Negative Liberties

I was posed the question as to why I write this blog.

The answer is two-fold - the first is to provide Americans supporting McCain/Palin with the intellectual ammunition they need to combat the lies being spread by the Obama/Biden campaign and defend our shared positions in an increasingly hostile political environment - one that seeks to silence conservative values by dismissing them as "partisan talking points."

The second is to provide any individuals who may be undecided or voting for Obama with information on his background and political beliefs. I'm not looking to change any minds - should individuals reading this blog still choose to vote for Obama after learning the truth about his political and socioeconomic beliefs then so be it, but they should do so after learning the truth about him.

Today I'll be working off the second premise. Just yesterday tapes were released of an interview given by Barrack Obama in 2001 in which he discussed his interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the Civil Rights movement. Take a listen:



In the interview Obama states, in reference to 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 more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

That statement, by itself, is not radical; it's actually sound Constitutional analysis. What makes this interview disturbing is that Obama goes on to state that the, "great tragedy of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "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." In completing his thought, he makes clear his belief that the Constitution should contain some form of "positive" liberties and that the inability of the courts to bring about this change means that the necessary change, namely the redistribution of wealth, must come about through alternate means.

What does that mean? It's pure and simple socialism. While his interpretation of the court's decision is not radical, his assertion that the redistribution of wealth is a necessity through any means certainly is.

Now again, this analysis cannot be complete unless viewed through the spectrum of truth provided by Obama's current campaign. Obama has proposed tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (or $200,000, or $150,000 depending on the day) and tax increases for those making more than $250,000. When paired with his comments relating to "redistribution," these comments come into focus as potentially the most dramatic move toward socialism that our country has witnessed since the early 1930s. What makes this even more striking is that he admitted as much...



Again, if you believe in government-run redistribution of wealth and socialist policies then by all means, vote Obama - just don't act surprised when that's exactly what you get.