hen the Founding Fathers structured the Constitution of the United States they very deliberately contemplated every word before committing them to paper. "We the People" were determined to get it right by creating a system of government in which there were no kings or lords, and where the politicians who made the law would be no more "equal" than the lowest subject of the realm who voted foror againsthim. The form of government that was being created by the Founding Fathers would be the most unique government in the world. It would be a government in which power was shared by a chief executivethe President of the United States, the Stateswhich were sovereign, and the Peoplewho retained the final word through the House of Representatives on the amount of money the central government spent since the House controlled the purse strings of the nation. (Under the Constitution, all money bills are required to begin in the House of Representatives, giving the people the right to decide just how much they would be taxed by their representatives before the central government of the United States. The US Senate cannot constitutionally initiate legislation that allows the central government to dip into the pockets of the taxpayers. That, by the way, was one of the first rights erased by the politicians. Sadly, the People, who have never been good caretakers of their own liberty, failed to notice.) Finally, as specified by the 10th Amendment, all powers not specifically delegated to the Executive by the Constitution, were reserved exclusively for the States or (not and) the People.
While the federal government has been trying to flip-flop it for 222 years, the Constitution constructed a system of governance in which the cart was very deliberately placed before the horse. Constitutionally, the People provide the impetus to move government, not the other way around. The President is the agent of the States. His job is to act as the emissary (ambassador) of the States to the foreign capitals of the world. He was not designated as the Overlord of government. (In 1913 the Wilson Administration erased the balance of power from the Constitution with the fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment, creating a lopsided power structure that penalized the People. On April 8, 1913 the eraser, artfully applied to the Constitution, changed the Republic created by our forefathers into a parliamentarian democracy.)
The People and/or the States were to be the "boss." Recognizing the fact that the Constitution, as it was originally written, might not serve the evolving needs of the nation in the future, the Founders penned into it a provision (Article V) which allowed future generations to amend the Constitution to fit the world in which they lived.
The procedure to amend the Constitution is very specific. Article V contains 138 words: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Convention in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first Article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In simple terms, the Constitution provides two ways by which history's covenant with the American people may be amended. By a resolution proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, or by a Constitutional Convention proposed by two-thirds of the States. In either event, a proposed constitutional amendment requires the ratification of three-fourths of the States to fuse it into the Constitution.
While the US Supreme Court is the "court of last resorts" in the United States and holds the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the application of US law and the tenets of the Constitution, it does not possess the right to legislate from the bench (i.e., it does not have the prerogative to change the intent of the laws of the land, or to amend the Constitution by coupling unrelated amendments to achieve new meaning). Yet, once the Supreme Court was politicized by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to protect the New Deal, Supreme Court justices were not longer picked based on their constitutional law credentials but for their political pedigrees. The plum in the pie of the presidency was the ability to select one or more high court judges to protect the longevity of the legislation that President crafted during his time in the Oval Office. Roosevelt served for 12 years, one month and eight days. He appointed eight justices to the high court. Only George Washington, who filled the first Supreme Court, appointed more. Washington actually appointed ten justices. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft and Dwight D. Eisenhower each appointed five. Most presidentsif they serve two termsappoint 2 or 3 high court justices. A handful appointed four.
In 1826 American frontiersman and US legend Davy Crockett successfully ran for, and was elected to, the 20th US Congress. He was easily reelected to the 21st Congress in 1828. Campaigning for reelection in 1830, Crockett ran into intense voter backlash because his backwoods constituents in Tennessee learned that Crockett had signed on to a humanitarian bill that provided $20,000 to rebuild several row-houses in Georgetown that burned one blustery cold winter night in 1829. Crockett signed on because the fire left scores of people homeless. Stumping for votes, Crockett ran into a farmer, Horatio Bunce who told him he was not going to vote for the frontiersman. Asked why, Bunce told him that Congress had no authority to give his taxes to private citizens, adding that, "...when Congress stretches its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people." The voters in Tennessee rejected Davy Crockett in 1830 for giving taxpayer money to a private project.
