« Gallup In The Tank? | Main | The Constitution: Obama's Obstacle »

More Obama Audio: Constitution Reflects Fundamental Flaw

Barack Obama is a radical. That much has been proven with his own words. In the audio tape that Steve linked to earlier, we hear Barack Obama lament the fact that the Warren Court didn't include redistribution of wealth as part of its civil rights decision. A few days ago we also heard him accuse white executives in suburbs of not wanting to pay taxes to poor children so they can go to school, which again reinforces his views on redistribution of wealth. Now we have another audio tape of Barack Obama in which he says the US Constitution "reflected a fundamental flaw of this country that carries on to this day."

There are a few things that jump out at me immediately. First, note that during all of his remarks he speaks of the Constitution in past tense instead of in present tense. I don't remember hearing any nominee to the US Supreme Court speak of the Constitution in this manner, so this is more than semantics. Second, he calls the Constitution a "remarkable political document." I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way. The President of the United States is required to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. However, by listening to what Obama said in this interview and the 2001 interview that Steve posted earlier it's clear: he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32539.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Obama Audio: Constitution Reflects Fundamental Flaw:

Comments (67)

In other words he nothing m... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

In other words he nothing more then a "commie".

Good story Kim. I am going... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Good story Kim. I am going to add a few things (no surprise).

If you want to understand how a politician thinks - other than his own obvious self interest, you have to:

1. See who his associates are.
2. See how he votes.
3. Examine any writings and speeches he has done.
4. Look at his early influences.

This blog and many others has looked in detail at the first three and less so at number 4.

Saul Alinsky was very influential during Obama's early years as a community organizer. Alinsky influenced (besides Obama) Wayde Rathke, founder of ACORN and the Houston Chapter of SEIU and a host of others. Alinsky wrote the handbook on community organizing. He was more or less a communist, less so because he really didn't like the lockstep Stalinist movement. In other words, he was a purist.

If you want to understand Alinsky and thus part of what makes Obama tick, you need to read:

Saul Alinsky Interview - detailed. Click Me.

Apparently Obama belongs to the Liberal, Socialist, sorta Communist belief that the "Elites" are supposed to take care of the "Little people." This was called the Nomenklatura in the old Soviet Union and that class of people, some call it a "Caste," ruled until they were brought down on the sword of accumulated bad decisions.

Alinsky is very much FOR that caste of people but against the way it played out in the old Soviet Union. Alinsky had his own way of thinking on the subject and very much instilled that way of thinking into his pupils, which included Obama as Obama was exposed to Alinsky methods and people who knew Alinsky in Chicago.

Do keep in mind that Wayde Rathke and Obama have been tight over the years and Rathke is a direct disciple of Alinsky. Bill Ayers was another one who adopted Alinsky's way of thinking.

You can't make this stuff up folks.

It is pretty damning, I exp... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

It is pretty damning, I expect it to be on cable news. Not MSM but Fox only of course. I do hope that we move away from soundbite reporting though, Obama and McCain have both been taken out of context in damning matters before.

As for the source, its very fishy. After the phony assault I'm expecting a few more phony attacks and this may be one of them.

This election presents 2 ke... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

This election presents 2 key questions. Is the MSM capable of electing a president and have the American people become so lazy and cowardly that they will simply roll over as their rights and freedoms are taken away.

...have the American people... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

...have the American people become so lazy and cowardly that they will simply roll over as their rights and freedoms are taken away.

Bush's revised Patriot Act.
Bush's IP law.

When was the last time American's defended the Constitution anyways. As far as I can tell, the public is always trying to change it selfishly. Such as amending it to allow women to vote and implementing socialist monopoly laws that attack America's rich.

And with proper research we... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

And with proper research we find out he was talking about slavery. He was talking about slavery/racism that was not dealt with in the Constitution. It was flawed in that sense, but it allowed itself to be corrected.

And to think I came to this website for credible conservatives.

Why don't you giver us a longer segment of the radio interview so we can put his 'Obama's' words in context. This video says nothing that Jefferson or Madison wouldn't have said themselves which is why they gave us the right to amend our constitution for example the 'Bill of Rights' amendments.

What was the question posed... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

What was the question posed of Obama? Why have these few sentences been culled from the audio tape, which has obviously been edited? Why does someone only want us to hear certain parts of this discussion?

Don't you think we're smart enough to figure it out for ourselves? Giuve us all the information and let us make our own (informed) decisions.

Without attributing it to o... (Below threshold)
Tammy:

Without attributing it to one side or the other (because I have heard it from both left-leaners and right-leaners), I'm am shocked and appalled at the apathetic ignorance of people who simply take at face value whatever the TV talking heads choose to tell them. I'm also thoroughly disgusted that they would give a flying rat's patoot what any celebrity thought about this or that candidate. After all, several of them have the IQ of a emu.

People, you have a few more days to catch the clue bus. Do a little reasearch. Look at voting records and any other dossier materal you can find, then make a decision. Whatever you do, avoid ABC, CBS, and NBC. Like mommy, they spoonfeed you what they want you to eat. As I always tell the people who hawk some long disproven blurb they heard on the alphabets, "Bless your heart. You've been watching _____________ haven't you?" Perhaps we should issue IQ tests and not permit anyone with a score of under 100 to vote. Seriously.

...and oh yeah, I'm voting ... (Below threshold)
Tammy:

...and oh yeah, I'm voting for the fighter pilot and the moose killer! Peace out!

It's good that this more de... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It's good that this more detailed information about Obama is coming out a week before the election. There's still time for people to become informed. Even if some (maybe most) people have tuned out the election, they have been given public notice of just who Obama is and what kinds of things he will push for, if elected.

The Electorate wants change and they don't seem to care just what kind of change it is. Pointing out information such as this will become prominent when people start whining about increased taxes, stagnate economy, high unemployment, nationalization of private retirement accounts, and reparations (innocent whites making payments to the decedents of slave masters who happen to be somewhat black).

And based upon his word... (Below threshold)
Parthenon:

And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.

I don't know anybody who doesn't believe the Constitution had some flaws in it, and most informed people I know believe that it probably still does. It has already been 'altered' numerous times, and almost certainly will be again in the future.

The country has urbanized and become more technologically complicated since the great political compromise (very likely illegal at the time, for the congress didn't grant them the authority to throw out the Articles) of the constitution was hammered out, and that has simply necessitated and demanded a more complicated and involved federal government. A capitalist one that is built to sustain a free market economy, but yes, more involved. That does not make it socialist. 'Redistribution of wealth' may have roots in socialist ideology, but any modestly progressive tax is inherently redistributive.

yihdegoAn... (Below threshold)
Larry:

yihdego

And to think I came to this website for credible conservatives.

Oh bull. You came here to throw a few bombs so you would feel good about yourself. You sound like an old maid aunt rattling her false teeth as she gossips about her neighbors.

Among a few other invasions of our "Liberties," want to expose your ignorance by taking a guess who wanted to wiretap without court blessing?

I will even give you a date and a clue;

Hint: The initials are BC and the date was 1998.

And with proper research we find out he was talking about slavery.

What is the link to someone besides dailykos for that supposed factoid? Have you read Audacity> I have and I found your picture on Page 11.

And for those who need it, Townhall.com has the transcript including the question.

I think it's fair to say... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way.

One extremely important distinction that you probably won't get from your government education (speaking from personal experience) is that the Constitution does not grant us our rights. The Constitution (Bill of Rights specifically) protects those rights, which exist outside of government, from violation by government.

Decent post parthenon:... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Decent post parthenon:

but any modestly progressive tax is inherently redistributive.

Absolutely true. Problem is "Modestly." Excess drives capital to places like China (don't get me started on that one), and hurts the good jobs category at home.

Over and over and over again, we find the factual record on the results of excess taxation and excess social spending. Pick a country and take a look.

It just is.

And all the wishes and hopes of the "Elite" Liberal Caste can't change reality. Of course I have noticed that most of that class have well paying and protected jobs.

When you pay people NOT to work, guess what? When you tell people they are "Entitled," guess what? When you radicalise education so students learn oppression theories instead of hard work for self benefit, guess what?

Yea, I know, Obama makes you feel good, so you are going to vote for him. *sigh*

You know it's going into th... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

You know it's going into the crapper for John McCain when Barack Obama has outraised him in UTAH.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10819776?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

I'm definately not saying he's going to win my home state, but it's pretty incredible nonetheless.

Slavery? Obama sp... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Slavery?

Obama specifically states that the "Constitutional flaw" has not been rectified and "continues to this day." So the apologists trying to attribute his remarks to "slavery" are way off the mark.

Unfortunately, the audio clip never specifically defines this "flaw." Is it the same "flaw" that hampered the Warren Court's efforts to become truly revolutionary? We don't really know for sure.

As far as I am concerned, this little soundbite is a throwaway compared to Obama's shocking belief that the Constitutional limits on the Warren Court constituted a "flaw"!

