Skip to comments.Attempted Coup d'Etat
Posted on 10/24/2010 9:24:37 PM PDT by stolinsky
Obama complains that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed, because it fails to provide for redistribution of wealth. Apparently he compares the Constitution unfavorably with The Communist Manifesto. Such thinking may have been understandable in a young college student who was unaware of the 100 million deaths attributable to communism, but it is inexcusable in a supposedly mature individual in a position of great power. Obama fails to understand the fundamental goal of the Constitution − to reduce the risk of tyranny by limiting the power of the federal government. He sees this as a flaw, not as a virtue. He wants a living Constitution, meaning not the document as actually written, but a vague concept to be interpreted by liberal judges to mean whatever they want it to mean today. Tomorrow it may mean something else, depending on current social needs and international norms. I knew a guy in junior high school named Norm, but he had nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at stolinsky.com ...
Democrats view the Constitution as a menu for a Chinese restaurant - one from column A, one from column B and one from column C. This way they can hide by the Constitution when it suits their purpose or ignore it when hinders their insidious plots.
Obama is on tape declaring that he laments that the Constitution limits what government can DO to the people.
I think this was on public radio in Chicago back when he was a state senator.
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 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and [sic] 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 it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.Emphasis added to show that he believes the intent of the founding fathers to be wrong.
I would read the rest of your blog if you would post it here, otherwise forget it.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to force you to exert yourself by clicking the link. I thought the idea was to get our ideas across before it is too late. Guess I was wrong.
“I thought Dsouza mopped the floor with him. By the time it was over Alter was hoarse, hunched over, clinging to the table.”
My anger was really with CSpan for allowing a guest to be so clubbed by the host and his authority over his guest that he could hardly make his book coherent to the viewer. Thankfully, Alter’s fury was kept at high pitch by DSouza’s genius, unflappable firmness with the splintered, fragmented facts (due to the filabuster interruptions and talking over of Alter. I did complain to CSpan. It was in no way, an interview.
First, Ive looked at your blog and you appear to do some good work. Thank you for sharing it, Doctor.
However, your excerpt was very short, meaning people have to go to your blog to read the meat of the article. Also, A look at your posting history shows you dont respond to many people and only reply on threads you start. This would lead some to conclude that the only reason you come to FR would be to generate hits for your blog, not to advance conservativism.
Some people take greater offense to this than others, some people don’t have a problem with it. Many bloggers have done very well here without the teasers. One thing, however, is fairly certain. Getting into a pissing match with the people who call you on it is a no win situation.
One again, I like your writing. Freepgards,
Mariner here. I could care less about it. Cancel the damn crap and let us live in peace. The government needs a 90% haircut. I just want them to go away.
I’m afraid it’s going to take a civil war to do what you propose - No ruling class in history ever went quietly into the night and our neo-communist elites aren’t into surrender; they will fight.
The question is whether we patriots will pick up the gauntlet and fight a bloody civil war for freedom as did our ancestors in 1775 and 1861.
So far the opposition thinks that elections and demonstrations will do the trick, but I think the issue between the Left and Right will only be settled by “iron and blood.”
Nahh. They run like Rabbits when confronyrd by Taxpayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.