Why do Obama and his Supporters Hate the Constitution?

I‘m beginning to see more and more signs of the pathetic state of education these days.  Either an awful lot of the Generation Obama kids were asleep during their Civics classes or they all hate the Constitution.  Which amendment will this Constitutional Law Lecturer (on leave) and his minions dismiss next?

The First Amendment has always been my favorite.  I’m particularly fond of exercising free speech and avoiding other people’s religions.  I’m also all about peaceful assemblage (ask my local bartender) and petioning the government with grievances (ask my Senator she undoubtedly has a file cabinet of letters from me). The last few days, exercising free speech has been more difficult for some folks like me.  This is because Senator Obama’s minions are more concerned with the appearance of unity than adherence to the Constitution.

“Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.”

There is much circumstantial evidence that some Obama supporters were trying to take down anti-Obama blog sites during Unitystock. There have been active threads and posts on this topic many places.  I’ve been particularly interested because I do value the Constitution and because many of my friends and their right to free speech were silenced by google’s heavy hand. One of my friend’s GeekLove was a target.   She was interviewed by many folks.  It seems Obamatrons believe it was warranted.  I gleaned this comment off of a No Quarter’s Thread.


Comment by Mort | 2008-06-30 12:00:31

Sometimes these bloggers would send out stupid chain e-mails or encourage their supporters to. Usually in support of Hillary.

They deserve to get dropped by Google!

I just want to stick a sic all over this comment, Mort.  First, fragmented sentences are grammatically uncool.  Also, telling folks they don’t have a right to support candidates or not support candidates in their own special way is just Unamerican uncool.  Please go ask your civics teacher for a refresher course on the first amendment.  Once you’re done with that, go find a good English teacher, you need one.

There are just many, many things wrong with shutting down sites during ‘unity’ week.  First,well, it creates disunity.  Second, it appears that you’re forcing unity.  Third, well, again let’s get back to that constitution. You’re denying some one their right to free speech.

There was also denial of freedom of assembly.  Obama campaign staff actively tried to remove protesters and their signs from the ‘unity’ marketing site.   There are first hand accounts (and video) of Obama campaign staff both removing the right to peaceful assembly which is also an important part of the First Amendment but also trying to take the signs of those wishing to express disunity.  Oh, that inconvenient first amendment.  Check the video and threads on Riverdaughter’s The Confluence (http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/unity-through-purge/).

Then there’s the Obama shuffle concerning the  Second Amendment.  Does he or doesn’t he support the right to bear arms with restrictions, no restrictions, or some restrictions.  Well, like many Obama positions, it depends on the day you ask him.  This from ABC’s Legalities (http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/02/obama-and-guns.html).

“There’s been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms,” Obama said. “I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.”  Watch Obama’s comments HERE.

He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them.

“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC,” Obama said.  “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution.”

Now that sure sounds like someone who thinks the handgun bans would be a reasonable restriction under the 2nd Amendment.  However there is this quote too from the same source.

“A day after the tragic shootings at NIU, Barack Obama has revealed that he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun.

That sounds surprising—and certainly not what you’d expect from someone with the Senate’s most liberal voting record”

Okay, this is the same article.  Can some one tell me which version of the second amendment he just endorsed?

I’m going straight to Daily Kampf for Obama and the Fourth Amendment.  I just can’t resist when a cheeto blogger recognizes the way Obama will sell out the constitution for a little peace and harmony in Congress.  The Cheeto bloggers love them some Fourth Amendment.


You can’t selectively support the Constitution, Senator Obama

by clammyc

Color me unimpressed with Senator Obama’s statement with respect to the FISA “compromise”.

There are a number of things that he could have done to take a stand for the very Constitution that he is running to “preserve, protect and defend”.

That’s THREE amendments down and what, 22 to go?

So, my suggestion to Obama during his vice presidential selection vetting is to go ahead and keep Dick Cheney.  After all, Obama and Cheney appear to both have similar feelings about the constitution.

7 Comments on “Why do Obama and his Supporters Hate the Constitution?”

  1. RW says:

    Now your trying to draw comparisons between Cheney and Obama by using pictures of them both in cowboy hats? Cheap shot Kat and you know it. Also quoting a Michelle Malkin column on an earlier article here? Hell hath no fury like a woman who perceives that she has been scorned.

  2. Sima says:

    Why isn’t RW responding to the substance of the post, which is that Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution. This is worrying, and one of the reasons I won’t support him. I’m sick of having my Constitutional rights whittled away by things like FISA.

  3. RW says:

    Substance? What substance? When the Headline reads “Why do Obama and his Supporters Hate the Constitution” the outrageousness of such a headline is self apparent. It is like something that Fox News would come up with. It plays upon sensationalism. I know that I am going to be vilified here because of my pro Obama views. I was invited to blog here only if I did not express my pro Obama views. Nice invite… very democratic. Well I’ve been patient and read all the articles posted here and many of the comments. Let me say this if Hillary won the nomination I would vote for her. I may have not been happy but I would’ve cast my vote for her knowing that 4 more years of McSame would be disasterous for our country and selfishly for the well being of my children. Saying all that I know that many people are angry over the nomination process but jumping ship to back McCain is just self defeating. I’m 61 years old, a democrat all my life, a Nam vet. Ya wanna talk about betrayal google the Gulf of Tonken incident. All I am saying is let’s keep it in perspective.

  4. kenoshaMarge says:

    RW you stated your reasons and that’s fine. They’re yours. They are not mine. But my vote is and it will never go to Obama.

    I’ve 64 years old and have been a Democrat all my adult life. It took the corruption of the Democratic Party for me to get over being a Democrat.

