III. UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Obama is not a liberal. Liberals respect the Constitution, as do conservatives. Mr. Obama however does not. Why? Simple. The Constitution stands in the path of his progressive agenda, as described above. Therefore, he is doing exactly what you would expect him to do, i.e. attacking the Constitution on all fronts, as I will show.
In addition, he is appointing fellow progressives as Judges. In case you have not noticed, we have three of them on the Court now. One of them stated recently that she prefers the South African Constitution to the American Constitution which if memory serves she took an oath to uphold. Another, who had no prior judicial experience, refuses to recuse herself from the Obama care case, even though as Solicitor General, she participated in emails discussing the “legal issues, arguments and strategy concerning “the anticipated Obama care litigation”. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/26/evidence-mounts-against-justice-kagan-for-recusal-in-obamacare-suit/ At a minimum, that raises a strong appearance of impropriety, and Chief Justice Roberts’ defense of her decision does not change the verdict. It merely reflects a desire to defend the institution.
If Mr. Obama is given a second term, then he will undoubtedly appoint more progressive justices to the Supreme Court and they will be in control. Furthermore, he will appoint more progressives to the Courts of Appeal and District Courts across this land. As this happens, as night follows day, progressive lawyers will bring cases in front of these courts which will enable these progressive judges to re-write the Constitution in accordance with progressive dogma. The dark side of this transition from decision-making by original intent to decision making by political philosophy was explored in the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, through character of Nazi Supreme Court Justice Ernst Janning portrayed by the late great actor Burt Lancaster. It stands as a dire warning.
That said, let us consider the line of attack that Obama and his New Progressives have launched against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As we do so, let us not forget how those documents have protected us for over two centuries, and what it would mean to lose them.
A. Freedom of Speech: (First Amendment):
When Howard Dean ran for President, he hired a cadre of internet savvy progressives from the Green Movement to advance his campaign. When he withdrew from the race he transferred that group to Senatorial candidate Barack Hussein Obama. They helped him win the election.
Thereafter, those progressive bloggers set up websites like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, etc. They used them to attack the Bush Administration over the Iraq War. And when the 2008 Democratic Primary began they used them to attack Hillary and promote Obama. And they banned Obama critics from their sites. Their mantra was tomorrow belongs to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs5bnVoZK4Q
These progressive bloggers also infiltrated pro-Hillary and Republican sites. They repeated the pro-Obama talking points with mind numbing regularity, and attacked conservative bloggers with foul language and threats. Their goal was to drive people off those sites and ultimately to shut them down. And when those efforts proved ineffective, they engaged in e-terror. They discovered the identity of anti-Obama bloggers, left death threats on their answering machines, rummaged through their computer files, and harassed their contacts list. I speak from personal experience. This had a chilling effect on free speech.
Finally, Mr. Obama played the race card from the bottom of the deck. In South Carolina, he and his crony Jim Clyburn fabricated racist charges against Hillary and Bill Clinton. Later the false charge of racism was adopted by the DNC under Howard Dean, and his successor Tim Kaine against the Tea Parties. And Chris Van Hollen of the DCCC used the false charge of racism brilliantly on his way to losing control of the House. Today it is standard operating procedure for Democrats is to impute racist motives to any objective criticism of Mr. Obama. Sieg heil!!!
A constitutional system welcomes free speech. It holds that the people are sovereign and their collective judgment is what counts. Therefore, the goal is an informed electorate. A progressive system fears free speech. It holds that the state is sovereign, the leader is smarter and nobler than the people, and his judgment is what counts. The goal of a progressive system is an indoctrinated electorate. Dissent is verboten. Mr. Obama and fellow travelers come from that side of the fence. They use internet to censor diverse opinion. They use the false charge of racism to silence opponents. Their actions are inimical to free speech. They violate the First Amendment. The only remedy is at the ballot box.
B. Freedom of the Press: (First Amendment):
When Mr. Obama took office, the news organizations that had supported him during the primary fell immediately in line with his presidency, and continued to spout his propaganda. Chris Matthews at MSNBC gave the game away when he said now that we have elected him we must make sure he succeeds. Thereafter, the Obama White House sent them an average 12 emails a day commenting on their coverage and giving them the talking points for publication not editing. Those submissive media organizations were, and are: NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WashPo and AP.
The organizations that did not support him during the primary continued to function as journalists and Mr. Obama used his newly acquired powers as president to punish them for their heresy. After all, what good is power if you don’t abuse it? The main target was FOX. Initially, he tried to excommunicate them from the Washington Press Corps pool. Thereafter, he used White House personnel to monitor their coverage 24-7, and declared they were not a new organization.
The Obama White House coordinated their attacks on FOX with Soros funded Media Matters. That organization proceeded to attack FOX, to pressure their corporate sponsors, and to blacklist their journalists. The following email by the Director of Media Matters provides rare insight into the mind of a New Progressive, and its totalitarian proclivities:
The progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around anymore. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole. We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers. We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff.”
