In Philadelphia This Morning, Obama to Call for "A New Declaration of Independence"

reply to post by lunarminer

I listened to it again as well. Do you want me to put his words that address this down word for word for you. He says almost exactly, so the thinking of the time of the colonists was flawed and I am saying that that same thinking exists today.

He said "It is a document that reflects deep flaws in the American culture, the colonial culture at that time." He later says "They did not see it (talking about slavery) as a moral problem regarding persons of moral worth. Then he says "They did not see it as a moral problem." "It reflected an enormous blindspot that continues to this day." The blindspot, in case you still missed it, was in not regarding slavery as a immoral institution and regarding people as chattel. It continues to this day as in there are many within this country that do not see blacks as individuals of moral, human worth. Now, that is about all I can do to get you to understand what he is saying. If you dont' get it now, it is because you don't want to.



[edit on 18-1-2009 by Little Star]

reply to post by Little Star


So you completely sidestep the fact that the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution in 1787, in order to address the subject of unalientable rights that the DoI mentioned. This is no trivial point, the debate lasted for months and threatened to disrupt the Constitutional Convention. Surely you are aware of that history?

If not, I recommend reading about the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence was much more than a simple document to piss off the King of England. It is historic because it is the very first political document to define that the rights of the people do not eminate from the government.

The unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were a modified version of basic human rights that were enumerated by Adam Smith as Life, Liberty, and Property. These form the foundation of our economic system and his philosophy was highly influential on the Founding Fathers.

It was for this reason that the Bill of Rights was formed. Members of the Constitutional Convention were worried that if a Bill of Rights was not drafted, that the government would soon assume all rights that were not strictly defined. This is a fear that has been borne our by history.

reply to post by Little Star


So am I to understand that our Constitution is a "flawed document" because it has failed to erradicate racism or bigotry?

I simply don't make the leap that you and Obama do that the actions of individuals somehow tarnishes the entire Country or the Constitution.

If we are waiting for every inequity to be reconciled before we have a viable Constitutional Government then I think that we are going to be waiting forever.

Everyone in this Country is a part of some minority. For instance, when I was growing up, I was in the minority with my classmates on 5 or 6 different points. I was often the only kid in the class whose parents were divorced. Sadly now this is the norm. I was a Mormon, most were not. I was often the shortest boy in the class, until 8th grade, then I grew a bit. I had red hair and freckles, still have the hair. Most of the time I was one of the smartest kids in class. My teachers had a nasty habit of pointing that out. So, I was on the receiving end of some abuses. Do I blame the government, or the Constitution, or the people as a whole? Hell no.

Would I then say that our Country has some "blindspots" and that our founding documents were flawed? Hell no.

As a Constitutional Scholar, surely Mr. Obama knows that there were many of the Founding Fathers who were in favor of obolishing slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence. This was not done because the Southern States would not sign the Declaration and that would have been fatal. Many of the founders later wrote that the issue of slavery was not settled and that the time would come when the issue would have to be resolved.

So I think that Mr. Obama is playing on the ignorance of the masses when he makes these statements about "blindspots", "flaws", and the like. I know that he is playing to the crowd but I don't think that there is any excuse for it. Especially considering his educational level.

Yes i can see it now, The sheep will sign off to a new constitution easily and it will bring the creation of NWO or he really is going to change things for the better but i doubt it.

Now you want change and having it done the right way, what if i told you the very utter of your religion or reference to, was not the right way. Of course you would get mad and bitch about it but its the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to stay neutral in a country with so much freedom. This is a war im prepared to fight.

Originally posted by Little Star
No he said that similar flawed thinking exists today.

Ok I will be bitter and a gripe and you can just be plain ol stupid.


Obama probably has very little real world exposure with what he talks about. I am white and have considerably more exposure to the real world of interracial contact.

Turning this thing into a rehash of the struggle! Millions of people of all races having been working things out for decades. Where in the hell has he been? We are the ones that have been working this out in the real world not talking about.

I have lived in the city with blacks, served in the military with its many races, my kids have attended mostly black schools. But I can also take you to a small town 30minites from here, mostly white with a cemetery full of dead Union soldiers. I could go on.

Anyway Obama and his ilk are out of touch. They just keep the ball rolling. They must. What we are seeing now is just the payoff he has to make to all the morons that still buy into what has become largely a lie. The truth is the thing has been shifting for a long time now. He is showing up late to the game still talking like its 1965.


When these idealist like Obama talk about the struggle and justice your not to notice the Marxist hybrid baggage that comes along with it. He means something much more than simply treating each other right in our day to day world and living together as americans.

He is just the latest pay off of white guilt, the great black hope mentality, years of indoctrinating white and black kids that only blacks have had to struggle for anything in this world and have the only clear vision of what rights and justice are anyway. In that measure he represents a bunch of crap.


And the guy is right it does sound like they are still after that 40 acres and a mule.

Since Obama has been quoted expressing his opinion that the Constitution is a flawed document, and no one here seems able to explain just how that is, or to explain what Obama meant. I did some research (still researching too). I came across this excerpt from Obama's 2001 interview on Chicago's public radio station WBEZ FM. Emphasis below is mine.

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 and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. 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 it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted 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 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.

So let me see if I have this straight.

Redistribution of wealth

Communists believe "Redistribution of wealth" is an approach for equality between the rich and the poor. Socialists deem it necessary to keep the inequality gap from widening any further. source

Wow, Yep, the 4th amendment definitely screws up that redistribution of wealth concepts. Last time I checked, My wealth was my personal property - you cannot legally take it from me. I earned it.

And not stating what the Federal Government MUST do for you - like we need MORE and BIGGER government.

The Constitution was SPECIFICALLY designed to limit the role of the Federal Government and give more power to the States. Granted that concept has been completely lost in the last 233 years. The most change was during the Progressive Era before World War I. Herbert Hoover expanded the Federal government more in 4 years than Roosevelt did in the first 7 years of the New Deal era.

The story of the growth of the federal government can be divided into two parts: before and after 1913, when the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which permitted a federal income tax, was ratified. In 1913 federal spending was a mere 2.5 percent of GNP (today spending is almost ten times that level); so if the federal government is measured only by spending, little growth took place before the income tax. Before 1913, however, the federal government grew in other ways, by enlarging its power and changing its mandate. When the colonies came together to form the United States, the founders viewed the new government as the defender of its citizens’ liberty. That meant protecting their rights-and in those days the most significant threat to the rights of individuals was, in nearly everyone’s eyes, the government itself. By 1913 the federal government had been transformed into an organization not to protect rights, but, ostensibly, to further the nation’s economic well-being.

source

Our government began in 1776 as a protector of individual rights

By 1913 it had evolved into one that presumed to guarantee the economic welfare of its citizens.

The beginning of Federally Owned Corporations began and grew exponentially . Prior to 1913 only 3 federal corporations existed. The 1st and 2nd Banks of the United States and the Corporation formed to build the Panama Canal.

During and just after WW1 we saw the Merchant Fleet Corporation, The War Finance Corporation, The Federal Land Bank, Spruce Production Corporation, Sugar Equalization Board, the Inland Waterways Corporation, the Federal Farm Board and the Federal Farm Loan Board. All of these still exist today in one form or another and most Federal Corporations are exempt from Sales Taxes.

Today there are over 40 Federal Government Corporations.

I do not think that the Constitution (with the Bill of Rights and current enacted amendments) itself is flawed, I think the flaw is in the People in power who would ignore it's prescriptions of LIMITING Federal power.

edit to fix tags

[edit on 1/19/09 by redhatty]

I have been following Obama very carefully, since this has been the first Presidential election I have been able to participate in. I have researched, using -books- and going to my local library, his background, his thoughts, and his passions.

Overall I am very happy. Contrary to what I am sure everyone in this thread thinks, he is a big turning stone in this gov't and in this country. Is it so hard to believe that someone who is "The Man" could help us all? For all we know, Obama is sick and tired of everything he has seen on a government level. Lets not forget that he is not too far off in age from many of us, and he saw the Vietnam War being botched and Watergate - any sensible person would hate seeing his beloved country fall like that.

I am not saying trust everyone in Washington. But it is time to stop most of this "EVIL EVIL EVIL!" chants we have about -everyone- in office. We did this to Bush, and we were justified. I really, really do not think that Obama will fall in behind him.

For once, lets just wait and see. Lets not burn him in effigy because he was using a very nice turn of phrase.

Redistribution of wealth and taxes are two different things. I AGREE on the current tax system, that is, excluding all the loop holes for the elite. I do believe that the wealthy SHOULD pay MORE taxes. I do not believe that money should in anyway in shape or form go to the poor. Those taxes should be used to improve schools all over, space programs, medicine, etc.

Redistribution of wealth is a HORRIBLE idea in SOOOO many ways. I agree with welfare on a very monitored level, where if one gets LAID OFF and has proof of continually searching for a job that person will receive welfare.

What I hate about redistribution of wealth is (aka welfare) is that it gives a much less incentive for people to become things that are highly valuable to our country's future development. Who would want to work their ass off for so many years in school, and on the job just to make as much money as the person bagging groceries?

Now, whether Obama wants a true system of redistribution I can not comment on, but further increasing welfare type programs will never help.

Give the people fishing poles, not fish!

In regards to his quote on the declaration of independence and such as the constitution. It is a living document and will need change as we as a country grow up. It did not have equality for all when it was created. That is one example how "we the current people" have helped it. A gripe I have with Obama is his wording of his speeches. While in a book symbolic speech is very nice, when a politician says it is either leaves us with a thought that could very well agree with him or go against his wishes, but we do not know it. Speak straight dammit!

