Posts Tagged ‘kept in the dark’

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

All Immoral Democrat Gimmicks Aside, Senate Bill Funds Abortions

January 8, 2010

The Democrats’ deceit on health care is the most appalling thing I have ever seen.

They slash half a trillion dollars from the Medicare budget; dishonestly dodge the “Doc-fix“; force people to buy insurance in a flagrant abuse of the Constitution; raise taxes on people Obama REPEATEDLY SWORE he would not raise taxes on; and massively raise taxes in what amounts to an unfunded mandate for states across the board (well, except for Nebraska.  You get to pay their tab).  Not to mention they play every gimmick imaginable to create the illusion that the bill is “deficit neutral” so they can get a favorable CBO score.

Obama and Democrats – who demonized Republicans – promised that they would have the most open and transparent administration in history.  But they have been the most closed and opaque administration in history.  Obama promised he would put the health care care debate on C-SPAN for all to watch:

President Obama, “But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”

Mind you, as Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pointed out, insurance companies have recently received all kinds of benefits from the Democrats behind closed doors.  Obama’s Democrats have become the people that Obama most fearmongered us about while on the campaign trail.

And in fact this has been such a secretive, closed-door, underhanded process that even many senior Democrats have publicly acknowledged being kept in the dark.

And we’ve literally got the chief executive of C-SPAN begging to cover the debate even as Democrats burrow the process even deeper into the underground sewers where they seem to live now.

These are fundamentally dishonest people who want to seize control of your ability to make medical decisions for yourself and your loved ones.

And we find out that even the “good” or “moderate” Democrats are bad.  Ben Nelson sold his vote – to the red-faced outrage of his own state – while dishonestly claiming he had protected taxpayer funds from being used to fund abortion.

And we find that that’s a lie, too.  Abortion IS funded by this bill, as even Democrats are openly acknowledging now (at least now that they got the vote they wanted).  Everything these Democrats are telling us is lies.

Kathleen Sebelius Admits, Covers Up Abortion Funding in Health Care Measure

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 22, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is getting attention for an interview yesterday in which she essentially admits that the American public would be forced to pay for abortions under the Senate health are bill and then relies on accounting gimmicks to suggests that’s not the case.

Sebelius spoke with BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday and praised the new abortion language the Senate adopted in Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment.

The language, submitted by Sen. Ben Nelson in conjunction with Sen. Bob Casey and pro-abortion Sens. Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, opens the door to massive abortion funding.

“I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment,” the pro-abortion Obama administration official said.

Sebelius said she thinks the language does a “good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used.”

She added: “That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.”

“It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage,” Sebelius concluded.

Ed Morrissey, a HotAir blogger, noticed the interview and pointed out how Sebelius essentially admitted everyone would pay into the exchange but denied that public funds would be used for abortions.

“What constitutes the notion of ‘public funds?'” he asked. “If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not ‘public?'”

“Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone — and she means everyone — supplies,” Morrissey adds.

Morrissey says the health care bill’s system of government funding of abortion is “only confusing if you bought Ben Nelson’s dodge that Reid had changed the abortion-funding language in any significant way.”

“If the government forces it citizens to pay into premium exchanges and then controls the distribution of that money, then it becomes a public fund in any interpretation. That’s especially true if its intent is to be a slush fund for bureaucrats to apply to whatever purpose they see fit,” he concludes.

Sebelius could eventually play a major role in abortion funding because of the Mikulski amendment, which makes it so the Obama administration can define abortion as “preventative care” and force insurance companies to pay for them.

So that’s how the Democrat’s prevent public funding to pay for abortion.  They dishonestly, with clear malicious intent, lie and hide behind bureaucratic gimmickry to not just use public money to pay for abortions while denying their doing it, but to go for broke in forcing public money in for abortions in the guise of “preventative care.”

Abortion is an incredibly important subject.  And how it is treated is vital to the entire health care process.  And to dishonestly pretend one thing while doing another is a glaring demonstration of how profoundly deceitful and disingenuous Democrats have become.

This outrage violates the American spirit and is yet another liberal fascist tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

I believe abortion is a moral crime.  I believe that abortion results in the unjustified homicide of an innocent human being.

And to go even further, I believe this health care bill constitutes the socialist statist takeover of the most important and sacred 1/6th of our economy.  I believe that this bill will all-too soon result in medical rationing, and the death by medical neglect of millions of innocent human beings to resolve the next budget crisis.

And according to every single major poll, most Americans agree with me.

But it doesn’t matter to Democrats.  They see an opportunity to redefine America and make it something more far more akin to Karl Marx and Chairman Mao than to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.