Barack Obama: The Mendacity of Hope, Pt. III

Obama's record and rhetoric on civil liberties are examined. Obama proves to be more of a statist than a civil libertarian.
by Stephen McDuffy
(libertarian)
Saturday, May 2, 2009

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution¹." - Barack Obama

The first installment in this series dealt with President Barack Obama's cabinet and staff choices, showing that he has surrounded himself with some of the most authoritarian, atavistic war-mongers and fear-mongers in modern American politics, and the second installment showed that Obama's foreign policy posture is not significantly dissimilar to George W. Bush's.

This third installment is going to identify the voluminous problems with Obama's record and rhetoric on civil liberties. In tackling this subject, I confess that I was surprised to learn how illiberal Obama is. I cannot get into great detail in a medium such as this, nor can I  cover all of various issues I found. I chose to address  only my very worst complaints with Obama, which I think more than makes a case against this president.

Liberals and civil-libertarians, I will let you know when you can exhale again.

Obama, Religious Freedom, Free Speech, Free Press and the Right To Petition
Obama’s expansion of George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives may seem innocuous enough, until you realize that it’s unconstitutional and thus illegal². There is no provision in Article II of the Constitution—the article that created the Office of the Presidency—that allows the president to create any such thing as a faith-based initiative program or a so-called Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Liberals and civil libertarians cannot possibly agree with Obama on the necessity or the legality of this program, even if they—unlike me—think it's a First Amendment issue.

During the 2008 election season, the right-wing press went ballistic over Obama's attempts at restricting free speech and the left responded mostly by laughing the accusations off, or occasionally going ballistic themselves. The research I did doesn’t make it clear that Obama holds free speech in high esteem. There is, for example, the Obama Campaign’s call for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project, a political action group organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, for their ad campaign that purported to prove a link between Obama and radical anti-war activist, Bill Ayers.

And then there was the ad hoc, Orwellian Obama Truth Squad, composed of Missouri politicians, prosecutors and police, who worked closely with the Obama Campaign, to ensure that anti-Obama 'soft-money' groups were threatened with the guns of government if they dared run ads the Truth Squad declared to be false—which would very likely include any and all advertisements critical of their beloved avatar. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama Campaign lawyers threatened media outlets with FCC license revocation if they ran a TV commercial, produced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that supposedly made false claims about Obama's voting record on gun control³.

Senator Obama’s 2007 vote against grassroots lobbying didn’t raise the dander of very many people nor was it an issue during the 2008 election campaign, and that's unfortunate. At issue was the Bennett Amendment to the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 1). This amendment struck from the bill a provision that would have required issue advocacy groups like Gun Owners of America and Downsize DC to monitor and report all communications with members and benefactors. It's not hard put the pieces together to see how this could have led to pernicious government intrusions, such as demanding membership lists. The Bennett Amendment passed, no thanks to Obama. Had the Bennett Amendment not passed, it would have retarded the First Amendment right to petition.

Obama and FISA
Credit here goes to Glenn Greenwald, without whom I wouldn't have even half the knowledge of this issue that I do.

FISA was an act of Congress signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 that allow for electronic and physical surveillance of agents of foreign powers. The act originally placed strict requirements on federal agent. The third amendment to FISA occurred in 2008. Aside from allowing warrantless wiretapping of anyone, at anytime, the 2008 amendment provided retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that had spied on Americans at the behest of the Bush Administration.

This section could get long—very long—and it could get very confusing. Therefore, I have decided to simplify things, and state only the facts (and one opinion, italicized), in bullet point form, with links to the sources.

• "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," so said an Obama Campaign spokesman in October of 2007 in a statement concerning then-candidate Obama's position on any proposed Senate FISA legislation, but then...
• Eight months later, in July 2008, Obama voted for cloture (against filibustering) a bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, and then, with apparent alacrity, voted with Senate Republicans for the bill. Meanwhile...
  
• Six months before that vote, Obama unambiguously promised that, if elected, there would be no warrantless wiretaps, and yet...
• In April of 2009, Obama’s DoJ submitted a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, and in doing so, made arguments that were more fascistic and unconstitutional than anything ever conceived of by the Bush Administration.

These are the facts, and they are clear: Obama is no friend of the right to privacy. Remember that Obama voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization bill, after making a typically powerful speech on the floor of the Senate, criticizing the Patriot Act.

Also, keep in mind that this happened on Obama's watch, as did this.

Obama and Torture
In 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary, on behalf of five individuals who claim to have been abducted by the CIA, taken to a foreign country, and cruelly tortured. The Bush Department of Justice (DoJ) prevented these individuals from having their day in court, citing "state secrets". In February of 2009, the Obama Administration decided that Bush's policies were just dandy.

Worse yet, this wasn't the first time Obama endorsed or enabled torture. In 2005, Obama voted for the Graham-Levin amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act. The Graham-Levin Amendment allows evidence obtained through torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees to be used by the Department of Defense in determining their status as detainees. The amendment also prevents detainees from legally challenging their detainment or the treatment they receive, leaving no legal recourse for detainees who are treated inhumanely thus completely abrogating their right of habeas corpus.

And speaking of habeas corpus, Candidate Obama expressed his belief in, and pledged his support for, the full reinstatement of habeas corpus, and yet, just a few short months later, President Obama’s DoJ filed a brief that is legally identical to the Bush Administration’s position on habeas—this time regarding detainees in Afghanistan.

Obama and Real ID
In June of 2007, there was a vote in the Senate to kill the Baucus-Tester Amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639). The Amendment would have struck from the bill several expansions of the Real ID Act. Obama voted for the Baucus-Tester Amendment, which failed by a razor-thin margin. Right-wing Senator Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment, thus solidifying her credentials as an anti-freedom state-worshipper.

Given Obama's opposition to the Baucus-Tester Amendment, civil libertarians assumed that he was on their side. That was an error on their part. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama clearly stated his position on Real ID when he said, "I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program." I fail to see, in this statement, an indication that Obama had any visceral reaction to Real ID, based on his respect for privacy rights. The obvious corollary of this statement is that Obama might support Real ID if an amendment is made to the act that helps states pay for and implement the program.

Obama and Gun Rights
Obama's nebulous position(s) on gun rights won't really raise the hackles of the most left-of-center Democrats at which this series of articles is mostly aimed, but, being aware of the fact that there is such thing as a 'gun-totin'-liberal⁴', I feel compelled to submit a little relevant information on this issue. Besides, despite what the ACLU says, gun ownership is a civil liberties issue.

During his time in the Illinois Senate, Obama supported a plethora of gun-control measures, including a gun-a-month bill, a ban on so-called 'assault weapons', and a bill that would preclude law-abiding gun-owners from claiming self-defense if they discharge a firearm during the course of defending themselves from an intruder⁵. Illinois State Senator Obama also voted for a bill that would require applicants for a firearms card to meet with police. While in the US Senate, Obama voted for a bill requiring gun retailers to sell trigger locks with every handgun.

I would be less than honest if I didn't report that Obama did cast one single pro-gun vote in the Senate—and it was a big one: He voted for the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441). This amendment provided that no federal money shall be allocated for the confiscation of privately owned firearms during an emergency. Surprisingly, his future Vice President also voted for the Vitter Amendment, though future Sec. of State Hillary Clinton voted against it. Additionally, when Obama was an Illinois State Senator, he voted to allow retired military personnel and police to carry concealed weapons.

Obama and the War on Drugs
Obama surrounded himself with drug warriors, including Rahm Emanuel who once said that he believes that marijuana "is a genuinely dangerous drug when it comes to kids. I’ll show you data after data that kids who go onto to harder drugs started off with marijuana," and Nixonian drug warrior Joe Biden, who was instrumental in creating the position of "drug czar". The selection of Biden and Emanuel is peculiar in light of the fact that in 2004, Obama stated, "In terms of legalization of drugs, I think that the battle—the war on drugs has been an utter failure and I think that we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."

Now, admittedly Obama said "decriminalize" not 'legalize'. Still yet, it is likely that anti-drug war voters supported Obama, thinking that he was the candidate most likely to reform or overhaul existing drug laws. Unfortunately for these voters, the 2009 version of Obama obviously thinks that marijuana legalization advocates are the punchline to an absurd joke.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama assured voters that under an Obama Administration, no DEA raids would be conducted on marijuana users or suppliers in states that had passed medical marijuana laws. Unfortunately, Obama broke that promise almost immediately and most recently, Obama's Department of Justice affirmed that prosecution of medical marijuana providers would continue as they did under the Bush Administration.

I am reminded of the 1992 Presidential Campaign, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore made speeches all across the country dropping subtle hints that perhaps the drug war should be prosecuted differently. Indeed, it was prosecuted differently under Clinton: it escalated. More non-violent drug offenders were sent to prison during the 8 years of Clinton than during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

Conclusion
Liberals and civil libertarians: you can exhale now.

I took the liberty of giving Obama the Nolan Chart test, using his own articulation of his positions and the votes he cast in his one, abbreviated, undistinguished term in the Senate. This is the result:

I would imagine that most Obama voters would find themselves in the grey or blue part of the Nolan Chart diamond (to find out, take the Nolan Chart survey: The World's Smallest Political Quiz). I'm sorry, centrist and liberal democrats, your icon has deceived you. I've been there. You have gotten the government you deserve and it doesn't feel good.

It's difficult to imagine that McCain, had he been elected, would have pursued a radically different course than the duplicitous Barack Obama, or that he would have pursued it with more gusto. McCain was and is for corporate bailouts, the troop surge in Afghanistan, continued occupation of Iraq, hostile relations with Iran, attenuated and abrogated civil liberties at home, etc. The only major difference I can see between McCain and Obama is that McCain was against torture.

As a former liberal democrat myself, I sympathize with you. It's not easy reconciling the fact that the liberal hero you voted into office is, in actuality, a neoconservative war hawk—or more accurately: a chicken hawk. I can see where Obama should be a  great disappointment to left-of-center Democrats, but I honestly cannot understand why any Bush/McCain/Palin supporter would have much of a problem with this president.

Oops, America, You Really Did Elect a Communist!
Prior to actually looking at Obama's rhetoric and record, I had been saying that Obama was more of a fascist than a communist, but I discovered this 2001 interview with Obama on WBEZ, a public radio station in Chicago. During the course of this interview, Obama offered a chilling assessment of the Warren-era Supreme Court, saying that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society". Get that? According to Obama, political and economic justice means redistribution of wealth. Obama then went on to register a complaint about the 1960s civil rights movement, saying it lost "track of the community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that." As William Grigg observed, "This is an elaborate way of saying that a "community organizer" is what less sophisticated people would call a Communist agitator."

UPDATE: Obama Administration may re-start the Bush military tribunals that he criticized while senator.

Notes
1. Not only is this statement an obvious non sequitur, but where is the evidence for it? What we know of Obama indicates that he very likely regards the Constitution as a ‘damned piece of paper’, as his predecessor was reputed to have said.

2. I am not using the First Amendment Establishment Clause argument, because I don’t think it applies here. The Establishment Clause forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion, and a fortiori, it thus forbids the president from signing any such law. However, this isn’t a case of a law being passed. This is a case of the two presidents going far beyond the scope of their constitutional duties as outlined in Article II of that pesky document.

3. I am not usually the biggest fan of FOXNews (though I do love the online-only news and commentary show Freedom Watch, with Judge Andrew Napolitano), however, in this case, FOXNews did a very good job analyzing Obama's record on guns, and refuting the criticisms of the Washington Post and www.factcheck.org. I confess I haven't looked into this issue as much as I should have, but if the NRA ad is misleading, I must wonder what they thought they could accomplish by engaging in mendacity. 

4. An interesting little anecdote about the 'gun-totin' liberal' concept: I was driving cross-country once, and stopped in a small town. I pulled up to a red-light and there were two cars in front of me, side-by-side. One had a bumper sticker that said (something to the effect of) "Annoy a Liberal: Buy a Gun!" and the other had a bumper-sticker that said "Gun Totin' Liberal".

5. The law only affected municipalities that had a handgun ban in effect.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
17 thumbs so far

Facebook Share: Share

Share on Twitter

©2009 Stephen McDuffy, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, May 2, 2009
Last modified: Friday, October 14, 2011

The views expressed in this article are those of Stephen McDuffy only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Stephen McDuffy is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Stephen McDuffy of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.