Obama and his Constant Struggle for the Low Ground! – Reason #73

Only 82 Days Remaining!

When Convictions and Campaigns Conflict

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.

What a surprise.


[i] President Barack Obama, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

[ii] FoxNation, (Feb. 9, 2012), video provided by TheRightScoop.com, Right Scoop: Obama Will Do and Say Anything to Get Reelected, retrieved February 9, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/09/right-scoop-obama-will-do-and-say-anything-get-reelected

[iii] Jim Messina, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

Community Organizing: Power and Redistribution – Reason #62

Only 105 Days Remaining!

Community Organizing: Power and Redistribution

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?


[i] Odyssey, WBEZ 91.5FM , Chicago, (2001) audio contained in story by Steve Schippert,(October 27, 2008), Wizbang blog.com, Wealth Redistribution An Unattained Civil Right: Obama Interview, retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php

 

[ii] David Lane, Politics and Society in the USSR, (New York, 1978, New York University Press), 8

[iii] Odyssey, WBEZ 91.5FM , Chicago, (2001) audio contained in story by Steve Schippert,(October 27, 2008), Wizbang blog.com, Wealth Redistribution An Unattained Civil Right: Obama Interview, retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php

 

[iv] Steven Malanga, Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer, (Chicago, 2010, Ivan R. Dee), 133-151

Reason 24/25 – Obama Denies Parents’ Right to Know of Abortions/Abortion and Slavery

143 Days Remaining!

 Reason #24

Obama Denies Parents’ Right to Know of Abortions

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]

* * *

Reason #25

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

[iv] Andrew McCarthy, (undated), National Review Online, Lawyer’s Lawyer, Radical’s Radical: Meet Obama DOJ nominee Dawn Johnsen, retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=