Obama A closet constitutionalist?

[[email protected]]

It's totally irrelevant whether or not it's McCain or Obama. They, along with both the Democratic and Republican parties, are both controlled by the same people. Ron Paul is their mortal enemy and will never be considered for a position in the administration of either. Their overall goal is to eliminate the US Constitution. They will pay it lip service as much as they have to in order to continue duping people, but at the end of the day both of them will wipe their ass with it and flush it down the collectivist toilet.

 

[Shadow of a Doubt]

I can test how accurate yours may be if you wish.... Just because you might have read it a few times, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about... I love how so many here pretend to know.

The constitution was written in plain english and its intent was made clear; there's no challenge in interpreting it unless you're trying to justify something that isn't there with twisted logic.

The fact of the matter is that all government welfare is unconstitutional, and Obama is a socialist so that already shows that he's full of shit when he says he'd follow the constitution.

 

[SLSteven]

It's totally irrelevant whether or not it's McCain or Obama. They, along with both the Democratic and Republican parties, are both controlled by the same people. Ron Paul is their mortal enemy and will never be considered for a position in the administration of either. Their overall goal is to eliminate the US Constitution. They will pay it lip service as much as they have to in order to continue duping people, but at the end of the day both of them will wipe their ass with it and flush it down the collectivist toilet.

Nice imagery...

 

[SLSteven]

Ron Paul to close the lid of the collectivist toilet and save the constitution!

 

[Mattsa]

I have also heard that Obama is a closet homosexual.

Hmmm!

Is that your strange sense of humour or are you just a total fruitcake?

 

[jd603]

I doubt Obama, I hope you're right about him pandering to the elites/mainstream just to win the presidency and become all "constitutional" but I just can't believe it myself, not until I see it.

Please don't give credit to Paul for this... Obama has, in his book, mentioned this OVER and OVER again... he most certainly understands the Constitution... he is trying to win an election now, and that requires pandering....

This is what I've been saying, and this is why I've been saying. Obama's character is wholly different than Bush... and that is a distinction. Bush promised less government, less taxes...etc... and we got none of it...

Obama seems to promise the opposite... but I think many here will be VERY surprised at what kind of President he will be...

 

[mconder]

Would his overturn of EO's include ones that conflict with the right to private property and to keep the fruits of one's labor?....I thought not.

 

[yongrel]

It's all a matter of interpretation.

I expect he's more of a "The Constitution is a living document" kinda guy.

 

[literatim]

Obama is CFR, he is part of the elite.

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Ron Paul: "As far as supporting Obama, I wouldn’t be able to, because he has a lot of positions I don’t agree with. His rhetoric is much closer than McCain on foreign policy obviously, but his foreign policy is not a whole lot different than what McCain and the Republicans have. You know, even the leadership in the House, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to really change things since they took over the House in 2006. I wouldn’t expect Obama to really change foreign policy. I still think they’re very much anxious to do something against Iran. [Nancy] Pelosi [Speaker of the House] has been pushing that, and that’s the position of both parties."

Hillary, Obama, and McCain are all four more years of Bush as far as I can see. Obama just seems to be best at making another four years of Bush sound like a good thing.

 

[Tarzan]

Call me clueless.

OK... request granted.

Obama is NOT a constitutionalist... nor are Clinton, Bush or McCain. They all have some idiotic notion that the constitution is a "living document" open to any interpretation they wish to inflict on it. The constitution is OUR authorization of what the federal government is permitted and required to do… you know, that “We the People” thing.

The "general welfare clause", as it has been described here, is not a clause at all. It is part of the preamble. Go look up the word preamble... it is ONLY an introduction that explains the purpose of the document. It is NOT a clause and does NOT bear any power in law. Even the Supreme Court made that clear earlier in our history… though they have lost their way and the ability to read since then.

The duties and powers authorized to congress are clearly spelled out... and the 10th Amendment says (to paraphrase in my own words) "and that's all folks". But, go read the real thing and see for yourself.

Obama and the others believe they can define the meaning and intent of the constitution based on two words in the preamble. That is not a valid reading of the words of this legal document. If you read the entire preamble you will also notice that they use the larger phrase "PROMOTE the general welfare". Go look up the word "promote"... notice they did not use the word "provide". The term "welfare" also has no relevance to what the today's socialists would like it to mean. Further, they are clearly talking about the "general welfare" of the United States... not money or projects to enrich individuals or corporations. But, these are only word play arguments. The phrase "promote the general welfare" is from the preamble and has no status in law... it is not a clause, it is not a granted power. It is just a statement regarding the contents of the document... the constitution.

The federal government is wildly out of control in regards to following the constitution... they do not come close to following it unless stains are found on a blue dress or $100,000.00 is found in the freezer of your congressional office. Obama and his ilk are in favour of things that are completely against the constitution (which means you can call them ILLEGAL)... some of them include:
1. National Health Care
2. National Welfare
3. National Social Security
4. The list goes on and on and on and on...

Until we are able to clearly explain the people the real meaning and intent of the constitution... and the benefits they would see if their daily lives... we will continue to lose. How long must we continue to revert to this notion of choosing the "lessor of the evils". Stop kidding yourself that making this type of choice is the "intellectual" thing to do... it is not. It doesn't matter if you are going to hell in a speeding vehicle or via a slow walk... you are still going to hell. (figuratively)

Everybody needs to go take a break from these forums and go read the constitution... and read it regularly. To me, its what this "movement" is all about and there seems to be a woeful lack of understand what the constitution actually says.

Go Here to Read The US Constitution... do it often

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Barack Obama: Top 35 reasons why…

March 3, 2008 by hempsavetheworld

I do not support Barack Obama (anymore). These are some of the reasons why.

1. He has no viable plan for reducing the debt.
2. His policies will require bigger government, more spending, and debt.
3. He does not oppose the IRS or the income tax.
4. He will not withdraw all American troops from the 130 countries our military occupies (over 250,000 military personnel).
5. He will not end the destructive war on drugs.
6. His campaign is primarily funded by Fortune 500 corporations.
7. His campaign is funded by the globalist Council On Foreign Relations, of which his wife is a member.
8. He will not protect the borders or America’s sovereignty.
9. He has not opposed the NAFTA super highway (being built to form a North American Union).
10. He reminds me of the Bushes and Clintons!
11. He feeds on people’s desire for change by making promises that can’t be fulfilled.
12. Because race is not an issue.
13. He is not truly committed to the principals of the Constitution.
14. He is only a junior member of the Senate; he lacks experience (comparatively).
15. He pleases crowds with empty rhetoric and false promises.
16. Because “yes we can” and “change” don’t really mean anything.
17. He aims to spend $845 billion in his global poverty act.
18. He wants to run a socialist health care system.
19. He has little experience in economics, yet claims to know how to fix the economy - which isn’t a president’s job anyways.
20. He does not adhere strictly to free-market principals.
21. He claims to be environmentally friendly, yet co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007.
22. Because I am for liberty and freedom (his policies aren’t).
23. He is trendy, a fad, and popularized without substance - I pay attention to the details.
24. Because the majority of active-duty Armed Service members don’t prefer him.
25. He does not oppose a military attack or sanctions on Iran.
26. He does not promote the value of freedom and liberty.
27. He is not against partial-birth abortions.
28. He will continue No Child Left Behind and the failed Department of Education.
29. He does not oppose the PATRIOT Act.
30. He does not oppose the REAL ID Act.
31. He does not oppose the Federal Reserve.
32. He promotes a “national service plan”.
33. He has won his popularity with money and rhetoric instead of good political discourse.
34. He is a favorite candidate for many special interests and major corporations.
35. He is not as good a candidate as Ron Paul (or Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel).

http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/barack-obama-top-35-reasons-why/

 

[salsero96]

If my ONLY 2 options were McCain and Obama....

I wouldn't vote!

I'm 35. This year was the first year that I ever voted. Ron Paul has been the only candidate who I feel that I can trust. He fights for the same things that I have always believed in.

I know that many people are perfectly comfortable voting for the lesser evil. I am not. I know that many people vote AGAINST candidates. I will not.

I can only vote my conscience and my heart.

Right now, I will vote for Ron Paul. If he isn't available to vote for in November, then I will look at the other options.

 

[SweetMona]

Kade

Kade, can you please explain how those "idiots" have looked up through all sources and found Obama was lying about teaching Constitutional Law? In 1996 Spring, where was he? He was busy getting four competitors to fail their petitions.

That student's paper you posted, seems convincing but why do the other sources verfified that Obama was not a professor at that time? hmm Interesting..

here's his timeline and news wrote by Kathy Gill

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm
[h2]Political Timeline[/h2]
When Barack Obama decided he wanted to run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he ensured his candidacy by successfully challenging the nomination petitions of his four competitors. Obama's entry into federal politics was also marked by competitors falling by the wayside. He won both the 2004 primary and general election for the US Senate "after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed," the Chicago Tribune writes.
The NYT reports that "the Tribune reporter ... acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that [David] Axelrod had an even more significant role - that he leaked the initial story."
Then on 25 June 2004, Obama's Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, withdrew due to yet-another a sex scandal.

This article provides a detailed (and in-work) timeline of Obama's political career.