Actually, all of this talk seems to be pointing to a rebirth of the Poor People's Campaign, which was about to be undertaken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at the time of his assassination. The PPC was focused on the plight of all poor Americans, regardless of race or geographic location. King's plans included a demand for an "Economic Bill of Rights" that, among other things, guaranteed a living wage-type permanent income for the poor. You will also recall that Dr. King unapologetically supported wealth redistribution and himself wrote, "good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism."

In America, we have a reactive Constitution ("here's what the government can't do to its citizens"). It was written by a group of men whose lives had been deeply affected by persecution at the hands of various governments and religious groups. The men who wrote the Constitution wanted to make sure that future generations did not suffer government persecution as they had. But Barack Obama believes that such reactionism and the protective nature of the Constitution is the fundamental flaw in the founding philosophy of our nation! He wants to see a proactive Constitution ("here's what government must do for its citizens"), in order to facilitate the kind of massive redistribution of wealth that he and others believe is necessary for our collective salvation.

That scares the living hell out of me, and it should scare all of you as well.

The discussion was about th... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

The discussion was about the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution. The North wanted an end to slavery, while the South refused to join the new nation if slavery was not allowed. The South also wanted slaves counted for purposes of Congressional representation, although slaves could not vote. Thus the compromise, which meant, in effect, that slaves amounted to three-fifths of a white person.

How anyone could disagree with Barack Obama's assessment of the Constitution as a remarkable-but-flawed document is beyond me. Why do you think the Founding Fathers allowed for an amendment process, then added a Bill of Rights?

If you're interested in hearing the entire audio (which apparently some people here do not want you to hear), go to http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372. I can understand why Ms. Priestap only wants you to hear certain parts of the tape, as Barack Obama again proves his intelligence, education and calm temperament throughout this recording. He went up even further in my estimation after I listened to the entire tape.

Please, I urge everyone to really educate yourself and be fully informed when you cast your vote. Do not let fear and ignorance rule your decision.

'Redistribution of... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
'Redistribution of wealth' may have roots in socialist ideology, but any modestly progressive tax is inherently redistributive.

As I've pointed out before, we already have a significant amount of wealth redistribution going on. With the principle of "one person one vote" and the significantly greater number of poor than rich, what mechanism prevents even more redistribution? Certainly it's not some idea that what a person earns is theirs alone or we would have a flat rate tax. It can only be that lawmakers understand that at some level of taxation people quite working hard if it doesn't benefit them significantly. It's human nature and it's why communism ultimately failed.

As more people cut back on work they don't benefit significantly from, taxes have to be raised on others to compensate, which cause more people to cut back on their work. The question is, how close are we to that tipping point?

Larry I'm sorry you feel th... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

Larry I'm sorry you feel that way, I know that I have different views than you but that doesn't mean I won't read them for what they're worth. I read the postings and the blog to understand conservatives and mostly keep to myself.

I make exceptions when I strongly disagree with what I see posted and this is a classic example of taking soundbites out of context. I've visited different blogs but only return to Wizbang because they seem to have a foot rooted in reality most of the time.

"there was no hope for this... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

"there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war."

"drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems."

"there is much to like and admire about our opponent."

"I can't stand John McCain."

These are just a few of the quotes from Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

This is what happens when you take a person's words out of context.

I don't condone it when anyone does it, and you shouldn't either.

Lisa, if slaves had been co... (Below threshold)
Matteo:

Lisa, if slaves had been counted as full persons under the Constitution, then the slaveholding states would have had more power, not less. Slaves were not going to be voting, but they were to be counted toward the number of representatives these states were going to have in Congress. The 3/5 of a person rule decreased the power of slaveholders, not increased it. Moreover, Obama says the flaw remains to this day. I guess the Fourteenth Amendment counts for nothing.

Lisa:How anyone c... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lisa:
How anyone could disagree with Barack Obama's assessment of the Constitution as a remarkable-but-flawed document is beyond me.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the Consitution is flawless but rather that what Obama considers to be a flaw is not.

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa, go back t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa, go back to the playground. The demo's have mastered the "taking it out of context" business and I am sure you were very quiet about it if not supporting it. Go away with your faux indignation.

BO, whether he wins or loses, is inept and chose a running mate as inept as he. ww

Wow. Joe Biden is an inept... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Wow. Joe Biden is an inept running mate? And Sarah Palin Comparison is a brilliant and articulate person ready to lead this country on day 1? Even Joe Lieberman and Schwarzenegger have said no.

