Will Obama “Support and Defend” the Constitution? Yeah, right!

Recently, a federal judge allowed “evidence” from Wikipedia to be introduced into the proceedings. If this doesn’t amaze you, then you’re probably an Obama supporter. If you also have no problem with judges citing international opinions, then you’re also probably an Obama supporter. And, if you share the same opinion as Obama does concerning the US Constitution, then you’re more than an Obama supporter–you’re a traitor.

Having watched a county-level judge on August 7, 2008, sustain an objection to the introduction of so-called “evidence” from Wikipedia, one has to wonder what in the world was the federal judge thinking?

Answer: Usurpation of Constitutional Law is the only plausible possibility. The judge in question supplanted constitutionally-based federal rules of evidence with an egregious disregard for the US Constitution.

Although this post will not be a dissertation on the rules of evidence, given the reality of candidate Obama and his constitutional views, it is a foreshadowing of what Americans can expect from their judicial system if Obama is elected and begins making appointments to the federal bench.

Our country’s constitution should be viewed as sacrosanct and the extension of our God-given “inalienable rights.” However, if you’re Obama (or a supporter), then you share the worldview that the US Constitution is “fundamentally flawed,” and requires changing from its Common Law background to fit humanistic philosophies.

Unfortunately, in today’s society, the public school system is focused on humanism and its associated de-valuing of humanity. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Obama does not support individual rights and liberties articulated by the US Constitution and, based on his radical abortion views, we already know he could care less about human life.

Combining Obama’s low regard for human life with his distaste for our Constitutional Republic only leads to one conclusion when speaking of federal judicial appointments: The appointed judges will share his anti-American and Constitution-hating viewpoints. Furthermore, if an overwhelming Democratic victory in both houses of Congress does become a reality (now known as “one-party rule“), then Obama will have free-rein to appointment the most radical judges imaginable.

So what’s the upshot of such a scenario?

First, the radical jurists in question will have no problem judicially-supporting the silencing of those who oppose One-Party Rule ala Hugo Chavez, i.e., threatening opponents with jail. Secondly, the Bill of Rights will be shredded when these same jurists trash the Second Amendment, which ensures the remaining constitutional rights Americans enjoy. Third, if you think ACORN-led voter fraud is a problem, then you’re missing what New Yorkers are doing in Ohio, and what the ramifications of this scheme holds in store for future elections. Fourth, despite what he says in his book, Obama’s concern for America’s poor is non-existent if he won’t even care for relatives, and the jurists he appoints won’t give a damn either (remember how the Soviet Union’s “leaders” lived in comparison to the “masses”?). Fifth, with regards to any opposing viewpoint, an Obama-led trashing of the “fundamentally flawed” US Constitution will only have one result for the opposition’s rights ensconced in said document: Said rights will be non-existent. Sixth, the stripping away of our rights will be enforced by an American-style NKVD that makes the Soviet Union’s original secret police look like Boy Scouts (Americans nearly always do things “better”).

You say it cannot happen here? You say this is fear-mongering at its worst? Think again. We’ve already had one president who trashed the US Constitution and, despite revisionist historians and public schools hiding this fact, much was written about it in the latter part of the 19th Century. The intellectually honest scholars opine that Lincoln’s War was the first deadly thrust into the heart of the Constitution, with Franklin Roosevelt’s being the second (even after losing the battle to “stack the bench”). If Obama is elected, the next generation can add, “et tu, Barack” to the lexicon surrounding the assault on our individual liberties, as a result of Obama’s “death thrust” into the document.

Thus, if Obama is elected, you can rest assured that his oath of office will be the ugliest joke in American history–and he will use the “race” issue as his basis for killing the US Constitution and stripping us of our God-given “inalienable rights.”

At the end of the day, one thing is certain: American slavery was the cellular-seed of a cancer that is coming to its deathly conclusion, and Obama will see to the American Republic’s “death” from this disease if elected president. This is not a racist viewpoint, it is the logical extension of sitting under a man’s teaching who invokes God’s damning of America for past wrongs. Wrongs that took a long time to correct and, though the wrongs are still not completely corrected, the Founding Fathers did do the right thing in making it a painful process to amend the US Constitution. Look for said “damning” by a “man of the cloth” soon in the uniforms and faces of Obama’s NKVD, if this America-hater, who views our Constitution as flawed, is elected president.