Civil libertarians have been outraged by President Barack Obama’s adoption of extreme Bush policies on secrecy and executive privilege, including his effort to dismiss public interest lawsuits and his Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes committed by the Bush Administration. Now, Obama has filed to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which blocks same-sex couples from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and enjoying other federal rights of marriage.
While Obama criticized the act and promised to seek a repeal of the law when he was complaining for gay and lesbian votes in the campaign, he is now arguing that it is entirely constitutional and should be allowed to stand. DOMA was passed with the support of Bill Clinton in 1996.
The Justice Department insists that it is only defending existing federal laws, though the Justice Department is not required to defend a statute that it believes is unconstitutional. Yet, if this were a separate but equal statute, the Administration would presumably not fight to preserve it. There are various ways for the Justice Department to back away from defending such a law if it believes that it is unconstitutional.
The Administration has been silent on seeking a legislative repeal of DOMA and backed away from initial promises to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military — leaving gays and lesbians frustrated on the two greatest issues affecting their community.
For the full story, click here.
I am coming to believe that our President has subscribed to the “policy making by poll” mentality. He needs to do much better.
The DOMA is entirely constitutional under FF&C; and isn’t Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a matter of legislation? It’s up to Congress to repeal it, obviously.
As it stands, arguing against DOMA on constitutional grounds is not set to be a winnner, especially given the current make up of SCOTUS.
I agree with mespo. It’s always so sad when a politician seemingly moves from idealism to populism. Obama shouldn’t need to lower his standards like that. Especially not since he’s using strange substances to control the minds of the American people (at least according to this weird quiz I just took).
See for yourself: http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/test-whos-really-in-control-of-your-mind
Who is the Obama you elected? Narcissistic, comes to mind. It is not the will of the people, but the will of the ego. How will this make me look? Do I have toilet paper on my shoe all show.
With McCain, you’d get the same things with an added spice the Alaskan Trash.
As I have stated before, Nader may be old but a lot of his ideals are sound and he usually does not rely on popularity to do what is right.
Nader gave us George Bush. Al Gore was to the left of Obama and people on the left trashed him constantly. I have always thought Obama was too political. After all he was elected in my home state, Illinois.It is not known for idealistic politicians. I voted for Obama and even traveled out of state to work for him.A poll driven democrat may be the best we can do now.
Swartzmore Mom,
That is what I am afraid of, he is working on the next 4 and keeping his score low. Bush got it by starting the war and keeping us in constant hysteria and fear to control while chipping away at our rights.
So Tried to call E and no answer. Oh well.
See Jose Padillia on this thing today.
This is what happens when the president when elected by the left governs to the right.
There were clues all along… that odd choice of invocation at the inauguration by rick warren….his refusal to honor the “dont ask – don’t tell” policy …. re-thinking the closing of gitmo, …refusal to prosecute authors of torture policy …. nomination of a not-so-liberal judge to the bench …. dragging his feet with ending the war in iraq….
my list is growing and approval rating for the president falling
Mike,
It isn’t obvious that DOMA is constitutional. The statute consists of more than protecting states from having to recognize marriages recognized elsewhere. It also states that the federal government cannot treat same-sex relationships as marriage for any purpose. This goes behind full-faith-and-credit issues and could very well be unconstitutional.
By backing down on DADT and DOMA, Obama has betrayed one of his most loyal constituencies.
Lolo:
I disagree – the text of the controlling Constitutional clause reads:
Emphasis mine.
The DOMA does so, and SCOTUS’s long-standing standpoint of the public policy exception reinforces it. Absent any judgement to the contrary, it’s going to stand, unfortunately; I don’t particularly like the idea, either, but if wishes were wings, pigs would fly.
As to the portion of the DOMA which states that same-sex marriages cannot be recognised, you’ll have to talk to Congress about that one; while Loving, for example, recognises a fundamental right to marry, that same right is also broadly recognised as being at the State level only. While I think that this portion is probably arguable in terms of Equal Protection, I don’t think that it’s currently as clearly viable as we might wish.
Regarding your claim of betrayal, there’s a good analysis of the issue here; also, I think that I commented earlier that DADT is based on a legislative provision, which is not something the President can undo on his own. He might decline to enforce the law, but that would make him as bad as Bush, in that case, wouldn’t it?
The following is just one more example of Mr. Obama’s lies and broken pledges. The FOIA is extremely important to us all and I frequently use this valuable tool.