WW, what do you guys eat for breakfast in bizzaro-world?

Larry,I would make... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Larry,

I would make one observation the people in Chicago were not associates. They are his political alliances they are his power base. he went to Chicago and sought them out to be cultivated by them.

In his books he talks about seeking out Marxist professors on college so is it any surprise that he finds and works with Marxist ideologues.

He has gathered every part of them to him.
The old revolutionary and radical college professor in Bill Ayers.
Marxist Black Liberation theology Rev Wright.
the foot soldiers ACORN.
The Democratic Socialist Party
Now combined with the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party and a press corp that is envious of EU. He has the perfect storm.
All he has to do is pretend he is mainstream while he USE the CODEWORDS to nod and if he is question the Press protects him.
Larry

Sal would be so proud of BHO ,and if his is elected we are so screwed.

I will continue to discuss ... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

I will continue to discuss the issues and the election with people who act like adults and don't resort to name-calling when someone disagrees with them. A healthy debate is good for all, and I'm subjecting myself to a very partisan crowd in hopes of having a healthy dialog.

I fully understand the three-fifths compromise, and I see how flawed it was on so many levels. However, both sides viewed it as necessary in order to form this nation. I understand why (but do not condone) them compromising on this issue at the time, but I believe it is OK to look back on it now and wish they had done things differently. That's not un-American. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In this audiotape, Obama discusses the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions on slavery and civil rights from the standpoint of a legal scholar, not a presidential candidate.

I just ask that you listen to the entire tape and then make a decision on Obama's remarks. If you're fully informed and still feel the same way, I can respect that.

Lisa: Thank you for the lin... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Lisa: Thank you for the link. I will go listen and get back to you.

hcddbz: Yep, exactly. And of note is the remarks from those who went to school at Harvard with him, how he got elected and how he managed to, uh, manage the Law Review. He basically did it with his usual rhetorical style of making all sides believe he agreed witjh them. Still doing it.

yihdego

I was less than cordial with you for reason.

Your definition of what is a credible conservative obviously conflicts with mine, and I am a pragmatic conservative who doesn't like Liberals sticking me because I don't live up to their views on how I ought to post my thinking process. I am not a dumb twit who is incapable of doing my own research and drawing my own conclusions. I do not parrot talking points for ANY side.

Liberals have this picture in their heads of puppy beating conservatives who kick little old ladies out in the cold of winter because they were two days behind in their rent.

And it just isn't so. Some of us have a heart. And some of us have a mind that understands human nature; pay someone for not working, guess what?

Let me share with you a real life example of how people game the system. Welfare has a five year window thanks to Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Okay, some people, white, black and brown, eat the window, then enroll in a tech school for another five years, then go back on the rolls.

Most "Elite" white liberals are clueless how it really works down in welfare land. Instead of five years up and out, it is more like 15 years then a try at a phony SSI claim.

Do answer my question: Have you read Audacity>?. If you have, great, if not, why not?

Lisa, you're banging your h... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Lisa, you're banging your head on a brick wall. These people don't care about intelligence, and see absolutely nothing wrong with tactics like taking people's words out of context, et al.

For example, the very author of this post wrote the other day, before that crazy wingnut fraud Ashley Todd admitted she was a liar, completely went off the deep end saying that because of some lying psycho we should elect McCain, that she and people like her wouldn't be intimidated by scary black men lurking in the shadows trying to get them to support Obama (gasp)!

It doesn't matter what you have to say to them. It's like explaining quantum physics to a 4 year old. They will just show how adult they are and tell you to "go back to the playground"

Thankfully they and their ilk are spectacularly going down in flames the likes of which we've never seen.

7 more days to spout your garbage, and then you all get to shut your mouths.

LisaThe Question was... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Lisa
The Question was about wether the Constitution either was a fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence or a repudiation of it as it relates to issues of freedom and to slavery.

So Obama's answer does not recognize how the document allowed for the mechanisms to correct issues of government. It also does not recognize that the Union was in trouble at the time because of issues related to the weakens of the Articles of Confederation. If anything Obama fails to place his answers in context.

Lisa, that snippet of audio... (Below threshold)

Lisa, that snippet of audio is being discussed well within the very context of what he was discussing. Whether or not the discussion began about slavery 150 years ago is moot. By this point he wasn't talking about slavery, or mid nineteenth century compromises when he specifically cited the civil rights movement and bemoaned the failure of the movement to achieve wealth re-distribution through the courts because of the Constitution.

"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 it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."

