Obama = Anti-American. Period.

In a video post last night, I included a 2001 interview with Barack Obama in which he explicitly reveals his desire for redistribution of America's wealth.  You've gotta hear it, so scroll down or click here before continuing to read.

This audio clip is all over the Internet and is a very big deal because it sheds light on Obama's true philosophy, and thus his opinion about how government should work.  Here's some analysis that you really, really need to read:

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:

You know, 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 a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, 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 — at least as it's been interpreted, and 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, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, 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 redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

A caller then helpfully asks: "The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?"

Obama replies:

You know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it's just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: "…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama's defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of "political and economic justice." We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides "deserve" it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, "essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time." It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that's just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: "And uh, 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 — 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.

The United States of America — five percent of the world's population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: "…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, 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 redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, "a righteous wind at our backs."

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful

So, Barack Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth around' is, in fact, the core philosophy by which he has directed his entire political career throughout its existence.  He suggests that the Supreme Court should have mandated redistribution of wealth, and seems genuinely disappointed that they did not.  By taking this position, he is openly disagreeing with the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution!  Is it any wonder he doesn't hesitate to stifle free speech (here, here) with the Department of Justice, or seek to destroy a private citizen?  He appears to believe that the ends justify the means, even if he has to trash the very founding document of this nation in his quest for power.  There can be no other conclusion.

These statements encapsulate a lot of the things I've often said about the liberal Left.  They rely on courts because they simply cannot win at the ballot box on the strength of their ideas.  They rely on stoking racial tensions, class warfare, and deceit.  Even now, if Obama wins, it will likely be because of thousands of fraudulent votes from ACORN, lies and distortions about his economic plans, and illegal and/or unethical actions from his surrogates.  They can't win in a fair fight, so they cheat.  This is how the liberal Left operates because they believe they know better than you do, they're smarter than you are, and they should be allowed to dictate how you should live your life.  As such, it doesn't really matter if they have to break a few laws while providing for you, the idiotic and helpless peons of America.  Obama is the ultimate liberal, and he has embodied all of these things throughout his campaign.

One other thing about the audio clips that should really concern you as an American citizen.  Did you catch where he said that the civil rights movement fell short of achieving 'redistributive change' because they lacked the proper 'coalitions of power'?  Well, just think how much power comes with the Oval Office.  You want 'redistributive change', you got it, with a President Obama.

Here's the key thing to understand.  Obama's fundamental belief about government is in direct opposition to the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution as a series up rules protecting the citizen from the state: the government cannot take away a citizen's right to free speech, the government cannot take away a citizen's right to freedom of religion, the government cannot take away a citizen's right to own a gun, etc.  The point is that the Founding Fathers knew the results of a government that became too powerful, inevitably resulting in the citizens getting brutalized.  To prevent this, they deliberately focused the entire Constitution around the principle of what the American federal and state government cannot do to its citizens.  By contrast, Obama laments that the Constitution doesn't say what government 'must do on your behalf'.  He claims that the core principle that the Founders built the Constitution around is a 'fundamental flaw'.  That is precisely the opposite of the Founders' intent!

So, if the oath of office for the President of the United States is this...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

...and Obama believes precisely the opposite of what the Constitution states, then how can he even take the oath of office??  He will be lying when he utters those words, once again believing that the ends justifies the means.

I once posted a blog denying Obama's patriotism.  As I've watched and studied him over these past months, I've become convinced that he not only has zero patriotism, but that he actually holds the exact opposite principles close to his heart.  He isn't just unpatriotic, but he is wholly, completely, and totally disgusted with America.  His holy mission is to change it, to fix it, to re-make it in his own vision of what it should be.  That vision is very clear: racial divisions and black superiority, economic redistribution on the subjective basis of fairness, oppressive taxation on success and wealth (except his own), and forceful suppression of any dissenting viewpoint.

This is not the kind of change that helps America.  It's the kind of change that will destroy it.  Even aside from his horrendous policies, his entire philosophy of life, government, and world view is the very same cancer that has been eroding this nation for decades.  This guy is bad, bad news, and will usher in a time of economic, social, and cultural disaster that will radically alter America if he is voted into the Oval Office.  America will not be destroyed, but America as we know it most certainly will be, and what we'll end up with will be -- at best -- a mere shadow of what we have now.

DO. NOT. LET. IT. HAPPEN!!!

Spread the word on who he is, what he believes, and what he plans to do to as many people as possible.  It's the only chance we have of preserving this country, and the TRUTH can still win the day.

There's my two cents.