This is *not* another case of, well he has only been in office for a few months so we must give him time to do the right things. The evidence is mounting that Mr. Obama is not who he claimed to be. I guess it is up to each citizen to determine if you want to call him a liar or just a pledge breaker or…
_________________________
{Quote: Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush’s position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs
Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. End Quote}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/
______________________
This is more evidence of Obama’s actual intent. As FFLEO says, one must make up their own mind. From Glenn Greenwald today. Please check out this video from Rachael Maddow and Ben Wizer on the suppression of information regarding torture and the secrecy that the Obama administration engages in: (video at link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×325070
(below from Glenn Greenwald)
“Tuesday June 16, 2009 05:17 EDT
Here is secrecy creep in action
On May 13, when Obama announced he would attempt to suppress prisoner abuse photos on the ground that their release would inflame anti-American sentiment, I wrote:
Think about what Obama’s rationale would justify. Obama’s claim . . . means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done — as the Bush administration did — because release of such evidence would “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn’t it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?”
Jill,
Thank you for the video link. I also read Greenwald’s comments earlier, with which I agree.
I am against some of the pledges Mr. Obama made, including parts of “gay” issue. However—and most importantly—he made those pledges and he should do all in his power to carry them out regardless of the people, including me, whom he might upset. He must help the many who voted for the ‘Change’ he pledged, repeatedly and ad nauseam.
Obviously, we need marked Change because every sector of our American way of life is suffering from the wrongs and excesses of the past and we cannot continue along the same flawed and corrupt legal, economic, and societal paths.
FFLEO,
I admire you for saying Obama should fulfill pledges that he made with which you disagree. I think Obama has no intention of making good changes in this nation and here’s part of my reasoning. Obama has surrounded himself with people who literally committed war and financial crimes. These are his top level advisors, on the war, on terrorism, on the economy etc. Now I could understand that a person might make one or two mistakes in their choices but if they were really mistakes and one wanted to do the right thing, one would fire these people and indict them. At a minimum, one would fire them–there’s no political downside to that action.
But Obama has placed criminals in one position of power in his adminstration after another. That’s not a mistake, that’s a pattern. Some people want to claim Obama is simply following the bad advice of the people he surrounded himself with. We don’t believe this regarding other people. We all listen to the advice of others, but the final decisions remain our own. Further, if we consistently surround ourselves with people who have committed crimes, we would generally call this a criminal enterprise, not just a hapless mistake. For example, it wasn’t a mistake that Dick Cheney went to the lawyers he went to for certification that torture is legal. He knew it was illegal and he hand picked toddies that would “make it so”. Cheney’s actions were not the result of a hapless man being given bad advice. The were the actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing and wanted cover for illegal actions–it was a criminal enterprise.
Just so, I believe Obama is engaged in his own version of the criminal enterprise. He is no hapless victim of mendacious advisors. He knows what he wants and he’s going to the people who will be most likely to aid his desires.
Jill,
I am neither a civil libertarian nor a Democrat. However, if I fell within either or both of those groups, I would be extremely outraged with Mr. Obama. As a conservative Republican, I cannot understand why his most ardent supports are not incensed over the man’s lies and broken promises. I voted for the man because I saw the need—mostly—to do what he was espousing. Sure, I dreaded the thought of some of the democratic/socialistic changes for which he championed; however, he is forsaking the very people who secured the presidency for him, including Republicans like me who took a chance on him.
When Mr. Obama selected Republicans for his cabinet and other positions, I thought that he was making an emphatically clear statement that no Democrat was capable of fulfilling—or qualified for—those positions. What a fine statement of the Democratic Party officials who helped elect you and whose trust you have tarnished.
Obama has also carried President Abraham Lincoln’s emulation excessively far and without justification. How exceptionally presumptuous of Mr. Obama to denigrate Lincoln’s honorable legacy by professing to being anywhere near equal to Lincoln’s his fine character and abilities.
Mr. Obama, I have read extensively of Mr. Lincoln, and you are *no* Lincoln!
FFLEO,
You are truly a stand up guy.
And Ricky Ricardo would say, “Obama! You got some ’splainin’ to do!”
Thanks Buddha. You and some other regulars are a main reason I continue to access this blawg.
Bad on you Mr. President. I know it’s the moderates that will get you re-elected, but the wisdom of the crowds is often just their madness.
Here is Rachel Maddow making a fool of herself in producing a fraudulent, computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii as Obama’s birth certificate. This is NOT Obama’s birth certificate. No one has seen Obama’s birth certificate, it is sealed and vaulted in Hawaii or he has a COLB sealed and vaulted there. Clearly the COLB states on the bottom that “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” A COLB is NOT proof of birth. It will not even qualify for a drivers license in Hawaii.
Rachel, do your research.
Obama, where’s the birth certificate?
Just some more of the same misinformation that has been refuted on another thread. Here is a reprint of the last posting:
This is just another incoherent posting by bvm, who has hijacked a thread on a Supreme Court nominee with repeated hate-filled, unsupported charges and allegations. That kind of stuff does not go unchallenged at the Turley site. In the meantime, interested readers can see that yet another independent source, Politifact.com, examined and verified the Certification: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Lindylou posted a news article quoting Dr Fukino, and the official statement can be read here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
People should look at the statement printed at the bottom of the Certification: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” These are the facts. The Certification is true copy, and it is valid legal evidence of birth. The charges by von Bruun and all of the other birthers that its was forged are false. On its face, it would be evidence of the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 in any court proceeding. It correctly describes what is in the official state records. The fact that the Home Lands office requires more evidence is based on the need to show 50% Hawaiian ancestry. It is no wonder that all the court challenges thus far have been dismissed, or are pending dismissal.
The hatred of the birthers is so deep seated that they have admitted that no proof of birth will ever satisfy them. Even if it were proven to their satisfaction that Obama was born in the United States, they have admitted that they would still challenge his right to serve.
Obama, as senator, voted at least 11 times for war-funding in the murders and maiming of the illegal Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He is guilty of all the atrocities. Had there been no funding there would have been no wars.
“Barack Obama – Mass Murderer”
By Dan Spielberg
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” ~ Chinese Proverb
“The Chinese proverb that opens this piece is true in all times and places, so let’s call Mr. Obama by his real names: Wall Street Stooge, Zionist lickspittle, National Socialist, liar and above all, mass murderer.”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22607.htm
Funding the war means killing the troops.
Obama should not have been on the presidential ballot. He was and is a War Criminal. He voted in the Senate at least 11 times to fund the Wars of Aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan which is conspiracy and waging illegal wars. Obama was committing War Crimes as early as 2003 in “selling the illegal Iraq War”, conspiring and waging War of Aggression with Howard Dean in this video:
Vince Treacy:
BVM is the kind of guy who constantly denies that the Eiffel Tower stands in Paris. Even in the face of photographic, official, and anecdotal evidence spanning time, this doubting Thomas must see to believe. And even at that moment of truth, he will still deny his own senses in a pathetic effort to placate his obsessive belief in his own correctness. Sad, but all too common.
Don’t believe the Vince Treacy Tripe. Do your own independent research.
The fools here take you for one of their kind. Hit the books and the “Net” Learn the truth.
Ask yourself … why won’t Obama produce his birth certificate and other records?
Remember above all .. Obama is a Mass Murderer.
“COLB states on the bottom that ‘This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.’ A COLB is NOT proof of birth.”
Poor bvm cannot even read English. Prima facie is Latin for “on its first face.” Prima facie evidence is evidence which, on its face, is proof of a fact, unless refuted or contradicted by other evidence. It makes the case for the party with the burden of proof, until the opposing party introduces credible evidence to counter it. By its own terms, it is evidence of birth unless countered.
It is good in any court proceeding in Hawaii, and good in any U.S. court of law. It is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. It is the foundation of the case that he is therefore a natural born citizen.
Now, the birthers first said it was a forgery. But that was not credible because the responsible state officials have said that the certification issued to Obama was authentic and correctly recorded the evidence in state records.
Then they said it was valid, but not accepted by the State of Hawaii. But it was only the certificate not used or needed for Hawaiian Home Lands applications. But the Home Lands office needs more than the fact of birth, since applicants must be 50% native Hawaiian.
Now the driver’s license is argued. Hawaii does not require an applicant for a driver’s license to be born in Hawaii, to be a resident of Hawaii, or to even be a US citizen. The DVM is not a court of law. Obama did not apply for a Hawaii driver’s license.
In every court of law that has heard these contentions so far, the cases have been dismissed, or are pending dismissal.
His birth was announced in two Honolulu newspapers in 1961. Those papers got their information from the city hospitals.
The birthers have admitted that the state records will show Obama was born there. They have admitted that they hope they can find something else to challenge in those records amidst the information that would include hospital, doctors, and witnesses.
They have admitted that they will challenge Obama’s right to be President even if they finally admit that he was born in the United States.
They are the type of people that deny that men walked on the Moon and assert that Elvis lives.
Obama is a War Criminal / Mass Murderer.
Let the fools here try to cover that up.
Research for yourself …. find out the truth. Don’t believe Obama’s propaganda. The birthers are gaining by quantum leaps!
Check out;
http://www.wnd.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
http://www.repubx.com
Even leftist nutjobs like Rachel Maddow and Joan Walsh are now talking about Obama’s illegitimacy for presidency
This issue grew so big, that even the leftist fringe media like Rachel Maddow from MSNBC and Joan Walsh from Salon.com have to say something about the issue to their viewers and readers. The problem is, that the leftist communist nutjobs don’t do their homework, they don’t read legal pleadings submitted to courts and they sound like clowns.
Orly
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
By all means, all interested persons should do their own independent research.