Reelected on a promise of financial austerity in 1832, Crockett made a speech on the floor of Congress 0n March 6, 1835 arguing against the use of public money to make a grant to the widow of distinguished naval officer. He said: "I will not go into the argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money for an act of charity. Each member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
Until 20th century politicians discovered the "commerce clause" in the Preamble of the Constitution and construed it to be an "implied power" of the federal government, politicians knew that the spending power of the central government of the United States was specifically limited to: paying for the construction and maintenance of Post Offices and postal roads, and promoting the progress of science and the arts by creating a patent office and maintaining patents on inventions and copyrights on books and other forms of art. The central government was also charged with the financial responsibility of raising and maintaining an army and a navy. They also had a responsibility to police the high seas in order to protect America's coastline.
To pay for a functional central government that was required to oversee that the plethora of laws that would be forthcoming to make sure they were observed and obeyed; and to fund the federal court system that would be required to enforce those laws and mete out punishment to offenders who would require incarceration, also necessitated the construction of a federal penal system. Further, the federal government was charged with the responsibility of managing lawful immigration (including the deportation of illegal aliens). The federal government was never given the authority to spend taxpayer dollars on the types of vast, expensive social welfare programs it created during FDR's New Deal or Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Nor does the federal government have any constitutional right to give taxpayer money to other nations in the form of "foreign aid."
The authority of the federal government to spend the money of the taxpayers was very limited by the Constitution. That is, until Congress and the federal court system erased the 10th Amendment to allow constitutional lawyers to argue that the Preamble of the Constitution (i.e., the introduction to the document itself) was construed to be an implied right of government: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The preamble then leads to Article I, where the authority to govern is defined and delegated.
The "welfare clause" is simply not a clause of any type. It is merely a declaration that the People of the United States (not the US government) created a society of laws that would guarantee the People a system of governance that would protect them from this nation's enemiesforeign and domestic; and also provide the People with an opportunity (not a guarantee) to secure economic security for themselves and their families.
The Preamble of that Guarantee is not a rite of passage for government to seize the assets of the People and redistribute them to those lacking the ambition or the know-how to sufficiently provide for themselves. The Constitution does not guarantee economic equality. The federal government collectivelythe Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of governmentchose to empower themselves by erasing the 10th Amendment, endowing themselves with authority they do not constitutionally possess. The Judicial weighed in by holding, for most of the last 100 years, that the federal government is the superior government and that the States, which created the central government as its tool, are construed to be subservient to the federal bureaucracy. Yet, government used the "welfare clause" to implement Public Law 82-352, 42 USC 21, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further, in a stretch of legality, the Johnson Justice Department used Title VII of Public Law 82-352 to prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin by arguing jurisdiction to interfere with the hiring customs of segregationist businesses in the South if goods or services sold by those businesses were delivered to them via Interstate commerce, or even if customers for their goods and services did or could cross a State line to avail themselves of those goods or services
Probably the first clause to be erased from the Constitution in our lifetime is found in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, and deals with the qualifications for any candidate for the office to serve as President of the United States. The Constitution stipulates that anyone running for the office must be  at least 35 years of age,  have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and  be a natural-born citizen. The fourth condition, repeated 16 times in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, while not politically-correct today, genderized the office of the presidency. Yet, that has not diminished several woman throughout history from seeking the office.
The first to try was Cornelius Vanderbilt's mistress, Victoria Clafin Woodhull, who sought the office in 1872. Not only was Woodhull a woman, she was also only 34 years old. Financed by Vanderbilt, Woodhull formed the Equal Rights Party and chose former slave Frederick Douglass as her running mate. The Woodhull-Douglass ticket was not on the ballot of any State and, because women did not yet possess the right to vote, the ticket received only 15,000 write-in votes nationwide. Woodhull's candidacy was not taken seriously since, being born in September, 1838, gender aside, she would still have been 34 at the time of her inauguration in March, 1873. For that reason, history views Belva Lockwood, whose name appeared on the ballot in several States in 1884, as the first woman to seek the office of President.
Civil Rights advocates insist that Article II was degenderized by "magic eraser" with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. In point of fact, while the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, it did not provide them with the right to seek the highest office in the landan oversight that has been ignored by politically correct office seekers, male and female, since 1920. In 1964, US Senator Margaret Chase Smith [R-ME] became the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for President by a major political party. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm [D-NY] was the first woman to seek the Democratic nomination. She ran in several primaries in 1972 and captured 151 delegates. In 1984, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major party ticket as Vice President. She was Walter "Fritz" Mondale's running mate against President Ronald Reagan in what was the second worst political upset in the nation's history. The Mondale-Ferrraro ticket took only one StateMondale's home state of Minnesota. He took only 13 electoral votes.
