Obama 2001, uncensored

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. …

~ Barack Obama, 2001

Earlier this week, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, on her blog, wrote a revealing piece titled, "Obama in 2001: How to bring about 'redistributive change.'" In her very intriguing article about the recently released radio interview of "The One" in 2001, we are peeling back the onion layers and are finally getting at the core of who Barack Obama the man actually is in his own words.

WARNING! … and it's not going to be good for America.

Listening to this interview, we do not hear Obama's characteristic halting, stumbling, bumbling speaking manner he usually exhibits while separated from his trusty teleprompter. No, no, no! Here, Obama was rather forthright about what type of America he wanted – an America free of the "constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" – and in so doing, achieve "social justice" through "redistributive change."

Below are the main points of interest from Obama's 2001 interview. Why didn't the mainstream liberal media make this interview public two years ago? Obama states:

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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order. As long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK.

Here, Obama, the professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of the elite institutions of higher education, shows his glaring ignorance of his subject matter. If Obama is speaking here as a black man, we (I'm a black man also) got the constitutional right to vote on Feb. 3, 1870, when the 15th Amendment was ratified. To be fair, maybe Obama was trying to use inclusive language with other groups like women (of all races) who did not get the vote until the passage of the 19th Amendment, which was ratified on Aug. 18, 1920.

Secondly, it trivializes the heroic efforts of black people who fought injustices during the segregation eras (1865-1965) where blacks had rights on paper (de jure = by law), yet suffered systemic, vicious and demeaning racist and discriminatory practices (de facto = by practice).

If Obama means that the road to full integration wasn't fully realized until the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, then good. However, my point here is that no black person I know of or read about invited beatings, racism and death so that they could, in the words of Obama, be allowed to "sit at the lunch counter and order." That's an outrageous perversion of history by Obama.

I guess Obama couldn't go into that level of constitutional law history I cited above because he never learned it at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School. I certainly didn't learn it at Harvard, either.

Obama continues:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 its been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or 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, um, 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways, we still suffer from that.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are getting into what the old timers called the "real nitty gritty." The above passage is where the real Barack Obama is revealed, uncensored. This is what Obama means by his mantra "change," "yes, we can," "economic justice," "social justice" and "spreading the wealth." Most frightening is what Obama would do to the original intent of the Constitution's framers – f--- the framers! (forget the framers). The Constitution would in essence become a dead letter.

In other words, an Obama administration would be FDR, part II and the Earl Warren Court, part II where the most reactionary liberal judges he could find would be chosen to sit on the Supreme Court, the court of appeals and on the circuit courts – all lifetime appointments!

Any "constitutional law professor" or American, for that matter, that says the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" is not someone I would trust to be president of the United States.

The Warren Court (1953-69) is the same court that handed down some of the following contemptible and unconstitutional opinions:

Systematically perverted the Constitution and turned judicial activism and legislating from the bench into an art form;
Made up the underlying suppositions of Brown v. Board of Education out of whole cloth;
Gave us Miranda v. Arizona, "Mapp v. Ohio and Katz v. U.S., literally shackling the hands of the police to fight crime and endangering the public;
Legalized contraceptives and birth control pills, even among unmarried couples, which help usher in the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s (Griswold v. Connecticut);
Invented the so-called "right to privacy" to essentially legalize all manner of moral and ethical perversion, leading to the quintessential liberal activist decision, Roe v. Wade (1973) during the Burger Court (1969-86);
Repeatedly affirmed the sophism, "separation of church and state" (Engle v. Vitale), rendering Christianity illegal in many public venues like the public schools;
Outlawed the death penalty (Furman v. Georgia); and
Literally opened the jailhouse door for any murderous defendant with a shyster lawyer dishonest enough to find one of the many gaping loopholes in the law the Warren Court created (Terry v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, etc.).

Any American who laments, like Barack Obama, that, "[The Warren Court] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution …" [i.e., separation of powers] in my humble opinion is stupid, ignorant or unenlightened. Either way, he does not deserve to be a constitutional law professor or the president of the United States – but I would cast the first vote for such a person to become the "Inmate Commandant" of Arkham Asylum where Batman's Joker, the Riddler and Two Face rule without rival.