Whose liberties are negated, might one ask? Why, the states and the federal government:

"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 what is it that he thinks it must do? Why re-distribute wealth!

Now if you want to argue that the Constitution is wrong and should be amended to give the government the power to seize money from one individual for the express purpose of giving it to another in the name of "economic justice" then just come right out and say so, and quit pretending he's been taken out of context.

Ryan,7 mo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Ryan,

7 more days to spout your garbage, and then you all get to shut your mouths.

You're just another clueless liberal if you think Obama winning is going to shut up conservatives. In fact, it will be great fun visiting liberal blogs (from about 1000 different IPs) pointing out how Obama lied about this or that, how Obama broke another campaign promise, how Obama is worse than Bush whenever he does anything that Bush did or tried to do, like fix Social Security or defend this nation against terrorists.

Obama winning means liberals are going on the defensive, which is change, so that should make you happy. I know it makes me happy.

You got to remember, most voters don't give a flying rat's ass about liberal or conservative ideology. They vote their pocketbook and their security, two areas I expect Obama to be a disaster at. Obama will never live up to the expectations he's allowed to build up. The quickest way to bring conservatives back to power is to elect Obama.

"7 more days to spout yo... (Below threshold)

"7 more days to spout your garbage, and then you all get to shut your mouths."

Dream on.

For those of you who cannot... (Below threshold)
FatRichie:

For those of you who cannot figure out how Obama can say the "flaw ... continues to this day": The "flaw" is not slavery, the "flaw" is that our Constitution was written up in a way to allow for slavery to exist.

In other words, slavery was not outlawed in the initial writing of the constitution because of the threatened loss of support of pro-slave states. What Obama is was referring to as a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution is that the document made economic concessions on a moral issue: slavery.

"7 more days to spout yo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

"7 more days to spout your garbage, and then you all get to shut your mouths."

Yes, just the way all the Liberals and leftists have shut their mouths about how they didn't like Bush for eight whole years, even bought into, and made up conspiracies that he was complicit in 911? Mmm, we'll all be sure to shut our mouths if he wins.

In other words, sl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
In other words, slavery was not outlawed in the initial writing of the constitution because of the threatened loss of support of pro-slave states.

Nor did the constitution grant women the right to vote, nor equal rights, nor did it protect natural marriage, the right to work, ban on probation, and on and on. A document Obama would considered perfect would have been laughed at in the 18th century (as it would today).

The decedents of the slave masters are looking for reparations for an episode in American history that was paid for in blood. How many times does the debut have to be paid?

Hey Ryan, why aren't you on... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Hey Ryan, why aren't you on dailykos, where all the adults play?

ROFLMAO

Hey Lisa: Sorry, th... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Hey Lisa: Sorry, that was an incomplete recording of only a selected part of the program. Do you know where I can hear all of it?

Hey Ryan:<bloc... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Hey Ryan:

wouldn't be intimidated by scary black men lurking in the shadows

Most white (and black) females are intimidated by scary black men lurking in the shadows.

So your point is?

Very few are intimidate by a copy hanging around though.

I was one of the ones who was outraged by the phony mugging. I was outraged because the Libs immediately all over her without regard to due process. Eventually it was proven she lied.

So what. I have been chided by libs for jumping to conclusions about Obama. Ok, so be true to your mouth, and don't talk out of both sides of it.

It has already been 'alt... (Below threshold)
rls:

It has already been 'altered' numerous times, and almost certainly will be again in the future.

The framers certainly understood this and put in place a mechanism to amend the document...and made it such that it is extremely difficult to do by requiring a super majority of the states to individually ratify any changes.

Lisa,
You are either missing the context or being disingenuous. I have listened to the entire tape, portions more than once, and it is clear that Obama is speaking of "redistributing wealth" and "reparations". He clearly states that even the Liberal Warren Court was not radical enough to address the issue, then goes on to say that he "could" find an interpretation of the Constitution that would justify it, but the most successful avenue would be through the legislature.

He is not talking about slavery.

And for those of you that a... (Below threshold)
rls:

And for those of you that are saying that a progressive income tax is Socialism, I have to disagree with you.....somewhat. If taxes were utilized as they were intended, i.e. to pay for essential government services, instead of government social economic programs, it would stand to reason that those that have more income would use more of the government services.

However, our government funds many "non-essential" programs that have nothing at all to do with government services (national defense, roads, infrastructure, etc.) and those social programs, being paid out of government revenue are "wealth redistributing". That is why I support a national consumption tax.

"And for those of you th... (Below threshold)

"And for those of you that are saying that a progressive income tax is Socialism,..."