When the Susan B. Anthony Amendment (the 19th Amendment) was offered to the 67th Congress, language to degenderize Article II was added in the Senate version, but was almost immediately stripped from the resolution because moderates in both the House and Senate knew the measure, offered several times since 1868, would never pass with that language in it. The 2003 Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, which was touted as an amendment to repeal the "natural born citizen," clause also degenderized the office of the presidency. The amendment, referred to the "Schwarzenegger Amendment" was actually the "Hillary Clinton Amendment." Schwarzenegger publicly asked that his name not be associated with the debate. The amendment failed. Yet, Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race of 2008 as the Democratic front-runner, and Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK] became the Republican vice presidential running mate. Again, the magic eraser was applied to erase the gender from Article II. Ask anyone you bump into on the street if they believe a woman can legally seek the office of President. Without batting an eye, 97% of those you ask will say "yes." By practice, the "magic eraser" degenderized Article IIwithout the need to ratify an amendment that failed to clear the hurdles in Congress everytime it was attempted.
While the Constitution of the United States gave Congress the prerogative to change the day (singular) when votes are cast for the President of the United States, it designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years as the day when votes shall be cast. Specifically, the Constitution mandates that the "...day shall be the same throughout the United States." In other words, while it is convenient for civil rights activists to push for State laws that allow early voting where people who are not legally eligible to vote can vote with minimum scrutiny from election officials, the Constitution trumps State lawor local party politics.
Constitutionally, votes are to be cast for the President of the United States on only one day every four years. While Congress has the right to change the date when votes for the President are cast, it does not have the rightwithout the ratification of a constitutional amendmentto expand that one day into many. Nevertheless, the politically-correct "magic eraser" was used to add from one to two weeks to "election day" by arguing that some people might lose their right to vote if they have to wait in line and cast their ballot on constitutional election day. When that tenet was added to the Constitution, the voters were spread all over the countryside. None of them had cars to speed to the voting precinct to cast theri vote on election day. They traveled by cart, wagon, horseback or mule to vote. And, by the time the polls closed on election day, everyone who was eligble to vote and everyone who wanted to vote, voted.
Expressing empathy that the masses may not be reaching the polls in time to have their votes counted, it seems not to have dawned on the bureaucrats to simply add more polling places on election day. However, making sure that eligible voters were able to vote that was not the real reason for the early voting.
Applying the "magic eraser" to the Bill of Rights is not a new trait. It actually began on July 14, 1798. On that date, President John Adams signed the Sedition Act of 1798 into law making it a crime to criticize the President of the United States, thereby outlawing free speech in the United States only ten and a half years after the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In 1801 the States repudiated the Sedition Act of 1798 with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, taking the federal government to task for violating the Bill of Rights and reminding the federal government that the States held the power to nullify any law written by Congress if it exceeded its narrow authority under the Constitution.
The next major assault on the Bill of Rights occurred on March 9, 1933 when Congress began the practice of voting on legislation that [a] was not written by Congress nor [b] read by them before being enacted into law. On March 9, within 12 hours of its introduction to Congress, the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 was signed into law by President Roosevelt.
After 40 minutes of debate from both sides of the aisle, Congress enacted the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, a bill they never read, which gave the Treasury the right to confiscate all gold possessed by US citizens and replace their gold certificates and gold coins with a fiat scrip that had no inherent value. Without a constitutional amendment to remove the nation from the gold standard, the Roosevelt Administration used the "magic eraser" to surrender the nation's monetary system to private bankers. Before his administration ended with his death on April 12, 1945, Roosevelt at least partially erased the entire Bill of Rights. Among those rights he fully intended to completely erase was the 2nd Amendment.
FDR became the target of a attempted assassination on February 15, 1933 while giving a speech to a crowd of about 2,500 well-wishers at Miami, Florida's Bayfront Park. The would-be assassin was an Italian immigrant named Giuseppe "Joe" Zangara. Zangara blamed both outgoing President Herbert Hoover and President-elect Roosevelt for the erosion of the economy. As Roosevelt finished his speech and left the platform to return to the touring car, the throng of people moved forward to shake the hand of the President-elect. Six shots, fired in rapid succession, scattered the well-wishers.
