During his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama startled America when he directed his displeasure directly at the black robed figures respectfully congregated a few yards in front of him and representing the Supreme Court of the United States and the third branch of government – the Judiciary. Showing his ire, Obama placed the Justices on a “Hot seat” from which they were neither invited nor expected to respond:
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
Obama was addressing the issue of the so-called “Super PACs.” Later, at a 2010 Campaign rally in Philadelphia, Obama added to and clarified his State of the Union remarks, pronouncing:
“Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy.”[i]
Here was obviously a man of conviction. Recall that in a 2007 campaign rally, candidate Obama excoriated John Edwards for saying he was against 527s (PACs), but, then having such a group, headed by his former campaign manager, purchase $750,000 in television time. Obama righteously went on to say at that time:
“So, you can’t say yesterday, you don’t believe in them and today, you have ¾ of a million dollars being spent for you. You can’t just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during an election time. Everybody talks about change during election time. You’ve got to look at how do they act when it’s not convenient – when it’s hard…”[ii]
Still apparently protecting Democracy and standing on his convictions – even in hard times – oops! It seems a funny thing happened on the way to the 2012 election…Obama’s Campaign Manager – Jim Messina – stated in February, 2012, that:
“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”[iii]
Unilateral disarmament in this administration, is apparently restricted to nuclear warheads and national defense – not for campaigns. And with that, the Super PACs were alive and well in the Obama campaign. Apparently, there was more at stake than walking the talk – more at stake than Democracy. Apparently, President Obama’s principled stand is largely contingent upon his re-election prospects.
In a 2001 interview on Chicago’s WBEZ radio, Obama unveiled his belief that economic justice in America can only be achieved through the redistribution of income – a concept not unlike that voiced by Karl Marx many years earlier. He also appears to have suggested that the way to achieve redistribution was not through the courts, but in the streets – through agitation and community organizing.
“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth – and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society – and 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 it in the same way, that generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
“It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government, or the state government must do on your behalf.
“And that hasn’t shifted – and one of the – I think – tragedies of the civil rights movement, I think, 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 activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways, we still suffer from that.”[i] (emphasis added)
In little more than a sound-bite, Obama provided us with a very important insight into his view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it. Here, he seems to be touching on the argument for bigger government (“what…government must do on your behalf”), while chastising the Warren Court for upholding the Constitutional constraints written by the Founding Fathers. Then, as if echoing these words from Karl Marx – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”[ii] – he talks about both the redistribution of wealth and the ability of community organizers to put together coalitions capable of producing “redistributive changes.”[iii]
That line produces instant images of ACORN pressuring banks and nonbank lenders to adopt a financial paradigm in which loans could be made to people regardless of their credit worthiness and ability to pay.[iv] Indeed, history strongly suggests that Obama’s formula here, would result in coercive, disruptive, “in your face” practices. Was this his intention as an expert Organizer?
During his 2008 campaign, Senator Obama claimed kinship with a number of very famous people, including actor Brad Pitt. As we honor our nation on this July 4th, please take a few moments and read again, one of our greatest documents; written, signed, distributed and defended by some of our bravest citizens. Could our current president claim kinship with any of these inspired Americans? Interestingly, he does number six U.S. Presidents among his cousins – one of whom he has treated most shabbily: George W. Bush. 
When President Obama says America is not a Christian nation, perhaps he should read this Declaration as one of the best fact checking mechanisms available. Does Obama believe he derives his “…just powers from the consent of the governed…?” If he did, perhaps he would be far more concerned about working with, rather than around our Congress. Perhaps he would show greater respect to Americans who disagree with his policies, rather than attempting to publicly ridicule them.
We know it would be ridiculous to compare President Obama to a King. Yet, how striking the similarity between the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence and the struggle that has played out between our own federal government and the state of Arizona.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
To be sure, we are a very long way from experiencing the government abuses borne by our forefathers. Still, an imaginative mind might find a few other startling similarities in this document.
Thank God for this Declaration and for the long line of brave, committed Americans who, throughout our history, have placed their “Lives,” their “Fortunes” and their “Sacred Honor” on the line to preserve it. Thank God for a system in which we can place an end to political abuses at the polls, rather than through revolution.
God bless you and yours on this July 4th!
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1 Georgia:
Column 2 North Carolina:
John Penn South Carolina:
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Column 3 Massachusetts:
John Hancock Maryland:
Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia:
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Column 4 Pennsylvania:
George Ross Delaware:
Column 5 New York:
Lewis Morris New Jersey:
Column 6 New Hampshire:
William Whipple Massachusetts:
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:
William Ellery Connecticut:
Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:
July 2 turned out to be another big day for the Obama campaign – his surrogates demonstrating once again, the spirit of divisiveness that has been the hallmark of his presidency.
The first example came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision on the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act. While the controversial government mandate survived the high court’s ruling, their ability to leverage Medicaid expansion by holding hostage other federal funds to the states did not. Accordingly, several states immediately telegraphed their intention not to expand Medicaid within their borders. One of these states was Florida. Florida Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was quick to weigh in, giving her professional opinion of the decision by Governor Rick Scott.
“I have to tell you,” said Wasserman Schults, “ I think he’s acting like a SPOILED BRAT.”
Not to be outdone, Obama campaign surrogate Bill Burton constructed a strawman during a television interview, in which voters on the sidelines:
“…look at Mitt Romney and say, ‘Yeah, but is this CLOWN really going to beat President Obama?”
All in all, another proud day for the Democrats – and they have so much reason to be proud. Here are just a few other examples of their equally inspiring judgments on fellow Americans:
“All those who wore sheets a long time ago have now lifted them off and started wearing [applause], uh, clothing, uh, with a name, say, I am part of the tea party.”
‘Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics,’ Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.’”
“Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens…Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”
President Obama, an organizer and agitator by experience and training, continues to illustrate how his strong example has set the tone for both his administration and his campaign.
(Not an Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)
Senator Obama voted against the 2006 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. His was a vote to allow “…taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.” In other words, Obama believes that if you live in a state that requires parental consent for abortion, it’s o.k. for your 14 year old daughter to cross state lines, or to be taken across state lines by someone else, in order to have an abortion in a state with no such requirements.[i]
* * *
Abortion and Slavery
After more than a year of controversy and delays, Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s early pick as the head of the Dept. of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, withdrew from consideration in April, 2010.[ii]
Johnsen’s nomination was apparently negatively affected by “her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions.”[iii] But, we can’t say that President Obama didn’t try. And why did her nomination stay on the table for more than a year? Could it have had anything to do with her position on abortion?
As the head of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in 1989, Johnsen filed a brief with the Supreme Court, in which she asserted that “Any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to ‘involuntary servitude’ because it ‘requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn].’ In effect, a woman ‘is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.’ Such ‘forced pregnancy,’ she contends, violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery.”[iv]
[i] On the Issues: Every Political Leader on Every Issue, Vote number 2006-216 notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions on Jul 25, 2006 regarding bill S.403 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act – Results: Passed 65-34 – Democrats voting on 2006-216, retrieved January 9, 2012 from http://www.ontheissues.org/SenateVote/Party_2006-216.htm