The short answer to the question “Where’s the birth certificate?’ is that Obama has produced it, that it is on the web for all to view, that it is valid and legal and not forged, and that the birthers are too blind or willfully resistant to looking at it. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
The Obama birth certificate flap is an urban legend, a fairy tale, a false story that has been exposed repeatedly by snopes.com and others:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Politifact.com, examined and verified the Certification: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
A news article quoted Dr Fukino, and the official statement can be read here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
I said above that they have admitted that no birth certificate or evidence will ever satisfy them. Here is the source:
“Nonetheless, there is little doubt that President Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii. …
“In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii.
“But questions still remain. When Barack Obama was born, was his birth attended by a doctor or midwife? If not, who testified regarding his birth? His mother? His grandmother? Were any of these people interviewed? Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate’s probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama’s birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier? “ Source: http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref20
There you have it: there is little doubt that President Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.
So, even if the original were released to a press conference attended by Berg, Andy Martin, Orly, Leo Donofrio, Cort, Allan Keyes, swift-boater Corsi, and Elvis, with reporters from the Globe, Enquirer and the entire supermarket press corps, guess what? The have admitted that they would still not accept it. They will challenge it under a whole new set of theories. They will all move to Kenya.
BVM maintains an anonymous web site and solicits donations from the public without identifying the principals behind the web site, the purpose for the donations, the manner in which donations will be expended or the intended beneficiaries. To whom or what organization are these funds being funneled? Is it even a lawful enterprise? Is it licensed to solicit donations from the public? Where is BVM’s “birth certificate”?
By all means, look at the site of Doctor Orly Taitz Esquire. The lawyers here at the site should take an especially close look at her legal filings with the Supreme Court.
Then make a judgment on her credibility.
Mike A, whoever is posting anonymously as bvm is making statements that are malicious and false.
To all readers who come here by search, be advised that bvm’s accusations are false and malicious.
Do not give them any credence because they were posted here. This is an open site.
Most Americans know about Obama’s Ineligibility
WND/WENZEL POLL
Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions Despite near media blackout on coverage, 49.3% ‘troubled,’ think he should release birth certificate
Posted: June 16, 2009 9:16 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Editor’s note: This is the second of a series of monthly “Freedom Index” polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
WASHINGTON – It may be the issue few in the media dare address, but a new scientific public opinion survey of a cross-section of Americans shows they are not only aware of questions about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office, but almost half are either “troubled” by the questions or believe he should release all relevant documents including his long-form birth certificate.
Asked if they are aware of the questions raised about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office, 51.3 percent answered affirmatively, while only 18.7 percent said no. Another 30 percent said they were unsure.
“Our polling shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president clearly strike a nerve across America, probably because it is a problem that everybody understands,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel. “Every American citizen has a birth certificate, and once in a while we all have to produce them to get a drivers license or gain entrance to school. Everyone understands the simple rules – if you don’t produce it, you don’t get in. And while Obama did get in to the White House, nearly half the country’s adults – 49 percent – are troubled by this issue and still want him to produce his official long-form birth certificate.”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=2290
Note to bvm and Orly, Obama HAS produced his birth certificate.
You can get a lot of funny poll results, depending on how you word the questions and weight the sample.
Ever heard of “push polling”?
Birth certificate issue No. 1 at Fox News
Obama eligibility most talked about topic on news website
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99549
Vince and Mike A.,
I think you’ve both done a very good job at exposing BVM. It’s my opinion that he is here as a distraction from other posts and it might be best to ignore him from now on, with the occasional refutation after a period of time has passed. But most everyone who reads this site has most likely gotten a clear picture of BVM by now.
None of the cases have been heard on the merits!
Jill, I agree. However, there is one new point. The link to WND takes you to a site that ends with yet another fund raising plea for wheres-the-birth-certificate billboards. So Mike is right. Bvm is not the only one with his, hers or its hat in hand. Part of this whole camplaign seems to be a cynical effort to separate a lot of money from a lot of gullible people by exploiting their suspicions and fears.
It is all about money.
Sorry, it’s all about “Where’s the Birth Certificate”
Get it?
Jill,
I disagree. If Professor Turley is content to allow BVM’s repetitive spam posts of the same tired material across multiple topic threads within his blawg, we need people—especially attorneys—to continue refuting BVM’s gibberish.
The upside is we gain valuable legalese along the way.
I agree. We gain hits and birthers. Keep refuting!
More people want to know the truth and are seeking it out. Keep refuting! I beg you.
And in the meantime don’t forget Obama is a supreme War Criminal and Mass Murderer.
Vince,
The money angle is important. That’s very sleezy. If you look up BVM on google you can get some data about the website. It seems to be linked to a group called Oath Keepers although I’m not completely clear on that.
FFLEO,
I think the refutations of Vince and Mike A. are important also.