We are now getting a somewhat better sense of Obama’s personal perceptions and beliefs- something that has been hid from the American people by both Obama and the mainstream media which has been overwhelmingly in the tank for him.

Joe Klein, reporting for Time, was allowed to see the first 10 pages of Obama’s Columbia thesis, title “Aristocracy Reborn”. In this, Obama wrote:

… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

Put this in context with what Obama said in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM:

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.

While one could have been somewhat skeptical of the thesis quote, in context with this interview, I think we can safely assume its authenticity. Which is disturbing on several levels.

First off, we see the heavy emphasis, both then and now, on the redistribution of wealth. Taking something from person A to give to person B based on some calculus of perceived wrong doing.

Wealth redistribution is nothing short of thievery- it is taking from Peter to bribe Paul, with the notion that a happy Paul will continue to gladly screw Peter through the government. In this sense, Obama truly is a dick.

Secondly, is the premise that the Constitution is a negative document because it limits the governments authorities.

This is a fundamental flaw in the matrix of Obama’s thinking. The Constitution is anything but a negative document, it is a positive document because it positively states what the government can and cannot do. Any politician lamenting the restrictions the Constitution places on them is a tyrant in waiting.