A woman in the crowd near the assassin, Mrs. M.J. Cross of Miami, grabbed Zangara's arm, spoiling his aim. Instead of hitting Roosevelt, Zangara's bullets found Chicago mayor Anton J. Cermak. In addition, New York police officer William Sinnott was shot over the left eye but survived. Margaret Kruis, a resident of New Jersey who was vacationing in Miami Beach was shot in the upper body. And, Mrs. Joe Gill, wife of the president of Florida Power & Light, was shot in the abdomen. Cermak who had just left the platform, was standing on the running-board of Roosevelt's touring car, between the assassin and FDR when Zangara began shooting. Cermak died on March 6 as FDR was being inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States.
Zangara, who had already been tried and convicted for the deadly assault was swiftly retried and sentenced to death for the murder of Cermak. Five weeks after attempting to kill Roosevelt, Zangara was executed in the electric chair at the Florida State Prison in Railford. Had that crime happened today, the assassin would have spent 10 to 20 years on death row until, finally, his sentence would be commuted by either a liberal State governor or an equally liberal president.
Roosevelt pushed The National Firearms Act of 1934 through Congress. It took a year to enact the legislation because FDR expected Congress to outlaw firearms. Instead, the law imposed a sales excise tax of $200 on the initial sale of any machine gun, short-barreled rifle or sawed-off shotgun (referred to in the law as "Title 2 weapons"), or when such weapons were transported across a State line. When the law was written, the excise tax was going to be imposed on a broad range of "criminal" weapons, but Congressmen who wanted to get reelected refused to vote for it. In the end it affected only three types of weaponsbut excluded handgunsthat were favored by the mobsters during the bootleg era. The law was largely ceremonial, but the magic eraser was now being applied to the 2nd Amendment.
The law also created a national registry for all weapons (the same ploy German Chancellor Adolph Hitler used as the necessary first step in the confiscation of firearms in the Third Reich). Trying to figure out how to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, FDR's Attorney General Homer Cummins knew what Roosevelt wanted could not happen since they could not simply outlaw guns. However, Cummins devised the scheme to tax guns out of existence. (Keep in mind that, in 1934, the average wage per hour was about 25¢, and the average urban center factory worker earning about $15.00 for a 60 hour workweek. That average-income worker would have to work 13 1/3 weeks, using 100% of his gross wages, to pay the excise tax charged by FDR on a short-barreled rifle or sawed-off shotgun.
FDR tried again in 1938 with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. This time around, FDR tried to clone the New York Sullivan Law (which he helped enact as a State Senator in 1911, and which he amended as New York governor in 1931 by requiring people who purchased guns in New York to be fingerprinted and photographed). FDR's second attempt to outlaw guns resulted only in the licensing of gun dealers and restricting gun sales to felons. What he had hoped for was vetting rights over who could purchase a gun, giving him the right to deny almost everyone.
The constitutional pencil eraser of 1934 became a massive gum eraser when utopian politicians allowed their special interest campaign contributors to pen the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1995 and both Patriot Acts as utopians attempted to eviscerate the Constitution of the United States so it could more easily be morphed into the UN Covenant on Human Rights under which all rights are conditioned on the whims of government and none of them are construed to be inherent.
In the Constitution, the Founding Father placed all of the restrictions on the government. Somewhere down the road to the toll bridge to Utopia, using the gum eraser of liberalism, the Bill of Rights became somewhat blurred because Congress and the federal courts now place all of the restrictions on the People. Our inherent 1st Amendment right to worship God as we please morphed into the conditional right of Europeans under the UN Covenant on Human Rights. Today, Congress now believes it can make laws respecting the establishment of religion and barring the free exercise thereof since the US Supreme Court has decided that the "...freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law..." (Taken from Article 13, UN Covenant on Human Rights.)
Electing liberal politicians in the US Senate guaranteed that the magic eraser would change not just the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech and religious liberty, but the entire Bill of Rights. In the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995, HR-666 (the original House version that flew through the US Senate) would have virtually suspend the Bill of Rights during "national emergencies." When the American people learned the details of HR-666, S.735 (its Senate clone) had already flown through the GOP- controlled US Senate. Under HR-666, the 2nd Amendment would have been legislatively abolished. Under the 3rd Amendment, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the federal government from using military troops as officers of the law, would have been repealed, amending 18 USC 1385 by allowing the President to use National Guard troops to police the streets of America. HR-666 would have also suspended due process under the 5th Amendment, and eliminated the right of the accused to face his accuser under the 6th Amendment. In addition, HR-666 would have legislatively abolished the 10th Amendment, giving the federal government supra-authority over the States with all power emanating from the White House. (S.735 was passed on an unrecorded voice vote. None of the 91 Senators who voted to erase the Bill of Rights wanted their fingerprints anywhere near this bill that could come back to haunt them when they sought reelection)
The House, also controlled by the GOP, quickly replaced HR-666 with a closely scrutinized HR-2703 that became law. When President George W. Bush championed the the first USA Patriot Act of 2001, every provision stripped from HR-666 appeared in that piece of legislation. The USA Patriot Act was enacted into law on Oct. 26, 2001 and, as Bush signed the measure, New York Times columnist William O. Safire observed the following day that Bush-43 had seized dictatorial powers. But, because Sept. 11 was still vivid in everyone's mind, few people objected, believing that Bush-43the cowboywas more ideologically akin to Cowboy Reagan that he was to his predecessor, Bill Clinton. They were wrong. Fearing for their jobs, Congress left the most radical aspects of the Patriot Act on the cutting room floor. Doing so required an encore in 2003 when Patriot Act II, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 was enacted to make permanent several aspects of the USA Patriot Act that contained sunset clauses.
Those measures included: applying provisions of Woodrow Wilson's Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (as amended by FDR in 1933) against the American people even without a national emergency. Among the provisions was the abrogation of the 4th Amendment; the abrogation of the 5th Amendment by forcing citizens to testify against themselves; eliminating the subset clauses in the original Patriot Act; authorizing the government to use any type of covert surveillance on those suspected of planning terrorist acts by using FISA courts to secure their warrants; authorizing warrantless searches; and authorizing surreptitious access to all public and private sector information databases on all citizens. Further, the law would allow government to deny anyone access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. It would also authorize the creation of a DNA database on all US citizens and resident aliens and authorize Homeland Security to extradite American citizens to any country they wisheven if the US citizen had never been there and has no genealogical ties with that country. And by no means finally, the Patriot Act II provides no statute of limitations for terrorism. There are over 500 abrogation of civil liberties found in Patriot II that wore the magic eraser to a "nub."
After winning the White House in the "national lottery" on Nov. 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama noted that, in his view, the Constitution of the United States was fatally flawed because it was written by white men at a time when black men were slaves. Obama noted in his book, Audacity of Hope, that "...[I]implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truththe infallibility of any idea or ideology, or theology, or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, inalterable course...The Constitution," he observed, "envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reasonthe ideal of individual freedom to the demands of the community."
Like the liberals on the high court, Obama sees the Constitution as a "living document." But he sees it the same way he sees taxationas a tool for income-leveling. Like most liberals, Obama doesn't care about the strict reading of the Constitution since, in his view, the fact that it's a living document trumps the words penned by the Founding Fathers 232 years ago. Today's liberal believes they have the right to amend the Constitution by adding and subtracting a word here and there. Today's liberals on the high courtStephen Breyer, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburgbelieve the same thing. Their choice is to couple unrelated amendments and/or case law (sometimes international case law) to arrive at entirely new interpretations of established law. Obama takes his views a step farther. In his view the Constitution is a blank slate upon which his judicial appointees can write anything they wantproviding those words coincide with his views of Black Utopia.
In a 2001 interview with Chicago radio station WBEZ.FM radio which surfaced a year or so ago, Obama sadly observed that the Supreme Court never ventured into the area of redistributing the wealth of the nation. (Probably because the idea of stealing the wealth of one man solely to give it to someone else who has no wealth is not only unconstitutional it's immoral.) Obama noted in that interview that he was not optimist that redistributive change would ever take place through the courts. Therefore, if its going to happen, new principles would have to be applied. Obama believes the Constitution of the United States is currently on life support. He intends to be the President that pulls the plug. What remains of our inherent constitutional rights will be completely erased during Obama's administration, and brand new "communal" rights that will, in his view, "restore fairness to the economy," will be penned into Obama's living Constitution by the three or four justices he expects to appoint while in office.
