Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional: Obama”

Of course, he doesn’t get to determine that — it was passed by the legislature and signed into law by President Clinton, and so it the duty of the government to defend it — but then, Obama is above the law.

As are all dictators.

We live in a country where the President and his cronies decide what laws to follow and what laws to enforce; what companies are supported and what companies are not; who has to follow comprehensive health care reform and who does not.

Which means we live in a fascist country, ruled by an elected dictator who has positioned himself above and outside the laws he demands we follow — and who has granted himself the right to determine who has to follow what laws, how, when, and why.

That is not freedom. It’s tyranny. Simple as that.

(h/t Rush and Pablo)

61 Replies to ““Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional: Obama””

  1. Joe says:

    But Jeff, isn’t he a good man?

  2. Joe says:

    I suspect Hitler’s dogs thought he was a good man.

  3. Jeff G. says:

    More like a “benevolent King,” if you believe in such a thing. And are on the side that reaps his beneficence.

  4. newrouter says:

    For Obama to risk that broader strategy now is a sign of weakness. I suggested the other day in “Obama’s Wisconsin Bind” that having unpopular public-sector unions as the face of his coalition might force him into aggressive but risky efforts to shore up a broader-based movement of the Left. The problem for Obama is that assembling such a movement forces him to drop his centrist persona. Yet that is what events are now demanding of him.

    Did anyone on any part of the political spectrum ever actually believe that Obama opposed gay marriage? That was never anything but disguise. This new move suggests that the centrist mask is slipping, the country is polarizing, and Obama is being forced to fly his true flag. I don’t doubt that the president will continue to resist full disclosure of his leftist political allegiances. Yet that is the direction in which he is now being pulled.

    link

  5. John Bradley says:

    When reached for comment, Hugo Chavez responded: “Thassa mia bambino, he’s a, how you say?, a regular chip off the old block, eh?”

    Though why he was speaking in a faux Italian accent is unclear.

  6. newrouter says:

    If the Obama Administration won’t defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, what are the chances that a future Republican administration would defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate? To my mind, this adds a very interesting wrinkle to the individual mandate litigation (and, more broadly, to the role of the Executive Branch in defending statutes in the future).

    link

  7. Pablo says:

    I’m not feeling the benevolence. Too white, probably.

  8. Pablo says:

    Impeach him now.

  9. alppuccino says:

    Impeach him now.

    Couldn’t we let him wriggle a little longer?

  10. Squid says:

    …and let’s be honest — how big of a leap is it from refusing to enforce laws that do exist to insisting on enforcing laws that don’t?

    Either Obama has no idea what he’s unleashed, which makes him a dangerous idiot, or he knows just what he’s doing, which makes him a dangerous tyrant. I don’t really care which it is, since the proper response to either case is resistance.

  11. Abe Froman says:

    What’s especially fucking galling is how everyone on the left, including the media, enables the chocolate deity to maintain the politically useful fiction that he’s opposed to gay marriage. There is a deep sickness what pervades our enemies.

  12. Squid says:

    OT: The public radio people are rallying downtown tomorrow to demand funding for CPB. My congresscritter (Betty) will be there to address the crowd.

    Question for the usual suspects: What should I write on my sign? Right now, I’m leaning toward “SUPPORT PUBLIC RADIO (WITH YOUR OWN DAMN $$$)” but I’m not sure. I could always go with “CHAVEZ LOVES STATE RADIO, TOO!” but that’s kind of facile.

    Whaddya suggest?

  13. Joe says:

    Bush = Bad

    Obama does it and it is okay.

  14. Abe Froman says:

    I get paid a lot of money for this kind of thing, squid. Are you asking for a handout?

    I kid. I kid.

  15. Jeff G. says:

    Whaddya suggest?

    How about, “I started a cat blog. Give me some fucking tax money.”

  16. Joe says:

    Cats that look like Hitler Obama?

  17. This is what he’s worried about? Today? Shouldn’t he be more worried about that giant swimming rabbit that’s about to put a major pull in his cardigan?

  18. alppuccino says:

    Whaddya suggest?

    How about “Public Radio: When you’re out of sleeping pills.”

  19. dicentra says:

    The fascist part is mostly in the Corporatism, which, unlike the Lefty definition (OMGCORPORATIONSRUNEVERYTHING!!!1!1), means that Big Biz, Big Labor, and Big Gubmint all sit at the table to decide what will happen to the rest of us.

    Constitution? Rule of law? Legislatures? Judges?

    We’re SO progressed beyond that dusty old racist stuff.

  20. Abe Froman says:

    If we don’t air what hardly anyone wants, then who will?

  21. JHoward says:

    “I heart the Edward R Murrow award-winning Not All Things Considered!”

  22. Squid says:

    Heh. “All Things Considered (except tax cuts, which are off the table)”

  23. dicentra says:

    I don’t really care which it is, since the proper response to either case is resistance.

    Except that in the case of an idiot, you’re a lot less likely to find yourself on the business end of a fire hose or a gulag than in the case of a tyrant. One must plan for the result of that resistance, and to do so, you have to know the mind of Obama and his gang.

    Let’s see… there are several members of Obama’s cabinet who have not so much as received a phone call from him in the past two years, yet Andy Stern–ex-pres of SEIU–is in the WH 2-3 times a week and in communication every day.

    Time to stop giving Obama the benefit of the doubt: he hasn’t earned it, and all signs point to his being the face of a tyrannical cabal. He’s not calling the shots, but he’s down with the cause 100%.

    What should I write on my sign?

    Your original idea is pretty good right there. Jeff’s might work, too.

  24. cranky-d says:

    #19

    They didn’t say it, but I’m sure they include the Tea Party types among the hate groups. The do not, of course, include people who actually hate and do something about it, like, say, union thugs.

  25. Abe Froman says:

    Replace the boring parts with commercials.

    Oh, wait. There’d be no programming.

  26. dicentra says:

    I actually like a lot of what is on PBS, but no way does the Constitution mandate that the federal gubmint fund TV/radio stations and other dramatic productions. Sorry: not even the “good and plenty” clause.

  27. Jim in KC says:

    “Dialectical materialism wants to be free!”

  28. proudvastrightwingconspirator says:

    Squid,
    How about:
    “NPR = National Proletariat Radio”

  29. Abe Froman says:

    There’s nothing good on PBS that couldn’t find a home elsewhere.

  30. Abe Froman says:

    That was to dicentra, not a line suggestion.

  31. JHoward says:

    There’s nothing good on PBS that couldn’t find a home elsewhere.

    Word. Conversely, if it can’t, it’s crap.

    And spare me the bleat about how you serve the arts and yada yada, NPR. You’re a pompous disgrace.

  32. Abe Froman says:

    Rather than being “the peoples’ network,” it’s hard not to get the sense that what airs on PBS is a reflection of the small cadre of douches who buy totebags and $500 signed Ken Burns DVDs. They should offer $10,000 Big Bird lap dances and then maybe “the peoples’ money” won’t be needed to subsidize the tastes of their donors.

  33. bh says:

    Whaddya suggest?

    I like using their own lines when possible. “End corporate welfare!”

  34. Alec Leamas says:

    What’s especially fucking galling is how everyone on the left, including the media, enables the chocolate deity to maintain the politically useful fiction that he’s opposed to gay marriage. There is a deep sickness what pervades our enemies.

    It’s more than that. As a candidate he got to say certain things in San Francisco, and the next day say entirely contradictory things in Scranton. Not only did they not report it, they praised him for being politically astute and for cobbling together a coalition with opposing goals and values.

    They knew all along that it was a big fucking lie:

    Also, I suspect that Obama isn’t actually opposed to gay marriage, but has said so because even a year ago that was the only acceptable position from mainstream politicians.

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/23/the-best-news-youll-hear-today/#comments

  35. Alec Leamas says:

    There’s nothing good on PBS that couldn’t find a home elsewhere.

    Eh – they buy good stuff like Masterpiece Theater series and, for example, old episodes of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister that you wouldn’t find elsewhere. They can probably show the same programs without public funding as it represents a relatively small part of how PBS is funded in my understanding.

    The real question the PBS Board should be asking itself if public funding is so essential to its operations is whether it would be serving its function and drawing less attention to its public funding if it eliminated Moyers and Smiley et al., which I don’t think are particularly popular programs in any event. It’s one thing to slap me in the face, quite another to do so with my own hand. Would we be in such a lather to hammer that nail if PBS was all Sesame Street, Animals, and film adaptations of Dickens novels? I think no.

  36. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    PBS and it’s fund raising River Dancers, Celtic singers & dead white guy with afro what paints “pretty little trees” on reruns aside…

    Here’s an O/T funny. Harry Reid is proposing to put himself out of a job.

    No more whores in Nevada.

    Guess Harry has a dealership car sales job lined up.

    Good grief. In a state built on the Capone business model (Despite economy, an unprincipled man will always spend his money on booze, gambling & whores) Harry is trying to cut off one leg of his state’s 3-legged bar stool.

    Not condoning that particular business, just saying.

    His state is a fucking desert. People only flock there for “specific” reasons. He wants to kill one.

    Do whores have a union?

    I’m guessing not.

  37. steph says:

    All Things Considered, the only Fresh Air on NPR is Car Talk.

  38. Squid says:

    I’m liking “TOTEBAGGERS GO HOME!” as the reverse of my placard…

  39. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Squid,

    Why can’t Elmo share the wealth?

    Greedy monster.

  40. geoffb says:

    yet Andy Stern–ex-pres of SEIU–is in the WH 2-3 times a week and in communication every day.

    Hmmm.

    Today, we learn that top AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka is visiting the White House two to three times per week and speaking with someone in the White House everyday.

    Wonder if they hold hands going in?

  41. Jim in KC says:

    You could just use the Obama as Che poster, but carry it un-ironically.

  42. geoffb says:

    Wouldn’t Reid be outlawing his entire Party?

  43. […] Jeff puts it in a comment here, and restates in this post (I hadn’t looked in on PW in a while, and had no idea he had resumed posting — my bad), […]

  44. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Related: Feinstein to introduce bill repealing DOMA.

    So I guess that makes it okay.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along!

  45. Alec Leamas says:

    President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of the phrase “civil unions”. [ Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies. ]

    http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/photospreadthumbs.php?APUB=wct&ADATE=2009-01-14&AGALLERY=obama

    For simpleton TEABAGGERZ, Mr. Obama’s pretense that he does not support homosexuals marrying one another is what sophisticates call a “noble lie.”

  46. Ernst Schreiber says:

    For simpleton TEABAGGERZ, Mr. Obama’s pretense that he does not support homosexuals marrying one another is what sophisticates call a “noble lie.”

    Showing yet again that self-described sophisticates can’t distinguish between “noble” and “base.”

  47. newrouter says:

    noble prize

  48. Roddy Boyd says:

    Having worked in MSM, I guess in a sense I still havent left, I feel pretty qualified to weigh in with my favorite convo stopper at the Time Warner cafeteria.

    Whenever any of my buds would inveigh against some “wingnut assault on PBS…Moyers….POV”
    I would listen solemnly and then say, “You know _______, you’ve a fair point. Here’s my solution: free up about $10 million and find some investigative reporters to rip into shiboleths of the right. Let’s find the frosh at UVA who got an abortion because of her swimsut friendly figure, lets come up with the angle on tax cuts/velocity of money where a rich guy is supporting a landscaper, maid, and a few charities because he doesnt have a 51% tax bracket anymore. Throw in some West bank terror funding stuff, some ‘how many more minorities are alive because of Giuliani’ story and, natch, pluck the fruit from the evergreen tree of affiramtive action horror stories and/or freak show of the modern humanities department.”

    always, eternally a conversation stopper.

    Because that’s what it’s all about. Liberals love the investigative reporting on the things they’ve ALWAYS SUSPECTED were rotten to the core. Their favorite cuddly, furries in the ideological petting zoo? Not so much. In that sense, the right is a lot tougher than the left. What we broadly hold important has been on the target range for generations. They have little experience, pace the tone at Pandagon and 25 other sites, whenever Ocaam’s Razor is sharpened.

