Obama Administration and the Fourth Amendment

And you thought Bush was Evil? There have been many evil ideas put forth by the US Government but view as detrimental to the health of the US than the Obama Administrations argument that data which is NOT on your computer is not protected by the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am less opposed to the Patriot Act then what is now coming out of the Obama Whitehouse. The Patriot Act, for all the vitriol hurled its way, appears to be nothing more than consolidating hundreds of different law enforcement techniques and then placing them in the hands of counter-terrorist officials. From what I understand -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- the only new provisions of the Patriot Act have to do with tracing money transfers.

In particular the US Government has, in at least one prosecution, invoked the 1986 Stored Communications Act which held that any email stored on a server for 6 months were to be considered abandoned and could be viewed by the government without a subpeana. This bill was enacted at a time when e-mail wasn’t stored on servers for a long time. They were held on the servers for a short time until downloaded to the recipient’s inbox.

See Wired Magazine:

• Warrant Needed to Get Your E-Mail, Appeals Court Says
• Justice Dept. to Congress: Don’t Saddle 4th Amendment on Us

Thankfully a group of ISPs, computer corporations and organizations have combined to fight this, Digital Due Process

The only reasonable course of action is to consider that any information held in an account is to be under the protection of the 4th Amendment.

Obama Administration: Opposed to repealing DADT

Isn't this a treat: Obama campaigned against DADT and now his administration is presenting an argument in the US Supreme Court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 10A465) that Obama should not be forced by the court to sign an executive order eliminating DADT but that instead the law needs to be changed by Congress.

Now, I agree with this -- but since when has Obama thought that way? He hasn't. It is just convenient for him to argue this point today. Yesterday he agreed with Florida Court overturning the Florida Secretary of State in 2000 elections. Tomorrow he'll reverse himself when it comes to abortion, or illegal immigration, or people eating greasy food.

One thing that the media doesn't explore is: What does it mean to repeal DADT? Will homosexuality once again to be considered a mental disease with the military having a right, and obligation, to find and discharge homosexuals from their ranks? Too many people forget that DADT was a major advancement.

OK, let's assume that repealing DADT (which prohibits the military from finding and revealing the sexual prference of closeted homosexuals) means that the gay and lesbian community can openly serve in the all parts of the US military. Since DADT was an executive decision made by the Clinton Administration why is it all of a sudden a legislative or judicial issue and not an executive one? Once again, Barack Obama, who voted present on almost every controversial pieces of legislation, has chosen to pass the buck. Aren't you glad YOU voted for him?

Obama is in Over His Head

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters.

Time Magazine

You think? What do you think happens when you hire a neophyte with little-to-no experience and a propensity for avoiding making decisions?

From Kennedy to Obama

The Democrats have gone from:

"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address
January 20, 1961.

to:

“It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.”

President-Elect Barack Obama
November 4, 2008

Of course, it's the Republicans, the Libertarians, the Tea Party people and the sundry of other limited, constitutional government folks who are mean and divisive and repugnant trolls.

Imagine the Outrage if Bush Was President

We have the Obama administration advocating the police having the power to track you by putting GPS devises on your car; by warrentless cellphone tracking; and for killing US citizens by Executive Branch fiat.

There's nothing but silence from the MSM. There would be a drumbeat of outrage if Bush, not Obama, was the President.

Thanks to CNET, SlashDot, Slate and other organizations for publishing this information. I'm not saying that the MSM doesn't cover this, only that there isn't a "public outcry" against Executive Branch infringement of basic individual liberties. Compared to the Patriot Act, which extended existing law (except for money transfers) this greatly expands the police power of the state.

Court allows warrantless cell location tracking

Police Can Put A GPS Device On Your Car Without Your Consent

Intelligence chief acknowledges U.S. may target Americans involved in terrorism

Kagan, First Ammendment and Book Banning

What's there to say here in addition to what's in the audio clip? How can anyone who respects the concept of individual freedom, who cherishes the ability to say and write what one thinks without fear of government prosecution and intimidation have anything else but contempt for this woman and the man who nominated her?

If the above clip didn't bother you take a look at her expression when asked if by Congressman Coburn if Congress could dictate what people eat everyday.

Do You Have a Right to Self-Defense?

People ask, why am I opposed to Obama? Here's one: nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe in an individual's right to self defense.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is asked if she sees the right to personal self-defense. She doesn't see it; doesn't see a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that. Now that's just a little slippery of her, isn't it? Just because the Supreme Court hasn't had to address it doesn't mean that it is not part and parcel of the agreed upon social contract (The US Constitution). Maybe the Supreme Court hasn't addressed it because no one was foolish enough to question it.

We have had, for the last several generations, a concerted, and quite silly argument against the Right to Bear Arms. And yet through Rebellions (Whisky) and Civil War we maintained -- until the Progressive Era -- a Right to Bear Arms. Now we get a Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in Americans having a Right to Defend themselves.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot,

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Of course to Sotomayer, and her ilk, these statements mean nothing. The only thing that matters is what can be parsed from earlier Supreme Court decisions. As there was a Protestant Revolution in the 16th C there will be a Constitutional Revolution. We must reinclude "Original Intent" or there will be no constitution left to defend.

The Final Push for Health Care is on.

I can't say anything about the healthcare bill that other opponents haven't already said. I think much of the legislation over the last century is unconstitutional so I am but a lunatic voice on the fringe. Still, I ask, where in the powers granted Congress does one find the power enumerated for any Progressive Era legislation; or the New Deal; or the Great Society; or for what is currently being done? I don't find it.

This bill is one more step toward the infantiling of America; of turning a society based upon individual rights, with government as protector of those rights, into a society where government parcels out privileges to the favored of the day.

We are now becoming subject to a new crown -- and, to our everlasting infamy -- we voted it in. We are quickly going from the "land of the free and the home of the brave" to dopes in chains.

Is there anything that can be done? Only one at this stage and that is to write -- I mean it -- innundate your Representative with emails and faxes opposing the current health care bill. If nothing else write: "I'm against this health care bill and I vote." Don't forget to write to Representatives in neighboring districts (even states) and remind them that you will campaign against them this fall if they vote for this bill.

You can get a list of representatives; their districts and their websites at: www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State. If you're not sure which district you're in you can find state maps at www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html and see which district you're in.

I warn you. You may get a little frustrated with your Representative's website. Some of them are are not as simple to send a message as they ought to be.

Unproven Missile Defense Systems

Remember when Obama promised to defund Reagan's unproven Star Wars program?

Well, here's more example Obama being wrong and one more example of the Star Wars program not being an example of corporate welfare:

Here's Obama talking about missile defense:

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems ...."

Well, guess what. There was just another successful test of this "unproven missile defense system."

Airborne Laser Testbed Successful in Lethal Intercept Experiment
The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile. The experiment, conducted at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off the central California coast, serves as a proof-of-concept demonstration for directed energy technology. The ALTB is a pathfinder for the nation’s directed energy program and its potential application for missile defense technology.

At 8:44 p.m. (PST), February 11, 2010, a short-range threat-representative ballistic missile was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform. Within seconds, the ALTB used onboard sensors to detect the boosting missile and used a low-energy laser to track the target. The ALTB then fired a second low-energy laser to measure and compensate for atmospheric disturbance. Finally, the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting ballistic missile to critical structural failure. The entire engagement occurred within two minutes of the target missile launch, while its rocket motors were still thrusting.

This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform. The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies.

Less than one hour later, a second solid fuel short-range missile was launched from a ground location on San Nicolas Island, Calif. and the ALTB successfully engaged the boosting target with its High Energy Laser, met all its test criteria, and terminated lasing prior to destroying the second target. The ALTB destroyed a solid fuel missile, identical to the second target, in flight on February 3, 2010.

Three cheers for the Community Organizer-in-Chief

US Justice Department v Blackwater

Besides the obvious problems with the US Attorney General, get a load of this one, apparantly US government prosecutors

distorted testimony, violated its policies and withheld evidence during an investigation into a deadly 2007 shooting in Iraq [by Blackwater Contractors].

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina threw out all charges against the five security contractors.

You can read more about this from the: Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal

Honduras

The Wall Street Journal has a good article on the Honduran election. For those that forgot. President Zelaya proposed a referendum that would have overturned the Honduran constitution's ban on re-election and scraped much of the existing constitution. A Chavez ally, Zelaya was locked in a growing confrontation with the Honduran Congress and Court.

The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the vote to be illegal because the Honuran Constitution banned Constitutional referendums within six months of elections. The military, backing the Supreme Court, refused to distribute ballots (a normal function of the Honduran military). President Zelaya fired the chief of the army and continued his course. The Supreme Court ordered him to stop his action and the military ousted Zelaya.

According to The Wall Street Journal in an article In Elections, Honduras Defeats Chávez authored by MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

... militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed. Yesterday's civic participation appeared to be at least as good as it was in the last presidential election. Some polling stations reportedly even ran short, for a time, of the indelible ink used to mark voter pinkies.

Latin socialists tried to discredit Honduran democracy as part of their effort to force the reinstatement of deposed President Manuel Zelaya. Both sides knew that if that happened the electoral process would be in jeopardy.

The rule of law and popular representation pushing back statism. Beautiful, simply beautiful.

Ms. O'Grady continues that the election was

If not Hugo Chávez's Waterloo ... [it] marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman's expansionist agenda.

The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election.

I would add that the Obama White House is among the "losers in this drama."

Later in the piece she writes that:

At least the Obama administration figured out, after four months, that it had blundered. It deserves credit for realizing that elections were the best way forward, and for promising to recognize the outcome despite enormous pressure from Brazil and Venezuela. President Obama came to office intent on a foreign policy of multilateralism. Perhaps this experience will teach him that freedom does indeed have enemies.

I wish I was as optimistic as she is. I think that Obama has a lot more in common with Chavez than most people think. I judge the man by his associations and his deeds, more than his rhetoric.

From America.gov: the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, said the US was "disappointed" as it had hoped Honduran lawmakers would reinstate Mr Zelaya.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY VALENZUELA: Yes. Thanks very much. As you know, the Honduran congress voted yesterday not to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. We’re disappointed by this decision since the United States had hoped the Congress would have approved his return. And our policy since June 28 has been consistently principled, and we’ve condemned the coup d’état and have continued to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Honduras throughout this political crisis.

Private Sector Experience in the Obama Cabinet

Why am I not surprised that a pro-government anti-individual liberty person such as Obama would stack his cabinet with people with NO private sector experience.

This examination of Presidential cabinet members "includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all."

The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Unbelieveable, isn't it? In a time where the economy matters more than most; when the most important piece of legislation has tremendous private sector impact the man in charge of it all has no private sector experience and is surrounded by others with little to no private sector experience.

Progressives are Statists

Progressives / modern liberals / leftists have done much good in the social sphere, namely women and minority rights. However it is the progressive love affair with statism that is its biggest problem and why it is becoming indestiguishable from Socialism.

Obama is actually on record saying "the Constitution is fundamentally flawed"  It is fundamentally flawed for progressives because the founding fathers understood that too much government power, especially federal power, corrupts everyone and everything it touches. We see that very clearly today.

Obama, and other progressives, have no problem subverting the constitution at every turn while furthering their agenda of centralizing power in their hands.  The way to fight back is to stress the constitution - notice how little of it is actually taught in schools today; notice how rarely it is quoted in the esteemed main-stream media. 

A lot of people who align themselves with the statist left; who are truly opposed to an overreaching government -- especially in foreign affairs -- can be reached by pushing the cause of local government over that up-high federal solutions; what we who love the constitution call "States Rights." I don't think we should push the phrase states rights too strongly because it was the rallying cry of Southern Racists for too many years. Reclaiming that phrase is another battle that can be fought concurrently with devolving Federal Power under the cause of strengthening local government.

Is it wrong to ask if Obama is a closet Marxist?

Is it wrong to ask or suspect that Obama may be a closet Marxist or Communist? Absolutely not. He has too many close associates who are avowed Marxists. This does not make him a Marxist but it naturally brings up the question and the suspicion.

And, so you ask, who cares if they’re communists? Well, would you say the same thing if they were Nazis? To me they are the same thing. Yes there are differences, but the similarity to someone who believes in individual liberty is minimal.

Communists intern and kill the bourgeois. Nazis killed the Jews. The Nazis just took the abstraction of the bourgeois and associated it with “The Jew”. Both communists and Nazis abhor the concept of individual liberty and individual rights; both treat any form of dissent as traitorous and deserving of death or imprisonment. In short if you believe in individual liberty, in individual rights then you have nothing but contempt for both Nazis and Communists.

Of course there is a difference: Nazis believe in the union of the race; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the race. Communists believe in the union of the class; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the class. It is a major difference and we should celebrate said difference; but as an individualist; as someone who believes in individual freedom; as someone who feels the purpose of government is to uphold and safeguard individual rights and contracts I may understand and relish the intellectual arguments that separate Nazis and Communists. Nonetheless I have nothing but contempt and disdain for both philosophies and will not live peacefully under either.

Did I oversimplify the argument in the above paragraph? Of course I did. But I leave it to you, the supporters of either the Nazis or Communists to explain to me how “you” or your ideal government would treat an individual who disagrees with the norms being enforced by your ideal government.

You don’t like Republicans because they hate gays you say? Then why do you wear a Che t-shirt?

OBAMA'S FUNDAMENTAL DISLIKE OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Transcript (to the best of my ability and time constraints)

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had this same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and it to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Notice that he refers to the constitution in the past tense. To me this is the scariest and most disturbing aspect of this statement. What is the fundamental flaw of the US Constitution that continues to this day? Certainly not slavery that was taken care of with the 13th Ammendment.
 
I think it has everything to do with the fact that it is a pro-individual document which limits the power's of the government  and hinders the quick restructuring of society. Obama, I feel, is in love with the concept of the power of the state as a force for good and thinks that the proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." does not apply to him or other "forward-looking" progressives.

EDIT 10/28

I was bothered by Obama calling the US Constitution a "remarkable political document" but didn't fully flesh out my objections. I just read Kim Priestap's excellent post at the wizbangblog (October 27th).

Second, he calls the Constitution a "remarkable political document." I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way. The President of the United States is required to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. However, by listening to what Obama said in this interview and the 2001 interview that Steve posted earlier it's clear: he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/more-obama-audio-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw.php

Beautifully put.

That post led to another clip on Obama that I think ends once and for all any debate on what Obama means when he says that the constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Speaking of the Warren Court Obama said

"It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Anybody who thinks we have "positive" liberties -- an oxymoron in my opinion -- is a socialist. If you don't understand the above statement please read more philosophy and history books.

Hear Obama discussing the Warren Court below:

Obama and Iran

If Obama did say that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat to the US then it is hard to imagine how anybody could vote for him to be President of the United States. Such inane reasoning would be laughable in a State Senator. It is dismaying and repulsive in a US senator and would be dangerous beyond belief in a president.

This would be like saying in the 1930s that Japan and Germany weren't threats to the US because they were tiny countries.

It is true that the relative might of the US versus Iran is greater than the relative strengths of 1940 Japan and the US. Nonetheless we are not concerned about Iran launching traditional attacks on US soil. Iran is not going to send over its Air Force and bomb US cities. However there can be a co-ordinated series of attacks (snipers, bombs, suicide attacks and the like) by infiltrated Iranian soldiers.

Talking with Terrorists

Obama and the Democrats should not have reacted so negatively to Bush's comments about talking with terrorist states and organizations. This should not be an issue. Does anyone seriously believe that the US government has not been in contact with Iran and Hamas? Does anyone believe that the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations were not in contact with the Chinese government? Who believes that the first talks between the United States and China was when Nixon traveled there? The issue here is not back room discussions; the issue is with state visits. The only outcome of state visits is prestige being conferred upon despicable people and their organizations. It must be understood that there are situations where talking will not solve the problem, where there can be no common ground.

Say you were the mayor of a town and the KKK was gathering their forces saying that they would kill all the Niggers in the town. What sort of common ground can their be? What sort of compromise? Kill only half the Niggers in town? Insist that the KKK refrain from using the n-word and call all the black folks African-Americans or People of Color while they're being lynched?

No the only communication you could, or should, have with them is "Come here with that shit and we're going to kill you like the fucking rabid dogs you are."