Obama has said he expects the high court to view the Constitution through the prism of political correctness When asked by what yardstick he would measure judges as President, Obama said: "...we need [judges who have] heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Obama fails, or simply refuses, to grasp the fact that the reason for the Constitution, and the prescribed method of amending it is to prevent this very type of arrogant tyranny.
In his WBEZ.FM radio interview Obama said he regarded the worst failure of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren's court was the way the high court ruled on civil rights issues in the early 1960s. The Warren Court, he said, "...failed to break free from the essential constraints..." of the Constitution by ordering a major redistribution of wealth. Then Illinois State Senator Obama said that, in his view, the legislative branch of government and not the courts, would probably be the best venue for accomplishing his goal.
However, the US Constitution precludes the targeted taxing of one class of people solely for the benefit of another class of people. Both State and federal courts have consistently ruled that it is arbitrary taxation for governments to subject one class of citizens of a punitive tax solely to benefit another class of people. In 22 Missouri 835, Wells v City of Weston, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the legislature the right to tax property in one taxing jurisdiction to benefit of another class of citizens in a different taxing jurisdiction. The Supreme Courts in Kentucky, Wisconsin and Iowa also ruled in similar cases and rendered similar decisions. When it ruled on a case of arbitrary taxation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that dipping into the pockets of one class of taxpayer to benefit another class of taxpayer violates the principles of uniform taxation which, the Justices said, was a settled principle of constitutional law.
Obama noted that the "...tragedy of the civil rights movement was...[that it] 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change." The major change Obama expects to implement during his presidency is to permanently erase the concepts of limited government from the United States. He sees himself as America's black Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt who knew, going in, that the Supreme Court would not sanction the core socialist principles of the New Dealwhich violated the ConstitutionObama knows that what he wants to accomplish cannot be achieved through court action. "The court's not very good at [this type of thing]," Obama noted. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues." Obama concluded by saying he needs to scrap the limits placed on government power because they will get in the way of the planned redistribution of wealth.
During his campaign against Sen. John McCain for the presidency, Obama ran on a promise of change. Sadly, no onenot the media nor Obama's supporters pushed him for a definitive answer to the question: "What specific types of changes are you talking about?" The American people, tired of eight years of George W. Bush, thought any change would be better than what they had. The American people were wrong. The change Obama plans to implement is to legislatively erase the tenets of limited government and create a socialist democracy modeled after the Soviet Union. To achieve this goal, the Constitution must be substantially modifiedor erased. The Utopians need the Bill of Rightsin particular, the 2nd Amendment's provision that allows private citizens to own gunserased in order to make the United States an economic vassal of the New World Order without triggering a second American Revolution.
Listening to Obama's current rhetoric and his recorded conversations prior to seeking the office of President (which were adroitly concealed from public scrutiny by the media) it's clear that his campaign slogans: "change you can believe in," and "change we need," were merely synonyms for redistributive change. Obama, the Messiah of black liberation theology addressed the 99th Annual NAACP Conference on July 14, 2008 and promised that, if elected, he would redistribute the wealth of America and that he would return for the 100th Anniversary celebration of the NAACP in 2009 as the "...President of the United States. At that moment," he said, "you and I will truly know that a new day has come in this country..." Obama promised that the members of the NAACP would see the fulfillment of his promise to redistribute the wealth of America. "Social justice," Obama said, "is not enough. The inseparable twin or racial justice is economic justice....It matters little if you have the right to sit in the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch."
Several times when he was campaigning for the White House, Obama told his audiences: "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it!" Conservatives latched onto the phrase because it sounded as though Obama wanted to change the greatest nation on earth and make it less great. In point of fact, that is precisely what Obama, who sees himself as greater than the rest of us, plans to do. And that is the change he plans to make. Making America less great and, of course, making White America less wealthy as he uses arbitrary taxation to strip the "haves" of the wealth earned by their own sweat equity investment in America in order to give it to the "have nots" who are sitting idly at the lunch counter but can't afford lunch.