In addition, the Obama campaign actively conspired with young Ezra Kline and a long list of left wing journalists to kill stories critical of Obama. http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
Obama’s attack on the free press has been relentless, and highly effective. The best evidence of its efficacy is how he has reduced the White House Press Corps to a chorus of castrades. Indeed, Richard Benedetto, a long time member of that club, and now professor of journalism has called his former colleagues on their fall from grace.
Over the past five months, the Republican presidential candidates participated in 13 debates where they fielded dozens of penetrating questions on every major issue facing the nation, and some not so major. Yet, during all that time the man they hope to defeat next November (Obama) has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of those issues. No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Israel or North Korea—global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.
Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, aided by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/30/media_abet_obamas_aloofness_on_tough_issues_112576.html
Finally, the Obama White House has created an Enemies List which is comprised of journalists and organizations who do not tow the party line. This is a dangerous precedent and it cannot be reconciled with the concept of a free society. It is totalitarian, or if you prefer, progressive.
C. Freedom of Assembly: (First Amendment):
In 2009, Mr. Obama forced his health care bill through Congress. The public reaction to it was overwhelmingly negative and it remains so to this day according to Gallup. After passing this legislation on party lines, Obama sent Congressional Democrats into their respective districts on to present the White House talking points on the subject. And he turned to SEIU President Andy Stern a political supporter to provide protection. Whereupon, Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff (who is now working on the 2012 campaign) met with a group of SEIU “volunteers” and told them if they got hit by the Tea Parties, to “hit back twice as hard”. Whereupon, these SEIU went to a Town Hall Meeting in St Louis and physically attacked a black conservative who was selling Tea Party flags on the sidewalk, and not bothering anyone. He was taken to the hospital, arrests were made and charges were filed. This violent incident, and others like it, had a chilling effect on freedom of assembly. Lastly, the persistent efforts by the Obama Administration and CNN to label the Tea Party movement racist with no supporting evidence has a similar effect.
D. Freedom of Religion: (First Amendment):
The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and/or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Obama is using the power of the State to support the Muslim Religion both here and abroad. Those efforts raise an inference that he is attempting to promote a particular religion in violation of the establishment clause. However, at this point, the risk is too remote to be a Constitutional violation. (Note: if this were the Christian religion and it was a Republican, then the American Civil Liberties, a Bolshevik organization, would be in Court.)
On the other hand, the recent actions of his Health and Human Services Secretary mandating that Catholic institutions provide free access to contraceptives for female workers would appear to constitute a per se violation of the free exercise clause because it forces those institutions to violate deeply held religious beliefs. In so doing, Mr. Obama seeks to reduce religious liberty from a fundamental right to a mere privilege which can be granted or withdrawn at will by government.
Obama supporters would strongly dispute that characterization. They would say that Mr. Obama is a deeply religious man. But the religion he practiced for twenty years was that of the Trinity Church in Chicago. The spiritual leader of that Church is the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright—a proponent of black liberation theology, which can be summed up in these words which thunder down from the pulpit: god damn Jews, white people and America. As President, he lives those words every day.
E. The Right to Vote:
Voter fraud and intimidation are part of the Obama campaign strategy, which is based in Chicago. It carries over into the governing process as well. I witnessed this in my own campaign travels.
For example, in the state of Washington, his operatives registered phantom voters—and were belated prosecuted and convicted for it. In Iowa, they sent busloads of young people in from Illinois to overwhelm the system, register same day and vote illegally. In Texas, his operatives engaged in 2000 reported acts of voter fraud and intimidation which were reported to the DNC who swept them under the rug. In Laredo, where I was, his operatives engaged in violence. And in Indiana, his operatives in Gary counted non-existent voters, and similar violations were reported in Fort Wayne and South Bend. This hearkens back to a comment attributed to the greatest progressive of them all, Uncle Joe Stalin: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” The following report by a Democrat Party election monitor in El Paso will give you a better idea of what I am talking about. http://mydd.com/users/pacific-john/posts/texas-caucus-fraud-updated
Two years later, a writer and producer named Gigi Gastone, set out to prove that the Obama campaign was innocent as the driven snow, and ended up proving that in fact they and the DNC were dirty as hell. She produced a documentary to that effect entitled We Will Not Be Silenced. Here is part of the trailer:
This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is of course all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced”. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/11/we-will-not-be-silenced-democrats-produce-documentary-alleging-rampant-vote-fraud-by-obama-campaign-vs-hillary-in-2008-primaries/
After Obama took office, he sanctioned these voter intimidation tactics on the grounds of race. On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing uniforms and jack boots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia at the entrance of a polling station. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. Justice Department lawyers obtained an entry of default after the defendants failed to appear. Before a final judgment could be entered however a change of Administration took place and the Obama Administration ordered a dismissal of those claims. When pressed, their position was the Voting Rights Act was intended to protect black people, hence white people whose voting rights were violated by black people could not take advantage of it. More hope and change. http://pjmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-you-deserve-to-know-%E2%80%94-unequal-law-enforcement-reigns-at-obamas-doj-pjm-exclusive/
It is unclear why the Obama Administration would fail to uphold the law in this instance. Some have suggested that Mr. Obama needs the New Black Panther Party, along with ACORN to support his GOTV efforts in 2012. Others believe it is yet another example of the race card he has been playing ever since South Carolina. Reasonable minds can differ.
