, ladies and gentlemen! I don't see how he can take the oath of office, which is this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Rejected the Constitution. [​IMG]Now, what about early voting? Do they all think that Obama has stepped on the Constitution the way his friend and self-described communist and anarchist Bill Ayers stepped on the flag? By the way, as I said, forget the $250,000 that you're protected against tax increases, and forget Obama's new figure of $200,000.

    It's not the number; it's the concept. The idea of income redistribution is this man's core. Listen to it in his own words. Now, this is from a now-defunct Chicago-area NPR program called Odyssey. He appeared on this when he was a state senator and "constitutional scholar." Ahem! He appeared in this program three times between 1998 and 2001. This is I guess from September of 2001. The hostette, Gretchen Helfrich says, "We're joined here by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th District, senior lecturer in the law school at University of Chicago," and then Obama says this about the redistribution of wealth.

    OBAMA: 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 peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- 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.

    RUSH: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues such as political and economic justice in this society." He went on to say, "To that extent..." Well, here. He went on. Rather than me read it to you, let me let you hear this in his own words.

    OBAMA: 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 Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted -- and 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. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, 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 redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

    RUSH: So they're out there saying that this whole mess of "redistribution of wealth," that's a distraction. It's not a distraction; it's the core. It is who Obama is. But I'm stuck on several things. You can talk about the Warren Court and how they didn't do enough or they weren't radical enough, folks, the thing that leaps off the page is when he says that 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." Note the terminology here. He looks at the government as something that can do something to people, and he's mad that the Constitution limits the role of government in people's liberty. That's why he's saying he doesn't like here. He doesn't like the idea of liberty, and he wants to change it![​IMG][​IMG]BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Now, don't get confused on negative rights versus positive. Negative rights, when I say there's an entire movement out there pushing this view, the Obama people do not call it negative rights. They say they're teaching positive rights. Negative rights is what Obama and his comrades call the Founders' approach to fundamental law. They say the Founders were negative. But this whole notion that the Constitution says what the government can't do to you, rather than saying what it must do on your behalf, the opposite side of Obama's argument is not being expressed properly by Obama himself. When he says what the government can't do to you should then be followed by instead of what it can do to you. When you look at the government as something that can do something to you, he's regretting, he has regret that the Constitution doesn't let the government do things to us. So he must say on the other end of the spectrum that, he says what the government can't do to you instead of what the government can do to you rather than this mumbo jumbo about what it must do in your behalf. But the Constitution establishes a whole bunch of things in our behalf, and Senator Obama is trying to obfuscate this.

    And again, what we have here is an angry young black guy who arrives in Chicago as a 1960s radical and his contempt for the Constitution of the United States is obviously very clear. But he cannot state this, and he has to shut up all of his associates who might say it, like Jeremiah Wright. And now he's out there, by the way, he's out there saying, well, we're not going to have time, we're not going to be able to make an immediate lurch to the left. Oh, really? Just like he said we're not going to be able to take everybody's guns, even if we wanted to. Oh, really? Why even acknowledge it then? Why go on the defense, Obama? He said, well, we may not even have time to lurch left. He's alluding to the possibility, he's trying to assure people that it won't happen not because it's not who he is, it's because he may not have time, we may not have time to lurch to the left, we got too many things going on. Otherwise if you had time you would do it. It's exactly who he is, ladies and gentlemen. And let's not forget, let's go to audio sound bite number six, a montage of various sermons from Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Who taught who here?

    WRIGHT (screaming): Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! [snip] Hillary ain't never been called a nigger! [snip] Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky!

    CONGREGATION: (cheers)

    WRIGHT: He was riding dirty. [snip] In white America, US of KKKA: black men turning on black men. [snip] I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. [snip] Not God bless America, God (bleep) America! It's in the Bible. For killing innocent people, God (bleep) America! [snip] (screaming) And now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards!

    CONGREGATION: (cheers)

    WRIGHT: America's chickensssss are coming home to roost.

    RUSH: Yes, he may be profoundly correct in his own way. America's chickens are coming home to roost. We now know from Barack Obama's own words that his view of this country and Constitution varies hardly at all with that of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright.


    RUSH: Hey, quick here question, folks. What can the Constitution do to babies who survive abortions, according to Professor Obama? Nothing positive. That's for sure.[​IMG]END TRANSCRIPT
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  6. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    Oh no, don't mistake my points as supportive of Barack Obama the politician. I have been known from time to time to defend Barack Obama, but I mean him no support. Rather its important we hone in on the issues that Barack Obama stands for. The recent link to the people saying they support Barack Obama's choice of Sarah Palin is just proof they don't really know who Barack Obama is. The fact is, very few Americans would support Obama if they just took the time to read his own words on his website.

    We need to knock him where it hurts, not where it can be spun as "more conservative nonsense". Like I've said before, think he's a Muslim all you want, but please don't say it... it discredits our movement. So many people can just sum up criticism of Barack Obama as "conservative nonsense" because so much of it is seen as nonesense. I think most of the South knows what I'm talking about. The KKK was used to discredit so much about the South. We don't want to let that happen to the conservative movement.

    The unfortunate fact of the conservative movement is the entire thing is grassroots because we actually think for ourselves. Liberals are either so out there that no one takes them seriously, or they just spout liberal talking points. It's like they all got together one day and agreed to it. Conservatives though are allowed, and enjoy, talking about what is really on their mind. The burden of that is some people don't know what they are talking about.

    I don't mean that to Obama is a Muslim people at all. Like I have said before, I believe he probably was at some point, but today I think he at least considers himself a Christian (even if he is the only one ;)). But the fact is if you go out on the street and tell someone you are confident Obama is a Muslim, everything you have to say, and by effect everyone else who has the same things to say, is discredited.

    Obama has absolutely no right to be president. It isn't because he is/isn't a Muslim, it isn't because he hung out with Bill Ayers (though like I've said that is important in that it shows he doesn't have his golden-ticket to Judgement that he claims), it isn't because he spends a lot of time in Kenya, it isn't because his middle name is Hussein, it isn't because he wore that traditional african garb (hell I occassionaly wore a disheki my black (step)grandma made me), it isn't because he might have been born outside the United States (though that is important, but let the courts figure it out)...

    Instead he has no right to be president because he doesn't understand America, he doesn't know what it is about, and he doesn't have the cahones to do the right thing. He is all about the easy thing (to his credit most of our politicians are these days).

    You know what liberal bullsh*t that has invaded our education system that I am most sick of? Not the idea that Communism is good "in theory," nothing that complicated. The simple idea that if you don't like it, change it... that somehow that is what America is all about. America isn't all about the will of the people, it sure is important... but there are ten specific things America is all about, ten specific things that you can like it or not, but to change is simply unAmerican. I think you all know what ten things I am talking about. It wasn't the right to keep and bear certain arms, it wasn't the right to free speech on your blog but not at school, it wasn't you have the right to an attorney sometimes... it was, and indeed is very clear that there were some things America just was about, no matter what.

    If you think Socialism is the bomb, thats fine, I really don't care, it has some merits we should recognize, but thats not America... you want socialism? GTFO. "Oh well that is easy to say when its your values that America is about." True, it is. But that isn't the only time it applies. I don't think you should have the right to a lawyer because the cable isn't working in your prison cell... I would actually be honored if the government wanted to house soldiers in my house... I think Christianity is the only faith... but you know what? It doesn't matter what I think because America isn't about what James from Spokane thinks. It also isn't about what Barack from Illinois thinks.
  7. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    May 11, 2007
    Washington State
    With respect to Obama and SCOTUS one of the other things he has said is that the Warren court was not liberal. Wow, what is his idea of a liberal SCOTUS. :eek:
  8. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY

    The thing that really sucks about Obama is that he will absolutely win. There is no chance of McCain being president. Even if he wins the election with both the popular and the electoral vote. The democrat lawyers will use our constitution and show that McCain can not be president on account of him being born outside the USA (Pananma). They almost won the last 2 times with the whole vote thing with Gore and Kerry. Do not think they will lose this time. Be prepare to either lose or hide your guns.

    In the mean time, hope for the best.
  9. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    Woodchuck, not true. Children born of U.S. citizens are automatically U.S. citizens.

    They cannot use that argument because it doesn't have standing.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Congress, the real area for change Apr 4, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum John Stewart - "Nothing is being done to stop mass killers." Really John? Jun 21, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum This Is What "Ban"Was Really About. Mar 9, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum it just got real in CT for gun banners Mar 25, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Do you really need references to get a gun/pistol license in NY? Mar 13, 2014