I give up.

Wait, you're excoriating an... (Below threshold)
Punditus Maximus:

Wait, you're excoriating an African-American man for noticing that racial chattel slavery was encoded in our Constitution?

Racial chattel slavery is a bad thing, right? We are at least agreed on that?

Gasp! Our Perfect Godly Co... (Below threshold)

Gasp! Our Perfect Godly Country has not always been up to our current standards of perfection! And the EBIL SCARY BLACKAZOID NOTICED! PANIC! THE ISLAMOMARXONEGROFASCISTS HAVE WON! GRAB YOUR GUNS!

Idiots, all of you. It's this level of smearing and lying that's gotten you into a situation where you can't win, and it's this that will ensure you can't ruin MY country anymore.

See you in Obama's America.

Well, if President Obama do... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Well, if President Obama doesn't shut you idiots up, then (cross your fingers) a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and perhaps a 70-seat supermajority in the House will.

If you don't like that, dig... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

If you don't like that, dig this: I bet J.P. Stevens, 88, retires as soon as Obama is sworn in. He will be replaced by a much younger jurist to serve a life term.

Ginsburg would probably follow suit pretty quick, at 75, and be replaced by a much younger liberal jurist to serve a life term.

Souter is 69, so he might do the same.

Breyer is 70, so he might do the same as well.

What should scare you people the most (not black guys jumping out of the bushes to carve the letter "B" on your faces) is that President Obama might have to make 4 SCOTUS appointments in his first term. Coupled with a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ seat supermajority in the House, it's not a good time to be a Republican.

"Well, if President Obam... (Below threshold)

"Well, if President Obama doesn't shut you idiots up, then (cross your fingers) a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and perhaps a 70-seat supermajority in the House will."

Now you're staring to sound like you're threatening us.

"What should scare you people the most (not black guys jumping out of the bushes to carve the letter "B" on your faces) is that President Obama might have to make 4 SCOTUS appointments in his first term. Coupled with a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ seat supermajority in the House, it's not a good time to be a Republican."

Yup sounds like a threat to me.

A) I'm not a Republican
B) I'm not shutting up
C) You are a little, little man if you're taking pleasure in dreaming of the possibility that your super-majorities & liberal Justices will shut people up.

You don't have the right to call yourself an American. You were born here by accident. At this point it's not difficult to picture you standing front and center at a Castro speech cheering him on.

You all have a lot of silly... (Below threshold)
atheist:

You all have a lot of silly, manufactured controversy about how Barack Obama will take away your rights displayed on this thread. It is quite bizarre how quickly you've forgotten your own words and actions over the past eight years. Need I remind you that for the past eight years you cheered on every single unconstitutional infringement of individual rights committed under the Bush administration, because you were so terrified of the Osama Bin Ladens under your bed?

You cheered on the wiretapping of American citizens with no warrant.

You cheered on the use of torture against those deemed 'enemy combatants'.

You cheered when, in the 2006 "Millitary Commissions Act", Bush was granted the power to arbitrarily designate any American citizen an 'enemy combatant', with no possibility of judicial review.

You cheered when the Bush administration decided to interrupt the normal flow of US businesses, carrying out large-scale raids against businesses believed to be using undocumented immigrant workers, arresting hundreds of people at a time, and putting them in concentration-camp-like holding areas, before shipping them out of the country, often leaving their families behind.

It is difficult to overstate the utter contempt you held for individual rights while your party was in power, the unreasoning adulation you had for your leader Bush, or the complete and unmanly fear you evinced toward anyone who was called an "anti-American terrorist". Combine this attitude with your sudden, current concern for individual rights, and your sudden fear of an over-reaching president, and the result is bitter laughter.

RyanI think you un... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Ryan

I think you underestimate the Dems. Congress sets the number of judges on the Supreme Court. With obama and the supermajorities I look for them to increase the number of judges by at least 4 for the sake of Diversity. that means that Obama will most likely name 6-8 judges. In addition, since they will serve for probalby 20+ years this supermajority on the Supreme court will last at leaset 20-30 years.

The only way to reverse it would be the Republicans to get a supermajority and the white house and increase the number of judges to balance out the court again. That will take 20 years if ever to accomplish.

ateist:Well, darn,... (Below threshold)
Larry:

ateist:

Well, darn, another history idiot.

You cheered on the wiretapping of American citizens with no warrant.

I doubt you will be back here to read this post or if you do, will acknowledge it.

