Posts Tagged ‘core’

Marriage Undefended: Obama Decides To Ignore Law Passed By Congress And Signed By Pres. Clinton

February 23, 2011

Let me first go back to Barack Obama’s own words as candidate for president:

Asked to define marriage, Obama said it “is the union between a man and a woman.”

That was when he was running.  His promises don’t matter though.  This man is a documented liar.  He is an evil man.  Why should his promises and what he said when we was seeking votes matter?

Obama promised that he would transcend the political divide.  The New York Times called that promise “the core of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.”  And I want someone to explain to me how doing undermining something that Republicans and many Democrats approve of and which was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton isn’t a vicious gut-punch to Obama’s “core promise” to the American people???

That’s first of all.  Second, let’s say that George W. Bush had taken a law – oh, let’s say laws protecting unions or civil rights laws – and said, “I don’t think this is constitutional and we’re not going to uphold it anymore.  We aren’t going to recognize anything that says we have an obligation to recognize that.  I’m president, and I can do whatever I want.”  [See more on the ramifications of this despicable view at the bottom of this article].

Democrats would RIGHTLY have called for Bush’s impeachment.  Because like the laws or don’t like them, the laws of the land are the laws of the land.  And the president has the constitional duty to uphold laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.

This is unthinkable.  It is unconstitutional.  It is an abuse of the office of the presidency.  If Obama gave a flying damn about the Constitution, he could begin by pursuing his role within it and recognizing the authority and the power of both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches which he just stomped all over.  And yes, Barack Obama should be impeached.

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”
February 23, 2011 12:39 PM
by Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

President Obama believes that section – Section 3 — “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

President Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. In application the law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

Following presidential precedent, the Obama administration has been defending the law even though President Obama has long opposed it.

But now, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review.  Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.  The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that “After a series of steps that undermined the legal case for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration has apparently decided to drop its mask and publicly switch sides.  This action raises the stakes in this litigation even higher, because both portions of DOMA – both the federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as the authority of Congress under Article 4 of the Constitution to interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow states to protect similar definitions – are now at heightened risk.”

Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The President believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed.  But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be :inordinately challenging,”

President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.  This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

In Zanesville, OH, in June 2008, then-candidate Obama said DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”

“This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.  Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

UPDATE:

A reminder that in June 2009, President Obama’s DOJ began its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and adults marrying children.

This did not go over particularly well among some of the president’s supporters.

In July 2010, a judge ruled against the Obama administration.

Also in June 2009, the president extended some benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay servicemembers, I asked the President if it was “intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”

Gay marriage, he said, is an issue with which he struggles.

“My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said. “I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

At this point, “unconstitutional” becomes the adjective which best describes the Obama presidency.  And I’m not just talking about the bizarre inability of this man to produce a birth certificate.  I am stating that Obama is now not a president, but a dictator.  Because dictators place themselves above the law, just as Obama is doing now.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996.  It passed both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.  The Supreme Court has not said anything about this being in any way unconstitutional for fifteen years.  And it is Obama’s role as our Lord and our God, and the ONLY Lord and God with whom we have to do, to overturn the constitutional process, the Congress, the law of the land and the will of the people???

The Constitution is not a salad bar which allows you to pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like.  Unless you’re a liberal who despises truth, who believes truth doesn’t even exist and holds that the truth is whatever you can make it.  I’ve described the invariable outcome of that view before: it’s called fascism.

We have a history of liberal activist judges who usurp their constitutional role all the time.  Now we’ve got a president who thinks he’s a liberal activist judge.  And who gets to sit in judgment over the Constitution and every law that has been passed before him.

Obama also thinks he is the entire liberal constitutional philosophy in microchosm.  Liberalism holds that the Constitution means nothing in and of itself, that it is constantly changing and that only the changes reflected in current liberal rulings have any real power (if conservatives embrace the exact same philosophy, of course, then they and only they are wrong).  And lo and behold, “Obama’s views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’” and so therefore obviously the Constitution must be evolving.  Because everything revolves around Obama.

Obama should be impeached.  And the only reason he won’t be is that Democrats as a class don’t much give a damn about the Constitution, either.  And the Democrats still control the Senate.

Just remember this, Democrats.  If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore.  And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

The “Hunt Every Democrat And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming.  I can feel it.  And when it comes, Democrats will have burned themselves.

Update, Feb 24: Rush Limbaugh was on his game today.  He mentioned that this wasn’t about gay marriage – as bad as that is – but rather about a president who is lawless.  This is a president who is literally community agitating in several states across the republic; this is the president who is ignoring a federal judge’s ruling that his health care program is unconstitutional; thisis a president who enacted sweeping environmental rulings through his EPA because the United States Congress would never have allowed such a radical agenda to pass; and this is a president who added more czars than just about every president before him combined.  And now this is the president who makes himself the sole arbiter of what is “constitutional” and what is not.

And so Limbaugh started talking about a President Palin doing the same things (including not being able to produce her birth certificate, because you don’t think the left would make an issue out of that if she couldn’t?).  This President Palin – citing Barack Obama as her justifying precedent – would determine that she did not think Roe v. Wade was constitutional, and so so sorry, but it wouldn’t be defended any longer.  This President Palin would look at ObamaCare and virtually anything else she didn’t like (e.g. drilling bans) and simply determine that they weren’t constitutional on her view as dictator #2 (Obama having set the stage as dictator #1), and so would not be defended.  And further, whereas the Obama White House meets repeatedly every week with union thug president Richard Trumka to plot strategy on how to “punish their enemies.”   So just imagine President Palin meeting with big oil, big business and big insurance three plus times per week to plot how to punish liberals and liberal groups.  All in secret, of course, and all justified by Obama indifference to the Constitution and hostility to any interest that doesn’t pay billions to his campaign warchest.

Republicans now have a huge majority in the House.  And yes, they are heavily favored to re-take the Senate in 2012, thanks to Democrats being the vile cockroaches that they are.  Meanwhile, Obama’s approval has plunged well below 50% in states he needs to win.

Like I said, the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming, and its coming thanks to Democrats as conservatives learn the new rules of the game that Obama started.

Democrats are howling about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker not listening and bargaining with unions.  Don’t you dare forget, you vile hypocrite Democrats, how Republicans and even many Democrats spent the last two years shut out and not even getting to know what was happening, let alone have a vote in uber-liberal government takeovers like ObamaCare.  And how dare you whine as the same hell you unleased comes back to you?

The massive Obama stimulus that heavily favored blue states and blue districts and ObamaCare were Pearl Harbor moments for conservatives.  And just as decent American people gave the Imperial Japanese the hell they richly deserved, decent American people are more than ready to give imperialist liberals the hell that they richly deserve.

This has become a war.  Obama promised to transcend the partisan divide, but he is a liar and a cheat who plunged deeply into that divide than any American preisent in history.  It is an ideological and cultural war being fought over every front for what precisouAnd it is a war because liberals and Democrats have incapable of any other political approach.  When they have the power, they use that power in an un-American fashion.  And when they don’t have the power, they use their mainstream media voice to bitch and whine about how the other side that they never once listened to when they had the power won’t listen to them.

Advertisements

Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie

November 11, 2009

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.