Barack Obama said the following in an audio recording on YouTube: “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think that the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” What blind spot is Obama talking about? The Constitution has created the freest nation in the world that has never been equaled. What is his argument against the Constitution?

This is a frightening statement because Obama is assuming, as the political left always does, that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

It is not.

And that the Constitution somehow must assure not “rights” to the people but material wealth itself, as he stated in the 2001 interview mentioned below. Which it intentionally does not.

Obviously Obama does not even understand what the Constitution means, and sees it through the prism of the leftist intellectuals who taught him. Because the Constitution is the most neutral and non-partisan governing document ever created. And that is its genius. It makes no demands and imposes no agenda.

The main body of the 1787 Constitution simply spells out the most effective ‘republican’ government ever established. This does not mean anything about the ‘Republican party’. The word ‘republican’ means a government in which elected representatives do the legislative work of the people.

The 3-part republican government, conceived by the man who would become our second president, John Adams, simply means that each part – the legislative, the executive and the judicial – shall hold equal power and should act as a check on the power of the others.

There can be no more liberty-friendly form of government. And that was the entire Constitution as presented in 1787. The Bill of Rights – the freedom of speech, worship, assembly, gun ownership etc., was added in 1789 so as to enumerate the rights that the Founders knew were those of a free people, but that some believed should be included so as to have them in print and not just understood.

So what is it that Obama believes? That somehow our nation should be a monarchy with one supreme ruler who can do things like redistribute wealth? Perhaps we might all recall that the English monarchy brought slavery to America.

The question is: What is the fatal flaw that Obama sees in the Constitution? It is this: He believes that the Constitution somehow should be an agent for economic control. Obama demonstrated this in a radio interview on a Chicago public radio station in 2001 when he was an Illinois state senator.

In that interview, he said that the Supreme Court failed to achieve “redistributive change” through the appeals of the civil rights movement. By the Supreme Court, he means that somewhere in the Constitution there must be – or rather should be – a clause that can be construed by the Court guaranteeing the material well-being of the citizens. There is not. Even the phrase “promote the general welfare” in the Constitution’s preamble is not “assure the general welfare” or “guarantee” it.

Redistribution of wealth was repeatedly warned against by our Founding Fathers because they knew that redistribution through law would empower government over the people, easily to the point of tyranny. And the Constitution was written specifically to empower people over their government by developing a system of checks and balances in a 3-part governing structure, with two parts elected freely by the people and the judiciary appointed.

Of redistribution, Thomas Jefferson said: “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

Said Founding theorist Samuel Adams: “The Utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

So now listen to Obama talk in the radio interview about how the Supreme Court should have, in the course of the civil rights debate, somehow addressed the issue of redistribution:

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as 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 it has been interpreted.”

This is an extreme interpretation of the Constitution. What Obama is implying here is that somehow it was wrong for the Constitution to place “constraints” on the government.

But the “constraints” in the Constitution were intended to allow the people to create their own destinies. Thus when Obama says “break free from the essential constraints” he means giving power to the government over the people. The Founders, on the other hand, viewed “constraints” on government as equaling “freedom” for the people.

Obama also said:

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

Negative liberties!? This is shocking thinking. Because by that he means that liberty for the people somehow is negative. And he thinks that way because our personal liberty does not guarantee economic equality as he wishes.

But “liberty” as understood and interpreted by the Founders means real liberty from the government and any economic designs it might have on the people, which always end up repressive. The Founders knew well that among a free people everyone would surely not be equal.

Indeed the Constitution is a document that “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you,”

That is its genius and the basis of freedom from the only entity that can take freedom away (besides an invading enemy or a domestic criminal) – your own government.

Obama says that the Constitution “doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. “

That is because the Constitution is intentionally designed to inhibit the federal or state government from doing anything “on your behalf” because that action always will be arbitrary and will end up in tyranny.

That does not mean that the people may not of their own free will empower government to redistribute wealth on behalf of their fellow citizens, which Americans have done. But that is not enough for Obama. He feels that it is the Constitution itself which must enumerate these redistributive actions, when the Constitution was in fact designed for just the opposite.

Naturally Obama simply has denied that his statements mean anything of the sort. This is his modus operandi. Deny, deny, deny. And hope nobody notices the truth before election day.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.comm for more.