Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama's Dreams of a Six-Man Ruling Junta...In His Own Words!

I need to sue my teachers. Those nincompoops taught me that there were three co-equal branches of government meant to govern us with checks and balances on each other. According to Obama, in this tape from 2001, this is wrong because the Supreme Court needs to do more to redistribute wealth. Take a listen:

Here's the money part for those without speakers:

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 people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the 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. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Are you getting this? The guy who refused to vote to require medical assistance for abortion survivors thinks that the Supreme Court needs to move past what the Constitution says the government shouldn't do to its citizens to imposing new obligations. The way Roe vs. Wade fabricated the right to abortion out of thin air is the way Obama wants his fascist-Marxist-socialist agenda implemented.

Since all he needs is five Supreme Court justices - and he may get to appoint at least three of them in his first term - to enact his will, all the Fuhrer needs is to put his puppets on the court and hand them his commandments for them to enact. No need for a Congress to fuss about legislation anymore for the big issues, is there? Just let the Congress divvy up the pork and have your irreversible Court make the important laws. Nice. I wonder if the liberals who want Obama to pack the Court with pro-abortion puppets are cool with all the other fascism this setup would bring as well. Probably.

As loudly as the conservative media may try to trumpet this - and WTF is it coming out less than 10 days before an election where people are casting votes?!? - look for the "BFD" tone like the Politico's to rule as they blow it off as mere partisan blah-woof and not a problem they care to risk their Anointed One's prospects with. If you want an in-depth analysis of the terrifying importance of Barry's own words, you're going to have to look elsewhere and see just how epic a fail the Treason Media is:
I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.
I'll bet they'll be too busy toasting their success next Tuesday than soul-searching about the souls they sold to foist this fascist false Messiah upon the nation.


UPDATE (10/29): Ed Whelan notices, too:
If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president.

Our Constitution establishes a constitutional republic, a system in which, within the broad bounds that the Constitution sets forth, policy issues are to be determined by American citizens through their elected representatives at the state (including local) and national levels. The great battle over the Supreme Court in recent decades is between the proponents of original meaning and judicial restraint, on the one hand, and judicial activists, or advocates of living constitutionalism, on the other. Proponents of original meaning and judicial restraint embrace an interpretive methodology that respects the vast realm of representative government. Advocates of judicial activism and living constitutionalism, by contrast, redefine the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. They willy-nilly invent rights that aren’t in the Constitution and ignore those that are. Theirs is a philosophy of government by judiciary, with the operations of representative government confined to those matters that the justices aren’t quite ready yet to take charge of or that they think don’t matter very much.

[big snip]

If we look to the future and take seriously the positions and principles that the five living-constitutionalists have already adopted, the Court, as it is now composed, may very well have five votes for, say, the imposition of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, five votes for stripping “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and for complete secularization of the public square, five votes for continuing to abolish the death penalty on the installment plan, five votes for selectively importing into the Court’s interpretation of the American Constitution the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites, five votes for further judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers, and five votes for the invention of a constitutional right to human cloning.

[another big snip - go read the whole thing]

With its five living-constitutionalists, the Supreme Court is well to the left of the American public and threatens to engage in yet more wild acts of liberal judicial activism. The Court urgently needs to be transformed into an institution that practices judicial restraint. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. Our system of representative government, already under siege, would be lucky to survive an Obama presidency.
Note throughout the piece that the ability of the citizens to influence the direction of law-making via their selections of legistlators is irrelevant because the Supreme Court has granted itself the power to fabricate binding law out of thin air using whatever rationale suits its judicial fiat. Also note that the #1 fear of the Left is that Roe v. Wade could be reversed as easily as it was conjured in the first place and that they play upon the ignorance of the legal system of women who are afraid they may not be able to have that abortion they need to still look good in that cute bikini they picked up in Cabo.

Here's the ad they could run: "John McCain wants you to be fat and pregnant instead of pretty and gassed on Cosmos! I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message because I know you chumps will believe anything I tell you. Unicorns are real! Yes, we can!!!"

No comments: