Absolute Nonsense: Obama Again Claims to be First Amendment Absolutist While Supporting Censorship

In an interview with The Verge Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel, former President Barack Obama once again claimed that he is virtually a “First Amendment absolutist” despite supporting censorship for years, including United Nations efforts to criminalize criticism of religion on a global scale.  There are aspects of the Obama terms that I have praised, but his record on free speech is not one of them.

Obama declared in the interview that “I’m close to a First Amendment absolutist in the sense that I generally don’t believe that even offensive speech, mean speech, etcetera, it should be certainly not regulated by the government.”

That is virtually identical to prior statements that “I’m pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” as he was arguing for social media censorship. Notably, Obama avoids calling himself a “near free speech absolutist.” The distinction is key for Obama and others in supporting massive censorship while virtue signaling that they are tolerant of opposing views.

The First Amendment is not synonymous with free speech. It is only a restriction on government action. As emphasized by groups like the ACLU, censorship by private companies is also an attack on free speech.  As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right, the greatest threat today to free speech is the alliance of government, academic, and business interests in censoring speech.

Obama is fully aware of the distinction and has often stressed that you can support both the First Amendment and censorship.  In prior events, after claiming his absolutist position, Obama has stressed that:

“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by the New York Times or Fox News. Never has. Social media companies already make choices about what is or is not allowed on their platforms and how that content appears. Both explicitly through content moderation and implicitly through algorithms.”

He analogized corporate censors to meat inspectors protecting the health of the nation.

Even under the First Amendment, Obama has stressed that there are exceptions since “we have laws against certain kinds of speech that we deem to be really harmful to the public health and welfare.”

As someone often called a free speech absolutist, I find Obama’s self-characterization maddening. He has been no friend to the free speech community.

The effort to evade or obfuscate on the issue is common in the current anti-free speech period. However, as I testified before Congress, the level of government involvement and support for these corporate censorship programs could well violate even the First Amendment by creating a “censorship by surrogate” approach.

Later, that is precisely what a federal court found in issuing an injunction against the Administration. Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows systematic violation of the First Amendment by the Biden administration.  According to Judge Doughty, the government used layers of coordination and consultation to “assume a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The court found that “the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech.”

While claiming to be a First Amendment [near] absolutist, Obama has supported massive censorship on social media and called for the media to frame news to better educate citizens and shape public opinion.

For those of us in the free speech community, those positions make Obama’s recurring claim nothing short of absolute nonsense.

141 thoughts on “Absolute Nonsense: Obama Again Claims to be First Amendment Absolutist While Supporting Censorship”

  1. Obama never met a lie he didn’t embrace. But what do community organizers do but tear down what others built and stir the political pot. Remember, no press is bad press, unless you’re a conservative.

    1. He cant even prove he has US citizenship! Why does he still have a security clearance? And why cant America see his college work we paid for (under false pretenses)???

  2. What is censorship (as practiced by non-governmental actors and orgs)? We all have a basic human right to ignore that which we deem unimportant or mistaken. This is just another way of saying there is no right to command the attention of others. The smallest acts of “censorship” are mere judgments of what is worth paying attention to, and every person makes these judgments hundreds of times per day, especially when sifting through gobs of junk in their email, texts and voicemails.

    Now consider the plight of journalists. They cannot possibly report every event that is happening every day. News selection is a 24/7/365 process of ignoring voices who want to be heard — do you label that “censorship”? It only begins to look like censorship when the news producer/exec/editor rejects covering something because giving it air would undermine a narrative that the news org wants its consumers to believe. In journalism ethics, this is referred to as suppression of counter-narrative news.

    Look carefully at how news selection works, and you’ll see that it is an opaque process. Ask a producer or editor if they have written standards for the news selection process….you’ll get crickets. It’s almost the opposite of how scientists react to surprising events that go against the conventional wisdom — those get extra attention.

    When you see a news org blocking counter-narrative stories, simply stop consuming that source…it is showing itself to be biased and untrustworthy. We media consumers have the power to train journalists by being disciplined in the giving over of our attention. That’s how to correct much of the “censorship” problem.

    1. “We all have a basic human right to ignore that which we deem unimportant or mistaken. “

      The ability to ignore is different from censorship.

      “That’s how to correct much of the “censorship” problem.”

      You recognize that the government should not be directly or indirectly involved in censorship. Based on information widely released, you realize the Biden administration crossed the line and engaged in diverse types of censorship, which are illegal.

      What is less clear is universities that are private but receive government funds. They should not be involved in censorship as well.

      Elsewhere, things are not as simple as some would like to believe. When the government immunizes social media companies from suit, their right to censor is impaired.

      Censorship in the rest of the country is more complicated and deals with many complex factors, so it is not the simple problem some assume.

  3. Does Fox News Have A Right To Misinform?

    A former Fox News reporter says in a lawsuit he was targeted and fired for pushing back against false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Jason Donner was inside the Capitol when the mob of Trump supporters breached the building. When he heard Fox News reporting that rioters were “peaceful” and “severely disappointed,” he called the control room, using expletives as he said, “you’re gonna get us all killed,” the suit states.


    According to Jason Donner, Fox News falsely portrayed the riot as a ‘peaceful demonstration’ when, in fact, it was anything but. In the aftermath of January 6th, Donner tried repeatedly to correct Fox coverage, an effort he believes led to his termination.


      “If I only had a brain” is the above stooge’s wish for over 3+ years as he pretends to share original thought as a right-winger and a true nerd

    2. The tapes broadcast by Tucker Carlson showed that most of the people participating in this protest were peaceful. Jason Donner may have seen violent acts by demonstrators or police, but it does not follow that those actions were “typical” or “the whole story” of what happended that day. Fox was the ONLY media outlet (of which I am aware) that showed the opposite of what Donner said he saw. Therefore, Fox was far more accurate in showing the events of J6 than the other MSM.

      1. The new SoH, Mike Johnson, is set to release all 40K hours, with minimal redaction, of the Jan 6 riot. He will post this on the House website in an area that will be accessible by the public. Then we may finally see who is or is not telling the truth. I hope the HOR is prepared to free the unjustly arrestee but not charged Americans who have spent almost 3 years in jail for something that is constitutionally allowed and exonerate those who have been formally charged and took plea deals, then wipe their records clear.

        Just from some of the short footage that has been released we already know that there were “plants” placed in the crowd as no PDJT supporters would ever be caught dressed from head to toe in black wearing masks or the FBI dressing like clones in so-called MAGA garb.

    3. he called the control room, using expletives as he said, “you’re gonna get us all killed,” the suit states.

      Only one person was killed that day.

  4. Obama is mocked for the same reasons California’s Left wing Newsom is mocked: they lie, they obfuscate, they wheel and deal to their $$$ advantage rather than for the sake of its own people, per the CCP news outlet, “Global Times”. If it weren’t for the lying MSM functioning as an arm of the DNC, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi: “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.”

    The phrase, “people have miraculously disappeared”, per the CCP, has such a fascist ring to it that would likely delight Obama/Biden’s presidency to no end

    Chinese netizens engage in heated discussions over San Francisco’s cleanup ahead of APEC


    The so-called San Francisco’s “problem of the century” of the homeless miraculously disappeared overnight as the city prepares for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. Chinese netizens joked online that the “about-face change” of San Francisco’s clean street and the disappearance of homeless people demonstrate the city has the ability to address the malaise, but only seems willing to do so when an international summit is approaching, rather than for the sake of its own people.

    According to media reports on Friday, drug addicts, dealers and the homeless who have plagued San Francisco’s downtown have miraculously disappeared as the APEC summit is held in the city starting from Saturday to Friday, while leaders from the 21-member APEC group are gathering to talk about how to better spur trade and economic growth across the Pacific region. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the APEC Summit and is also the largest summit held in San Francisco since 1945.

    1. @Estovir

      Firstly, I love and appreciate your contributions to these discussions, I do. Thank you for that. I like seeing you and benefit from same, every day.

      That said, respectfully, he is. But it is important to understand that younger voters reject Obama because he wasn’t radical *enough*, not because they have seen a light of reason. Possibly even because he’s too old (yes, that is the level of gen z disrespect an ignorance, and they act do on their absurd ignorance. They didn’t really have parents in that regard. Wiping butts, shoveling food, and suppling a tablet so they didn’t hav to deal with crying sufficed for them). We are dealing with generations of useful idiots, and you’d better believe they will be voting. Will you? Will your friends? The time for personal bugaboos or pedantry is over, the country is on the line. This is very, very important to understand and absorb. Your logic means absolutely nothing in this reagrd. Your very reasonable comment has literally no meaning to the people in question, You might as well say ihxo/u’wehf;iuerqyo; to them. And they vote. The way they are told to. The generation behind them, who are even lower, will be voting in four years.

      If I have misunderstood, my bad, but the points are salient and likely determining our future. if all of the wise parents are dead, there will be no one to teach the future parents, and right now, that bar is so low you’d be lucky to even find it, digging around.

      1. You might as well say ihxo/u’wehf;iuerqyo; to them.

        😀 Good one. I might borrow that from you one day

        First, thanks for the kind words. I post on here as a break from my research. It is my play time, a time to decompress from my usual academic work. While I find my work exhilarating and rewarding, it is also challenging and draining. The following is an example of my type of daily work

        That said, you are not entirely wrong about the young kids. I interact with them, although university STEM types.

        There exist quite a few bright ones, some very impressive, albeit most are immigrants or children of immigrants. I am grading grad students oral presentations for the next several weeks, which started recently. One student did a fantastic presentation on one viral species, mechanism of action, genetic variability and so forth. The student kept looking at me from the lecture podium nervously as he/she progressed in the powerpoint slides, since trainees know me as a hard ass, a stickler for data.
        I was blown away at how professional and well defended the presentation was. Good stuff! Another student was disappointing in their presentation even if the student has the desire. Another was good, another had a fever, a physician note, and video recorded their presentation for classmates to grade. That was top notch, true dedication.

        If you interact with the young generation like I do, you get a different perspective than what the internet / popular media characterizes. However, parents are to blame for the lack of emotional and moral development of the young. In the rural setting, I find the young to be hard workers, but in the urban, they are concerning.

        My best advice is to volunteer where you are located in person if you have spare time. Clinics and hospitals across the nation are experiencing very low numbers as to volunteers since COVID. Most of our clinic volunteers are students who volunteer to fulfill hours for internships. Otherwise, older, “pink ladies” and the elderly well dressed men, who were invaluable, have abandoned us in the hospital/clinic. I encourage everyone, where ever I go, to volunteer, get involved, lead, all very Catholic traditions for millennia. When we interact with society face to face, as a mentor, leader or provide an extra set of hands, it allows us to not only be a pencil in God’s Hands, as Saint Mother Teresa often said, but we see for ourselves the lay of the land. It also builds hope. I am convinced social media and the internet (like this forum) have made Americans isolated, lonely and angry. Yes, the young are lost. That is all the more reason to get involved and teach them face to face.

        In fact Bari Weiss lectured her audience at the Federalist Society this very thing. Get involved. So there you go. 😉

  5. This issue is really not the same as a newspaper model, as far a government censorship and regulation.

    Traditional newspapers have clear distinctions. A newspaper usually has one section for “Straight News” (without opinion). Another section with “Op/Ed” (with opinions, interpretations, editorials). Another section with “Letters To The Editor” – citizens expressing opinions. All of the sections listed above are further filtered out by editors.

    Maybe the closest newspaper example to social media is the “Letters To The Editor” – citizens writing opinions.

    Newspapers also edit and reject most “Letters To The Editor” – only a small percentage of these citizen letters end up being published.

    As I understand it, this is why Congress created Section 230 of the Communications Act. Since social media companies don’t act as editors, the social media companies were immune from lawsuits or any other liability.

    Seems like tampering with this federal law would actually harm social media companies, making them liable for each post by every person making comments.

  6. And, of course, Barack Hussein “Barry-I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta-Soetoro” Obama can never be a “natural born citizen” and Obama can never be eligible for the office of the president.

    Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Barack Obama did not have two parents who were citizens, and Obama’s father was a foreign citizen with foreign allegiances, at the time of the candidate’s birth.

    – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”

    – Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.

    – English Common Law and the Law of Nations were adopted, accepted or employed by the United States.

    – The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”


    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

    1. Responding to George:

      No that is not what that means, one only has to be born on U.S. soil or U.S. territory. Children born on overseas military bases to parents who are U.S. citizens still qualifies.

      The U.S Constitution also borrows parts from the Magna Carta, but the Magna Carta is not USA law.

      Using your logic: some of Trump’s children could never run as president in the future, since both parents weren’t naturally born on U.S. soil.

        1. Actually, the American Founders and Framers laid it out definitively.

          A “natural born citizen” is one who, simultaneously, had two parents who were citizens and a father who was a citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth, with the rationale of “[providing] a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government….”

          Obama was distinctly the son of a foreigner, and, therefore, technically half a foreigner himself and under foreign influences, did not have two parents who were citizens, and did not have a father who was a citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth.

          Obama was a major affirmative action project ensconced by the deep state duopoly in violation of the Constitution, as all acts of charity, favor, diversity, equity, inclusion, and affirmative action are.

            1. Absurd prevarication.  In a case of sunburn, you would argue that the sun never came up that day. I thought you would, at least, attempt to refute the facts. You couldn’t, and you didn’t. The Law of Nations, the legal text and reference of the era, was “…continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…,” according to Ben Franklin. You’ve heard of him, have you not? Listen to Ben Franklin, not me. Listen to George Washington and John Jay, not me. They had no reason to lie. In the Law of Nations is the definition of the phrase the Framers used.   The Framers did not define natural born citizen; they used the phrase that was defined in the Law of Nations. You try very hard to misunderstand; you have failed evidently.  The end justifies the means, right, comrade?

              Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

              “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

                1. Did you also agree with the “executive action” against JFK – there was no election but the office certainly changed hands through a “decision” – you noticed, I’m certain.

                  And how about the Supreme Court of 1869 that found that secession was unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it?

                  “That dudn’t make any sense!”

                  – George W. Bush

                  Can you cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession, Sissy (i.e. CC, ceasy) – do you mind if I call you Sissy?

                  Oh, yeah, American justice; how ’bout that OJ verdict – two dead by vicious slaughter, one not guilty, and no perpetrator convicted or even charged to this date.

                  Did I mention the abject lie told by the 1973 SCOTUS?

                  Did you say, “American justice,” comrade?

                  You betcha!

                  Oh, and please do address the facts by way of refutation rather than present contrived edicts issued by what Professor Turley’s refers to as the “duopoly,” aka the deep state “swamp.”

            2. And the Supreme Court of 2022 came to a very different conclusion than the totally partial, biased, and corrupt Supreme Court of 1973.

              Imagine, in that case, all one had to do was read the clear manifest tenor of the words of the English language of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          1. While that is a true statement, your interpretation denies the dual qualification of natural born citizen laid out plainly in DeVattel. IOW, it is true to say that ‘you are not a natural born citizen unless both of your parents are citizens’, it is also correct to say that ‘you are not a natural born citizen unless you were born on US soil’. The fact that they left out the jus soli argument as they were discussing the jus sanguinis argument does not indicate that the jus soli requirement was not in play or already approved. Given that they were aware of the DeVattel definition, why would it not be included?

          2. Wouldn’t a child born to a natural-born citizen father and a foreign-nationality mother be potentially subject to her foreign influence? The idea that the mother’s influence is so much less than the father’s as to be ignored is patently absurd, whether we’re talking about the Founding era or at present.

            In attempting to disqualify Obama, you are drawing on ideology saying that fathers are more important than mothers in inculcating their child. That’s simply not true, and has never been true.

            BTW, Obama was born on US soil, as Hawaii achieved Statehood Aug 29, 1959. BHO was born in 1961
            in Honolulu. That fulfills the definition of natural born citizen.

      1. Problem for Oblamo is, his mother was a minor and his father was a British citizen. Under such,he would attain British citizenship being born in Kenya. The original perpetrator of the Birther movement was Phillip Berg and Hillary Clinton. Obama is a fraud start to finish, audit him and see what you turn over…

  7. Charlatans never seem to go away! ‘Fake, fraud, deceiver, quack, imposter, cheat, swindler, trickster, cozener, confidence artist, mountebank, AKA President Barrack Obama’. Just another pretentious Democrat full of bravado, living in a high castle made of glass, throwing stones.

    Speaking of the First Amendment, I’ll quote Jean-Paul Sartre: “I distrust the incommunicable: it is the source of all violence”.

  8. Jonathan: Why have you continued your criticisms of former President Obama? I suspect we know why. Obama is going to vigorously campaign for Pres. Biden next year. Obama is one of the most respected of recent presidents. His views are treated seriously–as evinced by his key-note addresses at U of C and at Stanford University last year.

    I read Obama’s address at Stanford. He did say he thought “regulation has to be part of the answer” to combating disinformation online and in the press. He urged policy makers to “rethink” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which stipulates that online platforms cannot be held liable for content that other people post on-line. Beyond that Obama urged: “We have to take it upon ourselves to become better consumers of news–looking at sources, thinking before we share, and teaching our kids to become critical thinkers who know how to evaluate sources and separate opinion from fact”. Not the “massive censorship” you claim Obama advocates.

    Disinformation and misinformation on social media and elsewhere are incidious. It thrives on false and misleading information that serves only one purpose. To provide confirmation bias for those who already believe in conspiracy theories about the government. You reinforce disinformation with your almost daily columns about the “Biden corruption scandal” and your frequent appearances on Fox defending DJT in all his criminal cases. It’s not about the facts and evidence. It’s about political disinformation spin. Fox is one of the main spreaders of disinformation. That got Fox in legal trouble when they were sued by Dominion voting systems for defamation. That is one way to fight disinformation.

    Now I know why you think Obama’s views are “absolute nonsense”. He is a direct threat to the Fox model of trying to distort and manipulate the news to reinforce their political agenda. You are part of that when you appear on Fox to provide an echo chamber for your employer and try to defend DJT in all his criminal prosecutions. It’s not about facts and evidence. It’s about political spin!

    Finally, quoting Tennessee Williams doesn’t reinforce your column. Williams was openly gay when homosexuality was considered an “illness” and treated as “morally depraved”. In a Playboy interview over 40 years ago he was asked whether he would have a happier life if he changed he sexual preferences. Williams replied with that quote and said that if he got rid of the voices telling him to do “bad” things (his moral demons) he would not have the voices helping him to write good plays, often with gay themes (his moral angels). That was the meaning behind the quote. I prefer my favorite author Mark Twain who said: “Truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie”. That is more apropos your column.

  9. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 $𝟏𝟏𝟕 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝟒,𝟔𝟐𝟐 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐬 $𝟏.𝟒 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐬
    By: Pam Martens and Russ Martens ~ November 14, 2023

    Live Hearing:

  10. Everyone should check out the film “Saving Capitalism” featuring Tea Party Republican Dave Brat and Bill Clinton’s Economic Advisor. Since Clinton was the last president to leave office with a balanced budget, it’s a very good piece explaining how economics and market competition actually work.

  11. Obama is a disingenuous , supercilious pompous pseudo intellectual. Worst of all he continues his malign influence on this country. He is just short of evil.

    1. He did save the US auto industry….could you bring yourself to giving him an iota of credit for that? A more laissez-faire, libertarian President would have let that part of the US economy collapse, even though the real-estate finance & investment sector created the moral hazard.

      1. Obama didn’t save the auto industry.

        Obama made the price of used cars unaffordable to low-income groups. He did fool many naive people. They never learned what the tradeoffs were. Obama gained political capital (union and political cronies), but people in other states lost their jobs and investments. The ‘Obama bankruptcy was wrong for the nation, especially since the alternatives were far better. Obama failed.

  12. Geraldine Ferraro was prescient in her insightful comment on Barack Obama in 2008 when she campaigned for Hillary Clinton:

    “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

    Heather Mac Donald makes the excellent point in how “caught up in this concept”, (race baiting), has destroyed trust in law-enforcement.

    Tell the Truth About Law Enforcement and Crime

    Public safety has been destroyed in many American cities because of an idea. That idea holds that any law-enforcement activity that has a disparate impact on black criminals is racist.


    As a figurehead and US President, Obama personified the destructive anti-America paradigms that have destabilized our nation and have stoked fires that literally engulf our streets, forcing Americans to take up weapons to stem the tide of barbaric mobs.

    To Professor Turley’s point that:

    The effort to evade or obfuscate on the issue is common in the current anti-free speech period

    Obama evades and obfuscates much more than just 1A claims. Florida Governor DeSantis sent “people of color” / illegal immigrants to Obama’s backyard at Martha’s Vineyard. Obama did nothing to welcome, comfort or assist these immigrants. Like Pope Francis, in his 80s, Obama could have approached the immigrants and walked his talk, gotten the upper hand on DeSantis’s PR stunt, and led by example. He evaded them just like on the 1A.

    Matt Taibbi provided the coup de grâce on Obama when he revealed Barack and Michelle hosted for “the elite A-listers” a huge birthday bash at their mansion. As Americans were scolded during COVID lockdowns for leaving their homes to interact with the public in grocery stores, churches and schools, the Obamas gave Americans the middle finger. To quote Taibbi:

    The Vanishing Legacy of Barack Obama

    He extended middle fingers in all directions: to his Vineyard neighbors, the rest of America, Biden, the hanger-on ex-staffers who’d stacked years of hundred-hour work weeks to build his ballyhooed career, the not quite A-listers bounced at the last minute for being not famous enough (sorry, Larry David and Conan O’Brien!), and so on. It’d be hard not to laugh imagining Axelrod reading that even “Real Housewife of Atlanta” Kim Fields got on the party list over him, except that Obama giving the shove-off to his most devoted (if also scummy and greedy) aides is also such a perfect metaphor for the way he slammed the door in the faces of the millions of ordinary voters who once so desperately believed in him.


    From Ferraro to Taibbi, the list is long on data proving Obama to be far more dangerous to US Democracy than QAnon, Proud Boys, so called White Supremacy and Donald Trump / MAGA combined. Geraldine Ferraro warned Americans about Obama and she was right.

    1. Estovir,
      Well said.
      I recall when Trump won in 2016, there was this mass hysteria of the white supremacist threat around every corner. When that threat did not materialize, they just changed the definition of that threat to fit anyone who voted for Trump. And then parents concerned for their child’s education. People who were vaccine hesitant. Asians who are successful. Now colonizer/settler Jews. Pretty much anyone who is not progressive or progressive enough.

      1. I bought Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, to understand him better. I wanted to believe he was the real deal. The book made me feel nauseous and almost made me puke. His inauthentic stripe made me loathe him. Instead I read Condoleezza Rice’s biography and I fell in love with her. Read her biography when you get a chance. She is a class act and her story is refreshing and inspiring.

        Condoleezza Rice: A Memoir of My Extraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me

        You probably noticed that the DNC paid trolls are now using your “well done” reply to their own sock puppet comments. That makes you a social media influencer!


        1. Estovir,
          I have always thought Condoleezza Rice was a class act! I would want her in my cabinet/staff if I were president. Will have to add that to my reading list. In the winter months that is when I can get caught up.
          Just got back from the fields. Will have to check out the DNC trolls “well done.” If anything, that is prof they are coordinating on some DNC slack channel, or receive their talking points from their DNC employers.
          A social media influencer . . . there is a title I think I will leave OFF my resume!

  13. Obama kicked his planned, long term, program of ‘change is coming’ with his apologia to the Islamist nations of the world whose ideological purpose is the the subsuming all faiths and all peoples of the world under the so-called umbrella of Islam. The abysmal teachings of their prophet and a pathetic god who, in the writings of its word, calls for the ‘disappearing’ of all those who do not submit is their philosophy. It is this sort of moral and ethical turpitude, at odds with Western values as they have evolved, that blood and treasure were spilled to smite, in a global world war, the German Reich and an Imperial Japan which fostered a similar ideology. It is the aforementioned moral and ethical turpitude which, absent any concerns for territory, is at the true heart of the current conflict and which both the dedicated believers, and their fool-hardy lemmings lobby, clamor, and rally in support of. The wholesale genocide of a designated people, and all others who refuse to be subjugated against their will is their goal.

  14. Progressives are not just attacking free speech in the first amendment. They are attacking free exercise of religion, right to petition government, and assembly. The whole first amendment is under attack.

    Obama was the most successful president in subverting core protected and enumerated rights

    1. “Progressives are not just attacking free speech in the first amendment. They are attacking free exercise of religion, right to petition government, and assembly. The whole first amendment is under attack.”

      No. Progressives are not “attacking” free speech. That’s a BS argument. Conservatives see always see criticism as an “attack”. Meaning they can’t handle criticsm most of the time. Ironically criticism IS very much part of free speech and those free speech advocates such as the professor are complaining about the criticisms , labeling them as “attacks”. It’s easier to play victim than to put forth an argument with substance.

      1. The House Republicans (and most Democrats) sure censored the hell out of Rep. Tlaib. For merely expressing concern for the plight of the people in Gaza.

        *it’s hard to tell which ‘party’ is more bloodthirsty sometimes.

        1. She was censured, not censored. The two words have very different meanings (they’re easy to look up online).

          And it was not for “expressing concern for the plight of the people of Gaza,” but for spouting anti-Semitism, including “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” which calls for the destruction of Israel.

          You have a blind spot for anti-Semitism. Your comments on the topic are becoming increasingly unmoored from reality and do not deserve any credence.

Leave a Reply