Obama’s UN Apology is a Blueprint for Socialism, page 1

Obama’s UN Apology is a Blueprint for Socialism

In a 2001 interview with Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ-FM, he complained:
[A]t least as it’s been interpreted…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.

Of course the Constitution says what the government must do...The "negative liberties" Obama mentions are not liberties, but Rights that the government must NOT interfere with. But what the government must do is spelled out in the Articles, Sections & Clauses in the main body of text...and nothing else is allowed to the federal government: This much is expicit, according to the 10th Amendment.

Card check: a Fundamental Human Right. Obama goes on to say freedom of organization “protects workers and their right to organize.” But some labor organizers have spoken about “the challenges they face in organizing effectively” – like the fact that no one outside the federal government wants to join a union.

For one thing, Obama confuses "freedom of organization" with "freedom of association." Association is the individual choice to hang around people he/she wants, without being forced...The Union's way wants to force it, so therefore, Obama's way wants to force it.

Voting six times, a UN Right. The document recounts the history of minority and women voting, claiming there is an ongoing problem (even though the most recent racial voting incident had Black Panthers threatening to club whitey.) It continues, “The Department [of Justice] recently obtained consent decrees against some jurisdictions” to make sure minorities are not unfairly excluded. One of those decrees was against Port Chester, New York, “designed to cure vote dilution for Hispanic voters.” Port Chester’s had never elected an Hispanic politician, and its population was 46 percent Hispanic; however, in the words of the New York Times, “many are not citizens.” Although these non-citizens are not entitled to any representation, the DoJ forced a remedy: allow Hispanic residents of Port Chester to vote six times. It did the trick; the village elected its first Hispanic — coincidentally, a Democrat.

Completely discarding the fundamental conept of "one person, one vote" is NOT a Right...There is nowhere in the Constitution that supports multiple votes per person, regardless of race, creed color, etc. In fact, Obama's way is the opposite of Affirmative Action, in that he seeks to allow undue advantages for minorities, instead of supporting equalities.

Equality of Outcome. The discussion of “discrimination” focuses on the fact that minority groups have not attained as much as white Americans. This, Obama insists, must stem from bigotry. “We are not satisfied that whites are twice as likely as Native Americans to have a college degree. The United States continues to address such disparities by working to ensure that equal opportunity is not only guaranteed in law but experienced in fact by all Americans.” What he promises is not “equality of opportunity” but equality of outcome — that every ethnic group, and every person, has the “right” to have an equal amount of wealth as everyone else. Every American — smart or dumb, ambitious or lazy, gifted or talentless — will receive the same result as everyone else.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! In the Declaration of Independence, it's stated:

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.

(Bold mphasis is mine)
We have the Right to "pursue Happiness," but it's up to the individual desire, will & effort to actually catch it. Equal opportunity is all the government is allowed to support...Not to force equal outcomes upon those who are too lazy or indifferent to put effort into the pursuit of an outcome.

“Freedom from Want.” The report undergirds its commitment to socialism by citing FDR’s “Four Freedoms” speech. One of the new freedoms he sought was “freedom from want.” This “right” is listed under the section, “A commitment to foster a society where citizens are empowered to exercise their rights” — making clear Obama’s commitment to “positive obligations” and the federal government’s need to redistribute wealth.

I challenge Obama to show me precisely where the Constitution (or any other Founding Document) it is specifically included that people are born with the fundamental Right of "Freedom From Want." Our Inalienable Rights are granted by the Laws of Nature, according to the Human Condition & Human Needs...These are Rights that no government can grant or remove, even though governments have tried repeatedly throughout the history of Humanity.

This kind of BS is coming from someone who professes to have studied Constitutional Law in college? I've got zero in "formal education" with the Constitution & Obama's view of the Constitution is so twisted that it completely disregards the interactions between the various areas of the Constitution, I literally pity anyone who has been taking the same college classes he's taken. At the very least, he's completely sloughing off the 10th Amendement as if it doesn't exist!

There is just so much fundamentally wrong with Obama's view of the world & humanity itself that I don't even have the time right now to address much more of it...Even though I've only addressed a small part here. But the way he speaks in the UN" more clearly explains his world-view than all of his public speeches to date. Obama seems to be stuck in "party mode" on his (nearly) perpetual vacation & is going to stick We the People with the cleanup & the bill. He must be removed from Office NOW, before he can cause any more damage.