Throughout this presidential election cycle, there has been one glaring truth about the presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: people love him. Despite what he says or what is uncovered about him, that love does not seem to diminish.

Why is it that he is the candidate we know the least about? As Joe the plumber asked a question that an unguarded Obama answered with a simple “spread the wealth” comment, people may have thought that he simply made a slip of the tongue and didn’t mean that. However, a recent discovery of a 2001 interview while Senator Obama was an Illinois state senator reveals that this is a deeply held belief. Source. In fact, the constitution is worded so that states have more power than a centralized federal government. Senator Obama feels as though the judicial branch has not done enough for the redistribution of wealth. As a constitutional law professor, Senator Obama believes that “negative liberites” are what the constitution lays out as to what the states and federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t lay out what the state of federal governments must do on your behalf. I may not be a law professor, but I believe that the preamble to the constitution lays out exactly what the constitution should do.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does the constitution lay out any sort of agenda for the redistribution of wealth? Is it because of the term “promote the general welfare”? How does that interpretation fall in to line with the next part which is securing the blessings of liberty? Let’s talk about that a little bit. Liberty, as defined by www.dictionary.com has several definitions, but the first is “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control”. So let’s look a little deeper into the definition of Arbitrary and Despotic using the same site. “subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion”. “a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat.”

Maybe I’m not seeing the full picture here, but it doesn’t seem to me that redistributing the wealth is constitutional when juxtaposed to the preamble of the constitution, specifically the part which reads about securing the blessings of liberty.

Now all of this talk of cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes, many of whom do not pay federal income taxes already, while raising the taxes on people who “have enough already” is encroaching upon someone’s liberty.

Ok, enough of that. How do people still have this blind love on other issues?Lt me use another example, this one being of the truthfulness of Senator Obama. We know that he said that he would accept public financing for his campaign, but changed his mind once he saw that he would raise more money and his opponent had signed on to accept public financing. Source. We know that Senator Obama had more ties to ACORN and Bill Ayers than he had said in the debates. Why has this been overlooked?

Why is it that we know more about a first term governor of Alaska than we do about the person at the top of the democrat national ticket? Why do we know more about a plumber in Ohio than Senator Obama? Can we trust a person who blatantly lies in campaign ads? Source. Why is it that we still don’t know exactly how he got in to Harvard or anything about his papers he wrote in the school.

Is love blind, or is this simply an infatuation with someone who speaks well enough to enamor people into overlooking what he truly intends to do, his relatively unknown past and policies that will have a drastically negative impact on the economy and private sector? I tend to believe it is the latter and as the old song goes, breaking up is hard to do.

Discuss this article on the phatooine.net forums.