When a population grows, it is almost likely more laws will be implemented. We all know the saying "one person ruins it for all". It is easily applied here today in the USA. Does not apply to everything the govt. passes, but it is a side point.

Originally posted by redhatty
...And not stating what the Federal Government MUST do for you - like we need MORE and BIGGER government. ...

Actually, the Constitution DOES say what government MUST do. Among those things are 1) Running the Post Office, 2) Provide for the Common Defense, and 3) Conduct a census every 10 years.

Besides a few other things, ALL OTHER POWERS ARE DELEGATED TO THE STATES AND TO THE PEOPLE.

I say that you start in Alaska because it is by far the best armed state in america, the people here understand for the most part what is going on, we have our own source of income, and we know our terrain and can live in our climate with ease

sorry we probably are not the best armed state but we have a hell of an army and can hit a curled hair in the toilet. we are not really ran by the goverment we kind of do our own thing

sorry we probably are not the best armed state but we have a hell of an army and can hit a curled hair in the toilet. we are not really ran by the goverment we kind of do our own thing

reply to post by lunarminer


I did not deliberatly side step the issue of the Bill of Rights or anything else. The fact remains that the whole thread was specifically related to the Declaration of Independence. Just because it served more than one purpose, that to tell the King of England to back off and to leave them to govern themselves, and in the process listed rights that they felt should be the rights of all free men, does not mean that, it, as a document, actually bestowed rights on anyone at any time. The Bill of Rights did this. I was following the issues brought up in the thread and not trying to give a full lesson in history. The DoI does not confer rights on anyone, it demands that these rights should be given. There is a difference.



[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

reply to post by lunarminer


You said:

So I think that Mr. Obama is playing on the ignorance of the masses when he makes these statements about "blindspots", "flaws", and the like. I know that he is playing to the crowd but I don't think that there is any excuse for it. Especially considering his educational level.

To say that his intention was to play on the ignorance of the masses is a huge leap from what he stated. He stated his opinion. One, I might add, that is shared by numerous Constitutional experts and historians. Imagine if slaves had been freed at the time the nation was first establsihed? Imagine how much further along our nation would be in terms of race relations. It could be that not much would have changed. However, an additional 100 years of slavery certainly did not help. Most learned people, historians, scholars, etc, see this country's major flaw as being one of not being willing to completely let go of bigotry as it provides econonmic benefits to those that are not minority citizens. To base the economy of this country for so long on the hatred and exploitation of a group of human beings, fellow children of God, is henious.

I submit that this is a blindspot that you are not willing to acknowledge as you want to see this country, its founding documents and its founding fathers as being perfect. This is not patriotism, it is willful blindness. To not set the slaves free and to further the cause of slavery in a document designed to establish the freedom of a people from government control, was just plain wrong and more than a flaw. I would say his language was not harsh enough. Today, it would be regarded as criminal. Does the word of God or the teachings of Jesus change over time? No, slavery was just as immoral in the time it existed and for these men to know this, admit this, and then write and codify as law a document that furthered its cause was not only wrong, but an act against God. For you to try to explain away their failure to act rightly is astounding. Essentially, what you are saying is that what they failed to do was okay just because they didn't like slavery and saw it as wrong. This is ridiculous thinking. If anything, it makes what they did and did not do worse. They knew the Truth and failed to follow in a direction that would promote that Truth.

Just because they may have stated in separate documents, their dislike of slavery, does not irradicate their guilt and complicity. They all owned slaves. They all personaly profited from the institution of slavery and yet they had the moxy to demand freedom for themselves? Wrong is wrong sir, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He was trying to take advantage of the ignorance of the masses? That statement has no basis in reality, the reality of what he said, or the reality of what was done then. They were wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!



[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

reply to post by Little Star


But, in the US, the issue of slavery has been corrected.

The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th made sure that all previous slaves were granted the exact same citizenship rights as everyone else.

As the amendments are also a part of the Constitution, why is this fact being ignored or overlooked?

by 1865 slavery was abolished in all the US states. It's 2009.

How long is this black stain in American history going to be a focal point?

We can't move forward if people are still believing that they are CURRENTLY affected by the mistakes of over 150 years ago

reply to post by redhatty


The discussion during which he made these statements, was specifically related to the original Constitution. It was not a general discussion regarding the historic development of the Constitution and its amendments. Context is everything. He even repeated the question as being "What do I think of the original Constitution and its amendments?" Then, he went on to say that the original Constittution and its amendments is a wonderful (or something to that effect) document. He then said that the original document was flawed and that the flaw came from the flawed thinking of the time. He explains that flawed thinking to be that which allowed slavery to continue and to be viewed as just another political issue and not one of morality. Then, he says that this flawed thinking continues in within our society today. By this, he meant bigotry. This is obvious to anyone that listens to what he is saying and is not trying to read anything more into it. If I read anything into it, I would say that maybe he meant that not facing issues as moral imperatives as opposed to merely political issues, is a flaw in thinking. Global warming is one that comes to mind. The corruption in the govenment is another.

