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.

(http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/30/who%E2%80%99s-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts/#more-3344)

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

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.

(http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/173221/080/691/539330)