Freedom: what is your definition?

Obama mocks the anguish that I, and others, feel.

For Obama and most “liberals” freedom means food in everyone’s belly and everyone being treated the same. My concept of freedom is owning my own body and my own property. You think freedom is only what other people – in realty government bureaucrats – let you have. You criticize the Republicans over Roe v Wade and yet pass laws requiring adults to wear seatbelts or helmets if riding a motorcycle. Sorry, it may make sense to wear seatbelts (I do) and wear a helmet (I do) but if you are a FREE man or FREE woman the choice is yours and yours alone. All other arguments to the contrary – namely cost to the society – are an infringement upon individual freedom and is the primary reason I’m against the health care bill. Now, under the guise of the healthcare, another wall protecting the individual from the government has been knocked down. Property rights – the basis of all freedom has already been destroyed and now you think nothing of turning over basic individual liberties to government fiat.

The basic premise of the social contract, the foundation of the US Constitution, was “I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine.” Welcome to the Counter-Enlightenment bliss of “I promise to give you room and board if you promise to prevent me from eating too many Twinkies.”

Tea Party Movement, Cato and Publius

I’ve had discussions with several left-leaning historians who are appalled with the Tea Party Movement. A pet peeve is the very name “Tea-Party.”  The original Tea Party, they say, was opposed to “Taxation without Representation” and today’s Tea Party people, as we all know, are ignorant crazies led by demagogues. Today’s taxes were voted in by elected representatives: therefore how could these people (the modern Tea Party) possibly be compared to the 18th Century version?

My first response is why were there pen names in the 18th Century movement? After all how close to the Classical originals were the 18th Century Cato and Publius?

They weren’t. Nor was the point to be exactly the same. It was to identify with an agreed upon heroic past and emulate these heroic figures. Today’s Tea Party may not be arguing against Taxation without Representation but they are combating a political establishment that has deviated greatly from the original intent of the Constitution (as they see it). They also see today’s United States to have fallen into one of the great traps warned of by de Tocqueville and others. For instance:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville”

The Tea Party is an apt name as it brings discussion back to the US Constitution and what it means. Do we look at rights the way it was thought of during the 18th Enlightenment or the way it was perverted in the early 19th C by the anti-enlightenment Romantics or later by the Socialists?

If you’re unfamiliar with this look up Positive versus Negative Rights.

OBAMA'S FUNDAMENTAL DISLIKE OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Transcript (to the best of my ability and time constraints)

I think that 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 this same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and it to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Notice that he refers to the constitution in the past tense. To me this is the scariest and most disturbing aspect of this statement. What is the fundamental flaw of the US Constitution that continues to this day? Certainly not slavery that was taken care of with the 13th Ammendment.
 
I think it has everything to do with the fact that it is a pro-individual document which limits the power's of the government  and hinders the quick restructuring of society. Obama, I feel, is in love with the concept of the power of the state as a force for good and thinks that the proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." does not apply to him or other "forward-looking" progressives.

EDIT 10/28

I was bothered by Obama calling the US Constitution a "remarkable political document" but didn't fully flesh out my objections. I just read Kim Priestap's excellent post at the wizbangblog (October 27th).

Second, he calls the Constitution a "remarkable political document." I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way. The President of the United States is required to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. However, by listening to what Obama said in this interview and the 2001 interview that Steve posted earlier it's clear: he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/more-obama-audio-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw.php

Beautifully put.

That post led to another clip on Obama that I think ends once and for all any debate on what Obama means when he says that the constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Speaking of the Warren Court Obama said

"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 more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Anybody who thinks we have "positive" liberties -- an oxymoron in my opinion -- is a socialist. If you don't understand the above statement please read more philosophy and history books.

Hear Obama discussing the Warren Court below: