"as David mentioned the left is fundamentally opposed to the Constitution of the United States they are fundamentally opposed to the basic founding concept of American freedom and liberty they seek to tear it down I disagree slightly with David in terms of the president being a communist president David knows communism significantly better than I do so I'll defer to his definition of communism but he in my view the president is is beyond that he is a nihilist he wants to tear down the system almost solely for the sake of tearing down the system it's not even about establishing equality or establishing a basic standard of Rights or BAE order to avoid poverty it's about tearing down the system purely and simply now that there are folks on the Left who see the Constitution of the United States is a real obstacle these folks include people who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg said not long ago she said quote I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012 I might look at the constitution of South Africa said that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights had an independent judiciary it really is I think a great piece of work that was done much more recent than the US Constitution which is of course my South Africa is such a thriving it in wonderful in free country today the South African Constitution contains the following provision section 26 of that Constitution contains the right to housing including the right to due process with regard to court-ordered eviction and demolition section 27 includes the rights to food water health care and social assistance which the state must progressively realize within the limits of its resources this is the sort of Constitution that the left wants a constitution in which the government guarantees use stuff and violates your rights in order to guarantee you those things and if they don't deliver on that promise well you know they can't win them all but the bottom line is that they will pretend to guarantee you these things how do we know that they're just pretending because there have been other constitutions in the past that contain similar provisions for example there was a constitution in the recent prat in the recent past that suggested quote the distribution and usage of real estate should be supervised by the state in order to prevent abuse and in order to strive to secure healthy housing to all families especially those with many children in order to maintain health and the ability to work in order to protect motherhood and to prevent economic consequences of age weakness and to protect against the vicissitudes of life the state establishes a comprehensive system of insurances this particular Constitution also said that the state should transfer economic enterprises suited for nationalization into common property if the regulations for expropriation are obeyed and if compensation is not violated I'm speaking of course of the vitamark Constitution it guaranteed all of these rights the Chinese Constitution similarly guarantees for example the right to free speech and the rights of freedom of the press in other words these are all paper documents the American Constitution is to and the only people standing between us and the great ma of government that seeks to turn us up and spit us out is the the will of the American people to stop this and to stand up for liberty and all the guarantees if people who say that this is alarmist to talk in these sorts of terms this is I think one of the great myths no MERS that we've experienced in modern history we've bought our own propaganda with regard to folks like Hitler in the sense that yes Hitler was evil but Hitler didn't come in with the jackboots Hitler came in and he did it softly if you read Hitler's speech for example right before the enabling act right he was arguing for the enabling act in 1933 right after the Red Stag fire and Hitler when he argued for the Enabling Act which was an act that essentially ended all civil rights in Germany and handed unilateral power over to the chancellor namely Hitler he actually said this is the direct quote the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures he's going to borrow the power right the existence if neither the Red Stag nor the rest rot is endangered the position and rights of the ref president remain inviolate it will always be the first and foremost task of the government to bring about inner consensus with his aims says the rights of churches will not be curtailed their position of easily the state will not be altered the number of cases when there will be an internal necessity you know why people here that will have to deal with that'll be really limited and is what he said in 1933 and of course his opponent who's got named Otto bells who is from the Social Democratic Party he protested he said never in the history of the German Reichstag has control over public affairs vested in the elected representatives of the people been eliminated to this extent what's amazing about this particular exchange that the the president of the Reichstag at that time was Hermann Goering who's obviously one of Hitler's emissaries his right-hand man and he actually got up in the middle of the speech and he shout he was the head of the legislature he shouted at the head of the of the social democratic party which was the opposition party he shouted at them stop talking and listen to Hitler now the Chancellor is getting even who's getting up he's rooting for Hitler in the middle of this of this legislative discussion sort of like obviously there are differences but on a systemic level sort of like the modern Democratic Party sort of like members of the Democratic Party who have decided that they are going to forgo their legislative duty as a member of the legislative branch to check the executive in other words the goal is more important than the system the goal is more important than the system now the Constitution was established it's not a value neutral Constitution our Constitution was established in order to embody certain basic values in order to protect certain basic values right it was established in order to protect certain inalienable rights we celebrated this a few days ago although the fact is that if you read the current list if you read the list written in 1776 of the violations of the king many of them pale in comparison to the sorts of violations of rights that we see today and when it talks about the multiplicity of officers that have been sicked upon the people of the United States for example in the Declaration of Independence he's talking about a few tax officials and he's not talking about the IRS specifically targeting particular groups at the behest of the presidents of the United States.