F. Whistle Blowers: (First Amendment): http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said : “often, the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in Government is an existing Government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” (Statement still on-line at Obama’s Change.gov website) “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government… I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make.”(White House, January 28, 2009)”
Barack Obama did the opposite: as president he is pursuing the most aggressive crackdown on whistleblowers in U.S. history. Before now, government officials were rarely indicted for disclosing information that is in the public interest. The Obama / Holder DOJ has, however, taken the strategy of not merely threatening whistleblowers with legal action as Bush did, but following through and prosecuting them. Obama has now indicted as many whistleblowers as all previous presidents combined.
G. Warrantless Wiretapping: (Fourth Amendment) http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said : “I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the President, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.” (Campaign statement, January 28, 2008)I Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” (Campaign statement, October 24, 2007)
Barack Obama did the opposite: After securing the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Obama not only voted against filibustering the FISA Amendments Act, but, along with Republicans, voted in favor of the bill itself, which granted unforeseen powers of surveillance to the president, and total immunity to telecommunications companies (see last quote above). [This move was defended by many Obama supporters who pointed out that the law does not provide immunity to authorities who implemented the program, back when it was “still” illegal. Upon assuming the presidency, however, Obama promised to “look forward, not backward,” and blocked any efforts to investigate the surveillance (or other) crimes committed during Bush’s tenure, or to bring lawsuits against the perpetrators. Electronic surveillance and data-mining on a massive and expanding scale continue to this day, while Obama has vowed to veto any bill that requires the president to even subject his surveillance activities to more congressional oversight – the lack of which enabled Bush to implement the NSA program secretly. In April 2009, The New York Times reported that the NSA under Obama has exceeded even the modest legal limits it was supposed to follow in its collection of Americans’ emails and phone calls. The Obama administration is trying to push for legislation making it easier to monitor BlackBerry devices, Skype, and Facebook. The proposed legislation aims to do away with the decentralized architecture of the Internet, so as to create the ability for the government to conduct surveillance of online communication.
H. Habeas Corpus: (Fifth/Sixth Amendments). http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said: “as a Constitutional scholar with a degree from Harvard and as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review and as a parent, I can only imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even a chance—even one chance—to ask why they are being held and being able to prove their innocence . . . By giving suspects a chance—even one chance to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.” [(Senate, September 2006)
Barack Obama then did the opposite: Shortly after assuming office, Obama appealed a district court ruling that granted prisoners in Afghanistan the right to challenge the legality of their detention, adopting the legal argument straight from the Bush DOJ. In May 2010, Obama won the case in a DC Circuit Court of Appeals (see point 1.2 below). Standing in front of the original Constitution at the National Archives in May 2009, Obama introduced a staggering new expansion of executive power: In addition to using military tribunals (see point 1.3), the administration would now retain the right to indefinitely hold detainees deemed dangerous, even if they were known to be innocent of any crime, without charges, and without their day in either a court or a military tribunal. This was the first time in U.S. history that the executive branch asserted the right to imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. In December 2011, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, causing outrage among human rights and civil liberties organizations. The bill formally codifies the U.S. Government’s right to arrest anyone anywhere on suspicion of terrorism-related crimes, including U.S. citizens, and to imprison them indefinitely without trial. (snip) White House specifically demanded that provisions excluding U.S. citizens on U.S. soil from indefinite military detention be removed from the bill. In other words, the negotiated “modifications,” which Obama stated were necessary for him to sign the bill, include broader powers to ignore habeas corpus rights, not safeguards to protect them. Calling the decision a “historic tragedy,” Human Rights Watch concluded, “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
I. Assassination of American Citizens: (Fifth/Eighth Amendment): http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Barack Obama said: “I also reject the view … that the president may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. … And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” The Boston Globe, December 2007)
Barack Obama then did the opposite: Shortly after expanding his own presidential authority by asserting the right to decide on terrorism suspects’ guilt without any legal process, and to detain individuals on suspicion of possible future crimes, Obama took the expansion of executive power one step further: In January 2010, the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before Congress that the Obama administration is reserving the right to include Americans on the assassination list, and kill them anywhere abroad at any time, without legal oversight. This constitutes death penalty without due process, a much more radical power than merely imprisoning Americans. The number of Americans on the list is unknown, but includes at least four names, possibly dozens. Most targeted killings are conducted by the CIA with remote-controlled, unmanned drones, condemned by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston.