Posted by: Puma1 | October 28, 2008

The President is Supposed to ‘Protect and Defend’ the Constituion, Obama Said He Would ‘Radicalize’ It

What else do you need to vote against Obama?

You have Obama telling Joe the Plumber the reason for his tax increase is to “spread the weath around,” which is nakedly socialist. You have Obama’s veep nominee, Joe Biden, guaranteeing that electing Obama would generate an “international crisis” as rogue nations try to “test” him, a frightening admission. And then, just this weekend, you have the emergence of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama complains that the Supreme Court had not been “radical” enough in redistributing wealth.

The sum of these statements: On the economy, Obama is a radical socialist, and on foreign policy, Obama’s inexperience and immaturity will put the nation in grave danger.

The salient questions of this election, then, are 1) Can you be serious about the American Dream and vote to radicalize the Constitution, “spread the wealth around,” and turn America into a socialist nation? 2) Can you be serious about national security and vote to invite an devastating international crisis at a time when America is already facing two wars and economic trouble?

I can’t believe that Americans, knowing the truth about Obama, would vote him into office anyway.

In its editorial repudiation of Obama’s Constitution radicalism, The New Hampshire Union Leader bravely and rightly noted that the “Constitution exists for one reason. To protect us from men like Barack Obama, who is perilously close to being handed the power to begin undoing that protection.”

And despite attempts to parse Obama’s comments about radicalizing the Constitution to redistribute wealth, nothing is more incriminating that Obama’s own words:

“The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

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 Constitution.”

There is no way to spin this. Obama wishes the Constitution and the Courts had been more radical, so that wealth could be taken, redistributed, and presumably “spread around.”

God help us.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: