Obama’s Anti-Civil Rights Movement


Barack trashes creed Martin revered

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

The leader of the civil rights movement in this country had no problem with our founding documents. In fact, Dr. King based his movement on the Liberty promised in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States.

Too bad Barack Obama, the most visible beneficiary of an America living out the true meaning of our creed, rejects it as “fatally flawed”:

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a (sic) enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot…[and] [the U.S. Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”


Was MLK blind too? Or did those that suffered under Jim Crow understand that the greatest positive civil right was Liberty from government doing things “on our behalf”.

The Democrat nominee for President has a different view:
“…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.

Negative liberties?

Let’s read the Preamble to the world’s oldest governing document:

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.”

Securing the blessings of Liberty is negative to one that wants more government power, but it is precisely the restraint on that power that is the secret to the historic success of the citizens of the United States, especially including millionaire author, Barack Obama.

Yet, he trashes The Movement that secured Blessings of Liberty for him:

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused…”

Lawyer Thurgood Marshall was too “court-focused” when he filed the complaint for Brown against the Board of Education?

I think not.

Obama rejects the creed King embraced, re-produced here in it’s entirety:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Obama has the blind spot. What he doesn’t see, and what makes our nation unique, is that We the People own all the civil rights as gifts from God. We the People’s Founding Fathers form governments and give them limited powers. Obama wants a new creed in which government, even through the courts, has first dibs on the fruits of our labor:

“I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and — and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society… 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…”

He wants to be a founding father of a new creed that breaks the government free from constraints in limiting liberty, but what about Life and the Pursuit of Happiness?

As an Illinois State Senator, he was instrumental in twice preventing the passage of a law that would have required that life-saving medical care be afforded to babies that are born alive following botched abortions; opposed outlawing the barbaric third-trimester procedure of partial birth abortion; considered the question of when human beings obtain human rights as above his pay grade and characterized the birth of an unexpected child as “punishment.”

Contrast that with the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee’s advocacy for special needs children, such as her infant son with Down Syndrome.
Obama pursues happiness by seeking to empower government.

The Founder’s considered the right to retain private property as the key to Liberty and happiness pursuits. The Democrat nominee and his party want dibs on your income via higher taxes, and speaking of happiness pursuits, just yesterday, Barack promised to bankrupt the coal industry.

How happy can you be lacking the civil rights to life and less income in a cold house?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

Legal Editor for The Minority Report and Race 4 2008

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts


Category: , ,

RSS feed

16 Comments Leave a comment

And don't forget..

izoneguy (Diary) Monday, November 3rd at 3:06PM EST (link)

…a cold house with no running water.
Stores with no food.
Gas stations with no gas…

Obama wants to send us back to 1776…..

Remember what happened that year!!

The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.

izoneguy, you really are right

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 3rd at 6:15PM EST (link)

They want power over us, hence the self suicide of the left in preventing expanded oil exploration, oil refineries and nuke plants since 1978.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 

Good summation of where Obama really stands.

Steph C (Diary) Monday, November 3rd at 8:02PM EST (link)

nt

“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics

 

Read the 14th Amendment

David123 (Diary) Monday, November 3rd at 8:28PM EST (link)

Section 1. ALL persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Barack, the written constitution says “ALL” – not “ALL persons except those born following unsuccessful abortions!

People should live, not constitutions.

Barack wants to deprive the post-abortion born of their civil rights.

David123

 

Conservatives Opposed Martin Luther King Until Recently

nephewmiltie (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 1:30PM EST (link)

As well they should have, Martin Luther King was a hard core leftist who wanted to turn America into USSR lite. That was the aim of the civil rights movement. Conservatives are better off continuing to oppose Martin Luther King’s Marxism and his subversive radical street thug tactics than pretending that people like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese, and William Rehnquist ever lifted a finger to end Jim Crow, let alone the economic and social discrimination that was pervasive in our society. Those guys took the side of the people who rioted because they didn’t want blacks atending “their” schools and living in their neighborhoods, and the whole world knows it.

Conservatives would be far better off starting a new discussion on race from today forward rather than trying to rewrite the past. The late Charlton Heston may have been one conservative who actually supported the civil rights movement and Barry Goldwater was another, but they didn’t have a lot of company. Most conservatives followed the lead of “blacks need to accept their inferiority, stay in their place in a nation founded by and for white men, and not complain.”

Conservatives could have pretended the horrible occurrence of the election of Barack Hussein Obama by offering an alternative vision of how to integrate blacks into mainstream society like Barry Goldwater actually tried to do but found no one willing to listen either on the liberal OR the conservative side. The liberals wanted liberalism, and the conservatives wanted to believe that pervasive racism wasn’t really that bad, it was all the fault of the biased media and outside agitators stirring blacks up with silly ideas like equal treatment under the law. How dare they?

So instead of pretending that conservatives ever supported MLK (remember, it was rumors that McCain had a black child that cost him the 2000 nomination?!?!) be more true to your actual beliefs and history and start advocating Booker T. Washington. Now that Barack Obama has basically rendered the civil rights movement moot (which was the REAL reason why Jesse Jackson was crying the other night and also why he and his ilk played no role whatsoever in his campaign, did you notice that, the fellow who was so visible during the Clinton, Gore, and Kerry campaigns was nowhere to be found!) start talking about Booker T. Washington again as the beginning of a new agenda and dialogue concerning black Americans whose real issues right now are family breakdown (Washington was pro – family) and educational failure (Washington started many schools, vocational institutes, and colleges, many of which educated the line of black leaders that continued until Obama, ironically, ended it).

Americans can spot a fake from the genuine article in an instant (except in the case of Obama, but oh well). Claiming to be the modern advocates of Martin Luther King’s radical leftism fools no one, so start advocating Booker T. Washington’s conservatism.

wrong - a higher percentage of the gop voted for the laws MLK wanted

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 5:31PM EST (link)

It is the left that has rejected the America creed and wants “fundamental” change.

And what is your problem with Booker T?

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

hey guess what nephewmittie?

kyle8 (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 5:44PM EST (link)

I don’t give a cats flap what some conservatives in the distant past may or may not have done, I am not bound by them, got that?

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

Not really.

DRP Wednesday, November 5th at 5:46PM EST (link)

That argument falls a little flat when you realize that most of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Acts under Johnson then switched parties to the GOP, because the other Democrats had betrayed them and their racist policies.

Calling Strom Thurmond and others “the left” is a bit ludicrous.

most did NOT switch parties

kyle8 (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 5:56PM EST (link)

only a handful did. so really it is you who are disingenuous.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

It wasn't intended to be.

DRP Wednesday, November 5th at 6:07PM EST (link)

That was my understanding of the situation – I’m doing a bit of research on the subject now, as I may well have been wrong. If you have any relevant links I’d be interested in looking at them, as Wikipedia wasn’t especially helpful and neither were the first few hits off Google.

sorry I get miffed at this issue

kyle8 (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 6:21PM EST (link)

I lived through the change of the southern states from democrat to republican. It is often explained away by the left as just the old racists switching parties. But that is not the case, well some of them did, I am not sure how many, not more than twelve I think.

But what really happened in the south was that the old time die hard yellow dog democrats where a bunch of racists, and would never vote for a republican under any circumstance.

I know I had several Uncles like that. They eventually ended up voting for the most horrible far left wing people just because they were democrats. But eventually most of those guys just died off. Reagan came on the scene and appealed to younger people like me, there was also a lot of movement into the south from the rustbelt. That is when the change happened, not in the 1960′s.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

here is a real good source DRP

kyle8 (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 6:30PM EST (link)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

again, sorry for flying off the handle, It is a sore spot with me

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

Thanks

DRP Wednesday, November 5th at 6:43PM EST (link)

I’ll read through that later tonight.

The dixiecrats that came into the GOP later were given no quid pro quo

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 6:51PM EST (link)

The GOp that joined never tried to pass race based legislation.

The dems did.

You argument falls flat. In fact, it got crushed.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

I didn't call Strom left. I do know that after switching, he was the first

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 6:53PM EST (link)

Southern Senator to hire a black aide, Armstrong Williams and that Strom never tried to pass any race based laws.

The dem party is the party that has racist blood on their hands.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Martin Luther King was a conservative

Steph C (Diary) Wednesday, November 5th at 7:04PM EST (link)

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.BlackGOP&x=4499132

At least he was a republican which at one time meant conservative. So, tell me, why would they oppose someone who was one of them?

“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics