• Like
  • Save
Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected



Obama’s chief political strategist, David...

Obama’s chief political strategist, David
Axerlrod, announced earlier this week that
the administration will push for a
constitutional amendment to rollback free
speech if his boss is re-elected in November.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 240

http://beforeitsnews.com 127
http://freedom4um.com 84
http://members.beforeitsnews.com 29



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected Document Transcript

    • Obama Plans Attack On FirstAmendment if Re-electedKurt NimmoInfowars.comJune 15, 2012Obama’s chief political strategist, DavidAxerlrod, announced earlier this week thatthe administration will push for aconstitutional amendment to rollback freespeech if his boss is re-elected in November.“When we win, we will use whatever toolsout there, including a constitutionalamendment, to turn this back,” Axlerod saidon Wednesday. “I understand the free speechargument, but when the Koch brothers canspend $400 million, more than the McCaincampaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that’s very concerning.”“This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government tocontrol political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even ifyou believed it,” remarked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.“America was built on free speech — the most important part of the Bill of Rights — and so we needto defend speech we don’t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut usup,” he said.McConnell accused the Obama administration of using the the Federal Election Commission, theFederal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the InternalRevenue Service to muzzle its critics. He added that the tactic is reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list inthe 1970s. White House Counsel John Dean said Nixon wanted to “use the available federal machineryto screw our political enemies.” In April, Rory Cooper wrote about Obama’s “Truth Team“ campaign website. He noted “subtle differences between Obama’s and Nixon’s enemy lists. President Nixon kept his secret, and allegedly used the force of the government to punish adversaries. President Obama’s list is open and designed to elicit public scorn, shame and rebuke. There is no current evidence the President has manipulated the federal machinery punitively. But the message remains clear, if you support a philosophical adversary, you will face some retribution.”
    • Cooper penned his commentaryfollowing remarks made by HouseMinority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosiand House Democrats have proposed athree tiered plan to ram throughCongress what is known as theDISCLOSE Act. It would restrict thepolitical speech of “coveredorganizations,” including mosttelevision and radio networks,newspapers, publishing houses, andthink tanks.Axlerod’s remarks about the FirstAmendment reveal that the so-calledTeam Obama approach to silencing thepolitical opposition is not particularlyeffective. It also reveals a brazen contempt for the Bill of Rights.In Citizens United v. FEC, the court said the First Amendment applies to all entities, includingcorporations: The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. … This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. … Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”Obama and Axlerod may disagree with the concept of “corporate personhood” (except, of course, whenit comes to the banks and corporations that support Obama), but the issue has far larger implicationsthan simply preventing the dreaded Koch brothers from spending a small portion of their billions forthe purpose of political speech. If Obama manages to amend the Constitution – a remote possibility at best (but then considering the way the Supreme Court is currently construed, maybe not) – restrictions on free speech will undoubtedly be used against opponents outside the political establishment. Axlerod’s comments underscore a deep-seated hostility toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as McConnell noted (not that Republicans are exactly champions of liberty). Obama and the Democrats apparently hate that the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. TheDeclaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as inherent in our humanity. Axlerod’scomments reveal Obama – who we are told is a constitutional scholar – does not agree.
    • Who Needs Congress: Obama to GrantImmunity to Young IllegalsJonathan Easley and Jordy YagerThe HillJune 15, 2012The Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who cometo the country at a young age.The politically charged decision comesas Obama faces a tough reelection fightagainst Republican Mitt Romney, withHispanic voters in swing states seen as akey bloc.The change in policy could allow asmany as 800,000 immigrants who cameto the United States illegally not only toremain in the country without fear ofbeing deported, but to work legally,according to a senior administrationofficial speaking to reporters Friday.Obama is set to make a statement at 1:15 p.m. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitanoannounced the new policy Friday morning.“Young people who were brought to the United States through no fault of their own as children, whomeet several key criteria, will no longer be removed from the country or entered into removalproceedings,” said Napolitano in a conference call with reporters on Friday morning.“This grant of deferred action is not immunity, it is not amnesty, it is an exercise of discretion so thatthese young people are not in the removal system," she said. "It will help us continue to streamlineimmigration enforcement, ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low prioritycases involving productive young people."The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegalimmigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the UnitedStates. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military. A memo from Napolitano ordering the "prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children" argued that those covered by the order "only know this country as home." It said these people "lacked the intent to violate the law."
    • The new policy will apply toindividuals who are already indeportation proceedings, the memosaid.The policy change will accomplishportions of the Development, Relief,and Education for Alien Minors(DREAM) Act, legislation that hasstalled in Congress amid Republicanopposition.Obama has a massive lead overpresumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney among Hispanic voters, but criticism from immigrationactivists over the administration’s deportation policies has intensified in recent weeks. Earlierthis week a government report showed the administration’s attempt to cut back on deportationsof law-abiding illegal immigrants has had little effect.Hispanic voters could be key in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, amongother states."Its a medium-risk, high-reward strategy," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "I think you riskangering people who are upset about immigration, yes. But for a president who’s got to win Florida,Nevada, Colorado, it is definitely something that can give the Latino community something to rallyaround."A number of Republicans criticized the move, arguing it could be illegal."How can the administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions ofAmericans are unemployed?" said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House JudiciaryCommittee. "President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegalimmigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people."Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Twitter that Obamas action could even be illegal.“President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise andpossibly illegal,” Graham said in a Tweet.“This type of policy proposal, regardless of motivation, will entice people to break our laws,” Graham said in another tweet. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), praised the policy, but criticized Obama for going around Congress. “Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," the Cuban American Rubio said in a statement. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”
    • Rubio, a possible vice presidential candidate, has beenworking on his own version of the DREAM Act but hasyet to release any legislative language.The change in policy comes eight months after theObama administration set an annual record fordeportations by removing nearly 400,000 people whowere in the country illegally in fiscal 2011.Of the 396,906 individuals removed, more than half —216,698 — had been previously convicted of feloniesor misdemeanors, which represents a 90 percentincrease in the number of criminals deported over fiscal2008, according to the numbers released byImmigration and Customs Enforcement last October.A spokesman for Homeland Security said thedepartment would continue to focus its enforcementresources on "the removal of individuals who pose anational security or public safety risk, includingimmigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons and repeat immigration-law offenders.""Today’s action further enhances the department’s ability to focus on these priority removals," thespokesman said.The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), an immigration reform advocacy group, laudedObamas announcement on Friday, saying it was evidence of his "true capacity to lead."The group then said it was time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act.“President Obama is showing the nation his true capacity to lead by taking the bold and courageousstep to remove the fear of deportation and provide dreamers with the legal means to contribute their fullpotential to society," said Marielena Hincapié, the executive director for the group. "This announcement provides real and much-needed relief now, but it is not enough. President Obama cannot provide these youth with the path to citizenship, which would allow DREAMers to participate in all sectors of civil society. We therefore renew our calls to Congress to pass the DREAM Act.” NILC is one of the immigrant activist groups that had previously been critical of the administrations immigration policy. "We’ve been disappointed by the administration’s record pace of deportations, and DREAMers have been among those deported," said Adela de la Torre, communications manager for the NILC, in an email to The Hill. "This is why today’s announcement is so important." http://www.infowars.com