    PS–buy my book bitches! D minus 5 weeks….

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/02/08/how-aig-died/
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/253795-book-review-fatal-risk-a-cautionary-tale-of-aig-s-corporate-suicide

  49. Alec Leamas says:

    In response to the Preznit declaring laws unconstitutional, perhaps it is time for Justice Thomas to issue some Executive Orders? Sauce for the goose . . .

  50. JD says:

    I really really really do not like these people.

  51. dicentra says:

    Another good sign would contain a diagram with arrows that shows the effing RACKET with the unions getting paid tax dollars which they forcibly collect as dues so that they can pay off politicians and parties who tell them YES WHERE DO I SIGN?

  52. serr8d says:

    How about ‘NPR Fired Juan Williams, Let’s Return the Favor’. Obverse side, ‘NPR: Mouthpiece of the Professional Left’.

  53. Swen says:

    “PBS! Now with extra BS!!”

  54. SDN says:

    Here is naught at venture, random nor untrue
    Swings the wheel full-circle, brims the cup anew.

    Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
    Step for step and word for word–so the old Kings did!

    Step by step, and word by word: who is ruled may read.
    Suffer not the old Kings: for we know the breed–

    All the right they promise–all the wrong they bring.
    Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King !

    The Old Issue

  55. Bacon Ninja says:

    Sorry: not even the “good and plenty” clause.

    A “Sno-caps” clause would be equally awesome.

  56. McGehee says:

    Something tells me the prospect of a Jujyfruits clause is probably kind of slim. You’d get your gay-bashers and anti-Semitic types upset, plus people whose dentures stick together whenever they try to eat ’em…

  57. So…warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention without judicial review, and torture–all of US citizens–does not make you think “fascist” but refusal to defend a clearly discriminatory law does.

    And regulating participation in the health care market is not a Federal Government power, but defining marriage is.

    Seems like some people don’t mind above-the-law expansion of executive power when they like the use it’s put to, and whine about it when it’s not there when they don’t.

  58. Jeff G says:

    So…warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention without judicial review, and torture–all of US citizens–does not make you think “fascist” but refusal to defend a clearly discriminatory law does.

    Warrantless “wiretaps” is a misnomer. Indefinite detention of terrorists whom we didn’t shoot doesn’t bother me one bit, so long as we’re dead set on letting them live. “Torture” needs to be defined: we torture our own Navy Seals, under some definitions of the word.

    All points I argued on their individual merits, and in detail.

    As for what is discriminatory, forcing a new definition of “marriage” on people, then forcing them to accept your new definition in their state because a court in some other state decided in a 4-3 decision to privilege your new definition, is itself clearly discriminatory.

    And regulating participation in the health care market is not a Federal Government power, but defining marriage is.

    “Regulating participation”? You mean, creating a mandate?

    The DOMA protects states (necessitated re: full faith and credit). And it protects a specific arrangement from being redefined as something it has heretofore never been. What you see as “clearly discriminatory” others see differently. Whether or not I support the DOMA is irrelevant; I recognize that it was passed into law and signed by the President, and that it has been upheld by courts, despite protestations from some that it is “clearly discriminatory.”

    If a state votes to legalize same-sex marriage, I’m supportive of that vote.

    Seems like some people don’t mind above-the-law expansion of executive power when they like the use it’s put to, and whine about it when it’s not there when they don’t.

    Yes. Some do. Glad you recognize your hypocrisy.

    And a friendly piece of advice? Simply phrasing something negatively (“torture,” “warrantless wiretapping,” “clearly discriminatory”) doesn’t make it so — and won’t sway me. I’m beyond attempts to shame me into accepting leftist cant.

  59. LBascom says:

    Gay people can enter into marriage if they want. Or they can have a civil union, as many, gay and straight, are.

    Ain’t no discrimination.

  60. Jeff G. says:

    By the way, when President Palin decides to instruct her DOJ not to defend challenges to Roe (or Obamacare), I’ll be happy to cite your alacrity in accepting those moves.

Comments are closed.