That said, please be advised that the President of the United States wanted to do more wiretaps without judicial oversight. It was 1998 and the President's name was BILL CLINTON.

There was another bunch of "Human rights" proposals at the same time, but that one sticks in my memory.

Oh, wait, it was a Dem, so it must have been all right, right?

It's amazing how many Repub... (Below threshold)

It's amazing how many Republicans cite Bill Clinton as their absolute authority - and assert (as Larry does above) that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be just fine.

I say it's amazing, because all these Republicans with such touching faith in Bill Clinton's judgement were remarkably invisible back when he was actually President. Perhaps they've come to realise now, after 8 years of Dubya, what a fine President Clinton was?

Now we have another audio tape of Barack Obama in which he says the US Constitution "reflected a fundamental flaw of this country that carries on to this day."

How is this controversial? I thought it was a basic in high school civics class whenever the question of "3/5ths of a person" comes up. Didn't you go to any?

I doubt you will b... (Below threshold)
atheist:
I doubt you will be back here to read this post or if you do, will acknowledge it.

That said, please be advised that the President of the United States wanted to do more wiretaps without judicial oversight. It was 1998 and the President's name was BILL CLINTON.

Certainly, Bill Clinton wanted more wiretaps without judicial oversight. This is totally immaterial to my statement that Bush vastly expanded wiretaps without warrants, and that you cheered this step and attacked anyone who questioned it.

"I say it's amazing, bec... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I say it's amazing, because all these Republicans with such touching faith in Bill Clinton's judgement were remarkably invisible back when he was actually President. Perhaps they've come to realise now, after 8 years of Dubya, what a fine President Clinton was?"

Are you really that ignorant, Jesu? You are actually stupid enough to not realize that his point was that most leftists are hypocites?

Well at least it's easy to undertand why you support the Marxist Obama.

Tammy (in comment #6) was right. It does our democracy no good when morons vote.

"It's amazing how many R... (Below threshold)

"It's amazing how many Republicans cite Bill Clinton as their absolute authority - and assert (as Larry does above) that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be just fine."

Jesurgislac, wow, did you ever misread Larry's comment.

"How is this controversial? I thought it was a basic in high school civics class whenever the question of "3/5ths of a person" comes up. Didn't you go to any?"

That was rectified by Amendment 14. Did you miss that part of the class? It does not "carry on to this very day". It cannot be stricken from the original document without physically defacing it.

You want to get indignant about something? How about ryan's comment? Or is that one okay with you?

Frankly, athiest I'm fine w... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Frankly, athiest I'm fine with Bush wiretapping people with proven connections to terrorists. (Then again, unlike you, I'm not voting for a guy with proven close ties to terrorists.)

Why did Clinton want to vastly expand warrentless wiretaps again?

Do you know why many Republ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Do you know why many Republicans cite Bill Clinton? It is to show that most arguments made by the left are Inconsistent.

The question is not where were the Republicans but where were the Dem crying foal when Clinton did the same thing as President Bush?
American president wants to wiretap terrorist to protect the country. Americans say if it terrorist and protect America go for it.

Liberals ask was it a Democrat then it's a good Idea, if it's a Republican then it bad.


How is this controversial? ... (Below threshold)

How is this controversial? I thought it was a basic in high school civics class whenever the question of "3/5ths of a person" comes up. Didn't you go to any?"

The founders knew that they would have to address the issue of Slavery however with the failure of the Articles behind then they had to reach a compromise at that point in time and trust that the American people would be able to take the cause up at a later date. Which is why they had the process to amend the Constitution.

I mean everyone should be happy it bipartisanship and compromise that we all hear is so good for government.


But let us deal with the articles that directly address slaves in the current version Amendment 13 Slavery Abolished 1868,
Amendment 14 Citizenship Rights. 1868
Amendment 15 Race No Bar to Vote. 1870

It was not the US Constitution but Democrats in the south that worked hard to deny freed slaves there rights followed by there able accomplices the Supreme Court which established segregation in 1896 in the south.

Woodrow Wilson in 1913 segregated the Federal Government after stating he would support Black Issues.

So I would submit that the Fundamental Flaw lies not in the US Constitution but in the Democratic Party which says it there to help and then stabs you in the back.

Frankly, athiest I... (Below threshold)
atheist:
Frankly, athiest I'm fine with Bush wiretapping people with proven connections to terrorists.

Thank you for making my point better than I possibly could have. You don't give a rats ass about individual rights, and never have.

his point was that most ... (Below threshold)

his point was that most leftists are hypocites?