• 1988 - Obama is a summer associate at the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin
• 1992 - Obama graduates from Harvard and returns to Chicago
• 1992, Oct - Obama marries fellow attorney Michelle Robinson
• 1995, Jul - Obama, at 34, publishes his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"
• 1995, Aug - Obama files paperwork to run for Palmer's Illinois Senate seat
• 1996, Jan - Obama has his four competitor petitions invalidated; he emerges as the only candidate
• 1996, Nov - Obama is elected to Illinois Senate, which is controlled by Republicans
• 1999 - Obama begins running for Congress
• 2000 - Obama loses his challenge for Congressional seat held by Rep. Bobby Rush
• 2001 - Obama receives legal services contract with Illinois firm owned by Robert Blackwell, Jr. A few months later, Obama writes a letter on Illinois Senate letterhead in support of a tourism grant for a different Blackwell company. The next day, "Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell... In the presidential race he is credited on Obama's website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama's campaign."
  
  Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services; $80,000 was from Blackwell's firm."Illinois ethics disclosure forms are designed to reveal possible financial conflicts by lawmakers... Obama did not specify that EKI provided him with the bulk of the private-sector compensation he received... he attached a multi-page list of all the law firm's clients, which included EKI among hundreds."
• 2002, Nov - Democrats usurp Republican control of the Illinois Senate
• 2003-2004 - Obama amasses his legislative record, serves as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee
• 2003 - Obama begins running for US Senate; the leading Democratic candidate will withdraw in 2004 due to a sex scandal that Obama's campaign urged the Chicago Tribune to report.
• 2003 - David Axelrod [begins having] camera crews [track] virtually everything Obama has done in public." He uses this footage to create a five-minute Internet video for the 16 Jan. 2007 announcement that Obama is running for president.
• 2004, Mar - Obama wins the primary with 52% of the vote
• 2004, Jun - Obama's Republican opponent withdraws due to sex scandal
• 2004, Aug - Democratic National Convention address
• 2004, Nov - Obama is elected to US Senate with 70% of the vote
• 2005, Jan - Obama files paperwork for his leadership PAC, The Hope Fund (PAC website no longer active)
• 2005 - Obama purchases land from neighbor and now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
• 2005 - "Shortly after his election to the U.S. Senate, he delivered a well-received address arguing faith should have a greater role in public discourse."
• 2006 - Obama publishes the book, <em>The Audacity of Hope</em>
• 2006, Oct 22 - Obama announces he is considering a run for the Presidency.
• 2007, Jan - Obama begins running for US President
• 2007, Mar - Obama endorses controversial Chicago alderman Dorothy "The Hat" Tillman, who reportedly "[deployed] city resources to hire her family and reward campaign contributors."
• 2007, Apr - Controversy over Obama's MySpace page
• 2007, May - Obama's campaign releases its sophisticated Facebook application, only hours "after the company launched the developer platform." TechPresident argues that Facebook gave the Obama camp an advantage: "the other campaigns found out about Platform’s with the rest of us, on Friday, May 25" and reports that "Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, is working on the Obama campaign."

 

[Conza88]

McCain or Obama. Your choice.
Call me clueless.

CLUELESS.

Jump into a pit of tar or into lava. Your choice.

In this case; you actually have the option of neither. Go on, JUMP!

I am above all else a pragmatic realist, Ron Paul's movement will continue, but he will never be president, because the GOP will never allow it, if you haven't figured that out yet I feel sorry for you, it's delusional hope.

I come here to see how the movement is doing. And know this, the primary goal of every Ron Paul supporter is to stop McCain now. I will never forget or forgive the condesending looks and talk McCain gave Ron Paul during the debates.
So if that means supporting Obama in a swing state so be it.
Screw the GOP and their disrespect for Ron Paul and his supporters

Ohh so you're one of THOSE people. They pride themselves because they think they have a higher reality than everyone else, they love the term realist.. they love the tough image it connotates.. OHhh and everyone else is just idealistsss aren't they.... they dunno anythingg about reality - cus they don't have the proper label....

What's the difference between the two parties? Please tell me? On matters of substance - monetary policy, foreign policy, fiscal policy I could go on... whats the difference? GO on - what is it?

You left the movement. (Your own words - "I come here to see how the movement is doing." - If you never left, you'd already know.)
SO welcome back; how's recruiting Obama doing these days? Can any of his supporters tell you what their candidate will CHANGE yet? DIDN'T THINK SO.

CAN YOU EVEN DO THAT?

"And know this, the primary goal of every Ron Paul supporter is to stop McCain now."

WHAT the f--k are you smoking? seriously, what is it? I suggest you GO BUY A REAL BOOK. NOT Audacity of FALSE Hope, but a real book - its called Revolution: A Manifesto.. you CLEARLY have NOT read it. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

McCain - Hillary - Obama = SAME shit, different day, same lies, different douchebag. YOU have NO idea why America is in the trouble it is; DO you? The council on foriegn relations doesn't exist does it? The trilateral commission doesn't exist does it? NAU - hahah, nooooo way. Trans Texas corridor, haha thats crazzzzyy. Move towards one world government... NOoOooo they only formed latin america as a region last week... wake the f--k up. Go to the link in my friend - or can't you handle the truth? = YOU can't, and I know it. Go on, prove me wrong.

You think its just the Bush Administrations fault, and that changing office - means everything is going to be oh so ROSY! You're delusional buddy, cognitive dissonance is not your friend.

If there was a gun to my head and I was forced to choose between the 2, Obama (it hurts to say that) because perhaps he would start ww4 a little later than McCain, but there isn't and I will have the opportunity, most likely, to write in Paul in Texas.

I would acknowledge, like the f-cken scum these people are, and by observing the history of such situations. Like gangsters, they WOULD KILL YOU ANYWAY.

So in essence, I would REFUSE to give the SANCTION OF THE VICTIM; they can go to hell for all I care. I ain't voting for either. SORRY, I'm not weak like you Obama supporters or anyone who doesn't support principles - I don't give them the satisfaction. Go on, get on your knees, do them a favor though - close your eyes and open your mouth while your doing it.. then at least your respecting your "reality" more. Because from then on out, you ain't no longer a man - you're a little 'working for your own enslavement' bitch.

 

[WRellim]

Please don't give credit to Paul for this... Obama has, in his book, mentioned this OVER and OVER again... he most certainly understands the Constitution... he is trying to win an election now, and that requires pandering....

This is what I've been saying, and this is why I've been saying. Obama's character is wholly different than Bush... and that is a distinction. Bush promised less government, less taxes...etc... and we got none of it...

Obama seems to promise the opposite... but I think many here will be VERY surprised at what kind of President he will be...

He *is* different in substantial ways on a character level.


Bush, McCain, and Clinton (s/he) are all sociopaths (really high numbers on Hare's PCL-R).

Obama (like Paul) barely racks up any points at all -- i.e. he is a normal human being with a conscience.


That doesn't mean Obama couldn't end up screwing up a LOT of stuff in a pretty massive way... (Carter was a normal human being -- with a REAL conscience {as proved by his actions after leaving office} -- very low scores on the PCL-R and he didn't exactly work wonders for the country, you know.)

But it DOES mean that he would be VERY unlikely to do the INSANE kinds of things that Clinton, Bush (and McCain) did or are capable of.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Obama is NOT a constitutionalist... nor are Clinton, Bush or McCain. They all have some idiotic notion that the constitution is a "living document" open to any interpretation they wish to inflict on it. The constitution is OUR authorization of what the federal government is permitted and required to do… you know, that “We the People” thing.

"We the People" of 1787. If the people of 2008 want a welfare state, why should our dead ancestors stop us? Were they more educated than we are now?

 

[ProBlue33]

Conza88

You think I don't know about the CFR or The Tri-lateral, news flash for you I know all about them, lets throw in bilderberg & PNAC and the bohemian groove too.

You just don't get it do you. I am fully aware of all that, and I agree with you.

That doesn't change that Ron Paul will never win the office, even though he speaks the truth and his vision of America is the very best, and his foreign policy is the best too. The movement may eventually take off to the point that a Ron Paul type person will win, and I look forward to that day.

However this isn't happening in 2008. Even if McCain dropped dead, the GOP would make sure that Huckabee or Mitt would get it over the howling protests of all the Ron Paul supporters. The GOP are nasty evil
The GOP needs to be crushed and Ron Paul supporters need to help crush them.

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

"We the People" of 1787. If the people of 2008 want a welfare state, why should our dead ancestors stop us? Were they more educated than we are now?

Well, for one, in order for people to have a welfare state, they have to also STEAL from those who don't want it. The smallest minority is the individual, and that is who the government is supposed to be defending. What about my right not to have my money stolen?

Democracy is not a good thing, nor is it 'American'.

"We are now forming a republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon turn into a monarchy (or some other form of dictatorship)." --Alexander Hamilton [first Secretary of the Treasury]

"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy." --John Adams

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." --Thomas Jefferson

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." --John Adams

"Democracy is the road to socialism." --Karl Marx

The following video also explains why Democracy is just a Dictatorship in disguise:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

I don't think it's specifically a matter of how educated someone is.. it seems to be due to being 'educated' with fallacious information. In this case, being better 'educated' is a bad thing.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States from 1801 - 1809)

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Ooh, you have quotes from influential people I should have great respect for!

The people being ruled from the grave instead of having what they want for themselves (self-governance) is tyranny. Your view that taxation is theft is a minority one, and most Americans would not agree, which is why they support progressive taxation.

And is that Marx quote supposed to scare me? What if I like socialism? What if I told you the American public loves socialized libraries, firefighters, medical care, and transportation, all of which are present in the United States?