Also, we are still effected by what happened during slavery. Bigotry has not not been ablolished. There are many, many reasons why a person may not file a law suit to fight or be granted redress from the pain suffered as a result of discrimination. The laws are there. The hate is not always addressed for a variety of reasons. Take for instance, why is security so tight around Obama? Because of the level of race based hate is still high in this country. So, yes, we do still suffer its effects. I didn't even get to those that are still carried as a burden by all blacks and having to live and make their way in a society that holds racist ideas against them. Yes, we have made progress. Obama's election is evidence of this. However, there is still much work to be done. Pretending that everything is okay will not get us anywhere.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

reply to post by ScarletNyx



Yea he is sick and tired of what he sees as all Marxist are sick and tired.

reply to post by Little Star


I don't know where you live, I live in New Orleans. I can tell you, my black population is much more bigoted than the white population. Granted there are a few openly bigoted white people here, but there are WAY more of us here in the black population that will openly and subtlety display the bigotry they harbor.

It's not enough that we fight to keep our kids in school and away from the influence of the drug dealer and gang members. It's not enough that some of us understand clearly where the real bigotry is. Now we have a new President that is feeding into the bigotry.

Many of us are trying our damnedest to not feed into this misguided thinking that affects our culture, but we are being thrown a complete curve ball by our new president - who MANY of us here did not vote for .

So go ahead, tell ME about the problems with bigotry and where they really lie, grow and fester

reply to post by Little Star



Obama should keep an eye on some of his own who may love to make a martyr out of him. He would be far more useful to their purposes in that condition. Yea, make it look like some white nut did it.

Okay, you guys just want to live with these really strange beliefs that bring you misery. Of course there are bigots on both sides. Both sides are made up of humans and have the same human flaws. Both sides see themselves as justified. Are they? No, they are just ignorant and scared and wanting to blame the world for the fear they feel about their lives and their dissappointments. This is human. Hopefully, we will all grow away from it. How is Obama feeding into bigotry by acknowledging that it existed during the time of slavery and still exists? You just admitted it exists, although you wrote about it coming from Blacks. Were you trying to feed into bigotry with what you wrote? It exists. It is a fact. Saying it does does not feed it, it merely states a fact. Once again, think of the context of his statements.

Wanting to raise taxes on the rich is not socialism nor is it Marxism. It is common sense. It is taxation, not a social ideology. So, you like the fact that you pay a larger percentage of your income in taxes than a person making over $250k currently does? This doesn't bother you? You like that your tax dollars pay for schools that are inferior while their savings on taxes allows them to afford elite schools for their children? This is justice to you? This is the pursuit of happiness in your book? You don't like him throwing around the words from the DOI, yet you throw them around in terms of what you want for yourself and feel you should be able to achieve. Yet, you put him down when he points out that the current system impedes your ability to do so and call him a Marxist when you clearly don't even understand what a Marxist is. Or, is it that you don't think he has a right to lay claim to the principles laid out in the DOI in the same manner that you do? Ask yourselves why.

To the person that suggests that a black may try to make a martyr out of him as it would serve "their" goals more than the goals of a white person, what goals do you think a black has that are different than your own? You folks want to criticize Obama for stating that bigotry still exists and then someone makes a statement like this, which clearly illustrates a view that there are black purposes and white purposes in this country and say nothing. To hold a view that the races have different goals is to hold a bigoted outlook. We all have the same goals. We all want the same things. We would get there a lot faster if we start seeing that we are all the same and from the same Creator with a purpose here of creating a consciousness that was demonstrated by Jesus in his time on Earth. There are no goals that are desired by one race that are not desired by them all. There are no White values or Black values. This ideology is what allowed slavery to persist. Excellent how you managed to prove Obama's point in the interview while thinking you were rallying against him.

But, then if you don't understand the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, there is little chance that you will understand that concept. I am not saying anyone here is dumb, just not well informed about history. You skipped that day at school perhaps or perhaps you didn't pay attention, or maybe your teachers didn't understand it themselves. The point is, all of this finger pointing, argument baiting, Obama hating, consiparcy seeking, is not going to move you or this country further. It only divides us. Which is what the powers that be intend for it to do, that is, your much hated elite. Ask yourselves what is it that you came here to this thread to achieve. Ask yourselves what you hope to achieve from your lives. Does arguing with me and trying to get me to read into something he stated in a speech or how he answered a question, that was not there, going to get you any closer to your goals?




[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Little Star]