    My votes my own. And I will vote for who I want for reasons that are best suited to my conscience.

    John McCain is also a Viet Nam vet. He is a vet and a United States Senator and his name is NOT McSame. You are old enough that you should be beyond such adolescent name calling. John McCain is NOT George Bush. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

    I fear the corruption of the Democratic Party more than I fear 4 more years with a Republican in the White House. And if the Democrats were worth spit it wouldn’t make a difference who was in the White House. But that would require the legislative branch of the government to do it’s damn job. Which it doesn’t.

    That all said, keep it up dakinikat, I couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure yet if I will vote for Senator McCain but I am damn sure I won’t be voting for the poser the DNC and the Democratic Leadership selected for us.

  5. Ms. Marple says:

    A presidential candidate who has lectured on constitutional law should expect to draw criticism when he interprets freedom of speech to mean that you are only free to disagree with him in certain zones that will be determined by that candidate. I thought this was a gross violation when President Bush pulled it off, and it hasn’t become suddenly stylish now Senator Obama has come on board. I am baffled at the way Obama gets a pass on playing the same cards as Republicans who were rightfully castigated for their actions.

  6. dakinikat says:

    RW, once I found out you supported Obama, I figured this probably wasn’t the place for you. It wasn’t that I didn’t want you to post, I just figured something less than positive would come of it–including the start of some bad blood between friends. I’m ebullient on things I feel passionately about and I passionately feel Obama is the one that is 8 more years of Bush. I didn’t want you not to post exactly, I just thought it would be pretty futile and would create a lot of cross anger.

    I’m not a journalist and I’m not writing an academic treatise so I don’t have to stick to the rules of not using outrageous verbiage.

    The fundamental argument here is that Obama is doing things that not only undermine previous positions, they undermine basic constitutional rights. Also, his supporters seem perfectly fine with it. I’ve been aghast at the number of people who are rationalizing Obama’s position on FISA for example. He’s going to keep changing direction now big time. Hillary chose not to stake out any positions in the primary that she would later have to undermine. Obama has been undermining himself daily. That’s fine by me as long as it is not on something like Constitutional Rights and the fundamentals of what makes this a great country. You see, I am a patriot, it’s just I wear the constitution on my sleeve instead of a flag pin on my lapel.

    When the DNC violated the one man one vote principle, the DNC violated the most basic tenet of democracy. I know the antiwar movement is important to you. Do you know there were antiwar protesters at the Obama unity rally? They tried to shuttle them and the DNC protesters to a “FREE SPEECH” area. That move is typical DUBYA.

    Also, i’m getting tired of being told I’m just a scorned woman voter. This is the type of patronizing attitude that starting me ranting here to begin with … it’s not all about Hillary … it’s all about the Constitution and Democracy!

    It’s also about not having another 8 years of ineptitude.

    DNC leaders may think they can control Obama because he is so green, but his arrogance, I believe will lead straight to another 8 years of bad news for the USA and the world. At this point, I don’t trust him on anything. I’m unsure of what he would do with Iraq. He has, like Bill Clinton said with his fairy tale remark, had fluid positions.

    I’m not letting any single issue–the war or my uterus–influence my rationale for not supporting Obama.

    I’m putting my country and its Constitution above everything. I believe these examples illustrate that Obama is not willing to do that. I have no idea if I will vote for McCain at this point because of differences in core positions. I may vote for Nader. I do know, however, that however intemperate McCain may be, I do not question his dedication to the country or the Constitution and I believe a democratic majority would keep his wilder side in check.

    So, I’m not zapping your comments into byte heaven. I only do that for really obscene things. You can express yourself freely. You’re about to see the feelings of folks fully. That is why I was thinking your posting here might not be a great idea. But, unless you cross the point of abusing folks or saying something obscene, I won’t delete your posts. I save that for the ones that call every one racist b*tches, etc.

  7. geeklove08 says:

    Good read, but I disagree slightly with you — You assume that he has a position on Constitutional issues. I don’t.

    I think Obama is willing to say anything to get elected and he once elected hasn’t done much, so it is hard to discern what he really believes, if anything (he admitted to Fortune magazine recently, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified”- so was he telling us his position then or now?)

    And Obama has a very thin resume with destroyed legislative record, we do not know what Obama’s policy position really is — who is Barack Obama and what does he stand for? Is he Political Gumby?

    * Was for campaign finance before he was against it

    * Was against NAFTA before he was for it

    * Was for gun control before he was against it

    * Was against FISA immunity for telecoms before he was for it

    * Also, the positions of his policy advisors are at odds with what Obama claims are his true positions:
    Austan D. Goolsbee on NAFTA
    Samantha Power on Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

    * His own foreign policy positions differ depending on the day and audience:
    Iran is a threat, then it isn’t
    He supports undivided Jerusalem, then he doesn’t

    * Who is Obama and why is he earning the endorsements of dangerous foreign leaders/groups, including Hamas, North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Il, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Moammar Qaddaf.

    * He “preaches” about tolerance and diversity, yet he campaigns in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay” man “reformed through prayer” and refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom who supported gay marriage in San Francisco.

    * Sat in a divisive and racist church for 20 years and was not honest about his knowledge of the contents of these sermons

    * Made a “boneheaded” decision to have Tony Rezko finance the purchase of his Chicago mansion.

    From the votes he actually cast, as opposed to the more than 130 “Present” votes or the 6 “oops I pressed the wrong button votes”, this is what we know about Obama:

    * Obama voted FOR Cheney’s energy bill,

    * Obama voted AGAINST capping credit card interest at 33%

    Confused yet???