Even though it has been out for days, so far only Drudge and FoxNews are reporting on the startling (not really for anyone paying attention) audio of an interview The One gave in 2001. In the interview, which I have now dubbed the Obamunist Manifesto, Obama makes clear that he does not love or understand this country at all. In it, he says the “The Constitution reflects the fundamental flaw of this country.” Do people understand, or care, what this man has said? What he thinks? The founding principles of this country of limited government represent a fundamental flaw. A fundamental flaw. But, through the courts, he thinks we can still change that.
Check out these money quotes from the Obamunist Manifesto courtesy of Newsbusters transcription:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples — so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And 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 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, 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. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think 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 to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
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 mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it [redistribution of wealth] legally, y’know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. …..
The man is a Marxist, pure and simple. A baby killing Marxist. God help us.