A recently revealed 2001 Chicago radio interview is very telling as to the intent and political philosophy of Barack Obama. The dissimulation of some in the Main Stream Media would have Americans focus on the semantics of “redistributive change” in this interview. They would also have us think that Obama’s detractors have taken his words out of context.
So take Obama’s words in full context. It is clear that Obama does not think much of the US Constitution.
Although the Warren Court did not, Obama certainly would like to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” He just thinks there are better ways to do it than through the courts. Even so, Obama thinks “Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.” But he admits that to do so would be problematic.
To “order changes that cost money” runs into “separation of powers issues” between the Judicial and Legislative Branches. That’s the least of the constitutional impediments for Obama.
Rather than respect America’s deliberate constitutional barriers to Socialism, Obama doesn’t have any problem with using “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.” Communist thugs everywhere would be proud. What Obama proposes would shred the Constitution and is clearly in violation of his US Senate Oath, as it surely is with regards to the Presidential Oath of Office. It is also an act of tyranny and violence.
Cutting through Obama’s rhetoric, he feels that with sufficient socialist legislators and executives (“politic”) who don’t mind violating their oath of office (“break free … the Constitution”) and with an adequate Marxist mob (“community organizing and activities on the ground”) you can unconstitutionally “bring about redistributive change.”
America’s Constitution was deliberately designed to LIMIT what the Federal government can “do to” the American people. It is an anti-Socialism and anti-Marxism restriction upon the Federal government. But it isn’t worth the paper it is written on if dishonest people occupy all three branches of government.
The Declaration of Independence, which founded the United States of America, requires such a Constitution, as well as a republican form of government (not a democracy) whose sole purpose is to secure (not give or take) individual rights. Government’s purpose is to protect the smallest minority there is, the individual, from government tyranny.
In America, these individual rights are inalienably bestowed by the Creator, not government. This is not an opinion. The Organic Legal Documents of America, enumerated in US Code, clearly state this.
That the Left, in both the Democratic and Republican parties, through ignorance or willful disdain, ignores these facts should alarm all Americans. To be sure, both Republicans and Democrats have violated their Oath of Office in not insignificant ways these last 75 years, as is evidenced by the unconstitutional growth of the Administrative State.
In the context of Obama, though, this isn’t politics as usual; but rather a quantum leap in the subversion of the Constitution.
It is understandable that Obama/Biden take exception to their Marxist tag because of the growing awareness it reflects:
• Obama’s childhood mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, Communist enemy of America;
• Obama wrote in his memoir of his college days that "I chose my friends carefully ... The Marxist professors;”
• Obama’s ally Ayers proclaimed in 2002 "I am a Marxist;"
• Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who hand-picked Obama as her successor, was an official of one of the KGB-funded Communist Party USA’s front groups, the U.S. Peace Council. I t is no coincidence that many key years of Obama’s life, with the complicity of the MSM, have been kept undisclosed; that the Marxists whom Obama has spent a lifetime allying himself with have been kept out of the spotlight. Together they seek to “break” the Constitution in a spectacular way.
Like Salvador Allende, Hugo Chavez and many other Marxists, the chosen strategy of Obama and his cohorts is to use a presidential electoral run to subvert a nation. Perpetrators of such subversion do not want to call attention to their intentions.
The fact that in contemporary presidential elections the Communist Party USA does not field a candidate but backs the Democratic Party candidate should speak volumes as to the convergence of the principles of these two parties. It also begs the question as to what happened to the Democratic Party.
It is to the shame of the MSM that the American public has such a meager record on Obama and his cohorts with which to assess his candidacy. That shame is compounded by the fact that it took a children’s book illustrator to dig up this 2001 interview.