October 28, 2008

Let Father-Challenged Obama’s Own Words Defeat Him

Originally published by Mike DeVine, as legal editor for The Minority Report
_______________________________________________________________________

-McCain should play Obama 2001 radio interview at every campaign event

Want to force the Drive-by media to cover Obama’s rejection of the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers and our Constitution that produced the greatest nation on Earth?

Then Obama should be the keynote star speaker at every McCain-Palin campaign event.

One has to question whether many voters that are up for grabs will immediately understand, given our woeful education system partially taken over by socialists that control the schools, Obama’s contempt for American exceptional-ism and the import of his words:

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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order 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. And to that extent as radical 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, and 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. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

……

Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

McCain should play Obama’s voice over the loud speakers at every stop and then deconstruct his words as revealing a man that could not, in good faith, uphold the required Oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the precious document he trashes as “fundamentally flawed” above.

Obama sees the Constitution as only a negative document. It is, in that it limits government, but it also positively protects Liberty in so doing.

Obama loves government power, not Liberty for We the People and sees the Warren Court as not having gone far enough! Under a constitution written from the Marxist dreams of his once-met Kenyan “father” (Another Messiah’s with no birth certificate and questions about his father, but this one photo-shopped a fake one and dreams of an atheist Kenyan Father while studying at the knee of a Hawaiian.), not only would a Warren Court let off a murderer that wasn’t read his “Miranda rights”, it would make the government a conviction-proof robber of your wealth to spread around the ‘hood like a piece of the action by him as Boss/Godfather.

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest ongoing governing document on earth. The Liberty it unleashed has produced the marvel of what man can accomplish in the history of the world. How five percent of the world’s population can create such great technological progress and share it. How the poor here would be considered upper middle class most places since the 1830’s. How it set the stage for the only nation to fight a war and then eliminate slavery on moral grounds. How it is the magnet for the dispossessed and even put up a Statue of Liberty to beckon them.

How we produced enough wealth to build a defense strong enough to defend against enslaving megalomaniacs and be responsible for the greatest explosion of free peoples in history, within and beyond our borders in a benevolence unheard of by previous empires.

And as Colin Powell said before he lost his way, the only land we asked for from the liberated was enough to bury the dead that died for their liberty.

Obama considers that Constitution to be fatally flawed because it limits the power of government to control us.

My God! The miracle of the document is how it limits the government so that the potential of free human beings is unleashed.

Obama doesn’t understand that the “negative” document is under girded by a Declaration of Independence that sees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (especially including the right to keep the fruits of our labor as private property), as Creator-God given. He doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care, that the secret to why we have so much wealth that he would like to spread to favored groups as pieces of the action is the incentive of the right to private property. God knows he admitted that the question of when humans get the right to life is above his pay grade.

No, Obama hates the Constitution and would rather July 4, commemorate a Declaration of Dependence on his government. How can he take the Oath? Especially on a Bible that contains within the other great pillar of our exceptionalism, i.e. Judeo-Christian values.

No, this is not a claim that he is a Muslim. In fact, this rooster could name many Muslims that I would happily vote for President given their love and allegiance for The Founders and the Constitution and their advocacy of our shared values.

But Obama, like many that attend Christian churches, has a different view. Let his own words indict his contrary world view.

And even there, he has a contrary view.

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. According to Falsani, Obama thinks that “all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God.” (her words)

If that is so, Jesus wasted his time coming to Earth and he certainly did not have to suffer the pain of rejection and crucifixion if there are ways to God other than through Himself.

Here’s Obama telling Falsani, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.” Falsani adds, “Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”

Here’s Obama again: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological gruel.

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called a “false prophet.”

I hope some national journalist or commentator with knowledge of such things asks Obama about this and doesn’t let him get away with re-writing Scripture to suit his political ends.

Obama is not one of us.

I actually have sympathy for Obama and his father-, and mother-(she was a Marxist, too) challenged childhood. No one gets to pick their parents.

But we do get to accept or reject our nation’s heritage, a heritage, that in his case, provided him with a good life, liberty, including, education and the pursuit of happiness, including great wealth.

He explicitely rejects what produced that great life.

He rejects the Father of our Country.

We that embrace that George Washington and his fellow Founders of this nation and Framers of the Constitution, and who love the actual United States of America with its glorious history, must reject Obama and the America he would found, or reap the whirlwind.

Vote McCain-Palin!

____________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

by @ 12:28 pm. Filed under 2008 General Election, Barack Obama
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2008/10/28/let-father-challenged-obamas-own-words-defeat-him/trackback/

13 Responses to “Let Father-Challenged Obama’s Own Words Defeat Him”

  1. mike Says:

    I hope they have commercials up now with his statements about that.

  2. Taylor Says:

    I hate that McCain is the only alternative to Obama. Mr Socialist vs. Mr. “I don’t know as much about economics as I should” What kind of a choice is that?

  3. Gamecock Says:

    #2 Its as clear and dire a choice as we have ever had. Obama loathes our Constitution.

  4. TC Says:

    Hit it out of the park you ol’ Rooster!

    Way to go!

  5. Ted Says:

    This formula sums it up (spread it all over the web):

    OBAMA + DEM CONG = BILL OF RIGHTS RIP

  6. cwpete Says:

    My personal rate of return in my 401k from 01/01/2008 to 10/27/2008 is -51.2%. My best investment this year has been paying extra to my home mortgage principle. That is the driving issue here right now.

    There has been a remarkable confluence of events all favoring Obama. The planets have aligned, what else can be said? The markets have tanked at the right time favoring Obama, people are both fearful and irrational to the extent to elect a redistributive Marxist..

    The Markets are tanking in anticipation of Obama’s tax hike on business owners. Taxing is the best economic dis-incentive out there. Businesses won’t expand, they will accelerate offshoring. They won’t invest, they will conserve what capital Obama & Congress decide to leave them.

    There is change and there is socialism. After a year of real – recession, we can all adopt the saying – have you had enough change yet?

  7. Tom in SoCal Says:

    It’s because of universalism that I left the Episcopal Church. Obama isn’t the only one to hold such views.

  8. YoYo Says:

    I’m not sure he rejects the Constitution. He believes it is a flawed document, and it absolutely is. The Founders knew it would be, and had the foresight to make it amendable.

    I also think that, per Politico, the sort of redistributive change he was talking about is the sort focused on a social safety net and equality of public education, which even MITT ROMNEY has deemed the great civil rights issue of our era.

    Think about it: The purpose of a public education is a base level of educational equality, from which the cream can rise. But public education is financed by local property taxes; the wealthy areas will inherently have the best schools. This problem is where Obama was advocating “redistributive change,” if you read the whole thing.

    Now, this is NOT a conservative viewpoint. That’s a fine point to make, that the states should have control over this, not the federal government redistributing funds. It is indeed a social welfare idea. But I don’t think it makes him a radical. I know that’s blasphemy around here, but I just don’t.

    Also, pointing out how non-Christian Obama is is EXACTLY why the GOP is falling apart. Who cares if his Christian worldview is more universalist? How is the WORLD is that a substantive matter?

    The Republican Party’s primary problem is it has espoused no concrete ideas in this election cycle. It should be championing its own vision, not wrecking down the other guy’s. And yet, we nominated a vision-less candidate.

    How do we expect him to beat the fresh-faced dreamer? It’s absurd.

  9. Big S Says:

    I’m not sure he rejects the Constitution. He believes it is a flawed document, and it absolutely is. The Founders knew it would be, and had the foresight to make it amendable.

    Very true. To anyone who claims it isn’t, I would ask: after which amendment did it cease to be a flawed document?

  10. cwpete Says:

    The American Thinker has a nice article about Obama’s merchandise specifically the big O encircled about with a red star. Marxism or a hoax? Either way, it is pretty darn funny.

  11. soldotnastan Says:

    I believe the constitution is supposed to remain a imperfect document so it can be amended as society changes as a whole. Of course there will be people or groups of people that will point out its flaws and attempt to poke holes in it. Then it becomes up to us and the people we vote for to protect its integrity. It also then becomes up to us as individuals to pressure our voted officials to do as we suggest. At least thats the way I always believed it to be.

  12. Gamecock Says:

    Nos. 8, 9 and 11
    definition of red herring

  13. Gamecock Says:

    #8, 9 and 10 he said fatally falwed and the reason he said it is flawed goes to the CORE of what is so great about it. Moreover, the left never seeks to amend it. Rather, they seek to have 5 lawyers re-write it.

The Candidates





























Featured Archives


Race 4 2008 Interviews

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Facebook


Join Race 4 2008 on Facebook

Site Syndication

Twitter

Main

Meta Data

Design and Hosting By