How so? To prove that "leftists are hypocrites" he has to show not that Bill Clinton wiretapped without a warrant, he has to show that the same people who objected to George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping when it was made clear that Bush was breaking the law, were aware of Clinton doing the same thing and supported it just because it was Clinton.

What Larry actually asserted, however, was that if Bill Clinton did it, no one could possibly make any objection: a touching faith in Clinton's judgement! Republicans keep making this kind of comment, plainly showing that even Republicans realise that compared to Bush, Clinton was a fine, fine President.

Careful there hcddbz, you'r... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Careful there hcddbz, you're treading on sacred leftist dogma, pointing out truths like that.

Remember the leftist rule: Republicans are racists, but the Democrats, who elected a former KKK leader to 4th in line for the Presidence-not 150 years ago, or 100, or even 50, but LAST YEAR- are not racists at all.

Yeah, right.

" You don't give a rats ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

" You don't give a rats ass about individual rights, and never have."

That's not at all true atheist. I just don't think planning terrorist attacks in private should be an "individual right".

Here are some "individual rights" I do support:

The right to be born and live after you're conceived.

The right to own and use firearms.

The right to make a profit and keep most of it for personal use.

The right to choose which charitable activities my money supports.

The right to plan for my own retirement without government interference.

The right to work for anyone for whatever salary I choose to be paid and without being required to join an extortionist racket.

The right to use my tax dollars to send my children to any school I choose, public or private.

I could go on and on, but that's a good start.

The right to worship whom (or what?) ever I choose and however I choose in public- even in public schools.

So which of those individual rights do you support, Athiest?

Get my point Atheist? Just because I don't support the "individual right" to secretly plot terrorist attacks against my country, as you apparently do, doesn't automatically mean I "don't give a rats ass about individual rights". That logical fallacy you used there was called a "straw man". If you have to use logical fallacies in an argument, that means you've lost the argument.

Jesu,Pointing out ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jesu,

Pointing out (A) the hypocrisy of the silence of the left when Clinton did the same thing they scream against Bush doing means (B) that we believe "that compared to Bush, Clinton was a fine, fine President"?

Please explain the logic that got you from (A) to (B).

More and more I have to agree that Tammy was right.

"How so? To prove that "... (Below threshold)

"How so? To prove that "leftists are hypocrites" he has to show not that Bill Clinton wiretapped without a warrant, he has to show that the same people who objected to George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping when it was made clear that Bush was breaking the law, were aware of Clinton doing the same thing and supported it just because it was Clinton."

Oddly enough, that very fact has been clearly revealed to a number of liberals who post here regularly and, regularly, they do not respond. Or their response is much like yours; a lengthy non-committal, non-answer. Hypocrisy? Maybe, maybe not. If anyone ever actually responds with any substance, I'll touch base with you, okay?

A little late Larry but no ... (Below threshold)
yihdego:

A little late Larry but no I have not read Audacity.

And my parents are immigrants who used welfare for the 5 years and proudly never gone back. Sorry that other people abuse the system, lots of my family though still need it because they haven't been able to find work due to injuries. Its a system though that allows people a choice to join the ranks of the successful no matter where they begin.

What should scare you pe... (Below threshold)
Ginger Joe:

What should scare you people the most (not black guys jumping out of the bushes to carve the letter "B" on your faces) is that President Obama might have to make 4 SCOTUS appointments in his first term. Coupled with a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ seat supermajority in the House, it's not a good time to be a Republican.

Yes, except the ideological makeup of those judges (all liberal) renders any of Obama's appointments as nothing more than affirmation of the status quo. There's still a 4-4-1 split on most issues, and barring some tragic happenstance for the fairly young Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito bloc, Barack's appointments will be essentially meaningless. This is what makes the FRC and FotF's efforts to gin up fear of the SC legislating from the bench so laughable.

Also, never been here befor... (Below threshold)
Ginger Joe:

Also, never been here before, but I sincerely applaud a conservative blog w/o excessive comment moderation. Thanks.

Oh see now, Ginger Joe, you... (Below threshold)

Oh see now, Ginger Joe, you went and burst his bubble. He was so hoping a majority would see to it that we shut up.

Yep, still stupid, all of y... (Below threshold)

Yep, still stupid, all of you.

Keep crying about DEM EBIL LIBROOLZ. Spend the next four years alone, in the dark, listening to whatever sad, sad shit you want to. MEanwhile, those of us who don't want this country to become a plutocratic, theocratic nightmare will be celebrating the fact that people like you are powerless.

See you in Obama's America, whiners.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy