Originally posted at American Thinker
On April 21, 2022, Barack Obama spoke at a cyber symposium hosted by Stanford University. During that address, the former president attempted to redefine the meaning of free speech. Obama argued that in order to safeguard America from opinions he considers dangerous, government regulation of the First Amendment, via constitutional modification, was more than justified.
Fast forward two weeks, on May 3rd, after the news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court is close to overturning the decision Justice Samuel Alito called “egregiously wrong from the start,” Barack, along with his wife Michelle, immediately responded by contradicting the argument he made at Stanford.
Barack Obama had just decreed that, among other things, questioning the 2020 election result threatens democratic ideals and must be silenced through federal rule. Then when the Roe v. Wade information leaked, the former president did a 180-degree about-face and issued directives that if the highest court in the land decides Roe v. Wade is bad law and throws abortion back to the states, public rejection of the decision is necessary as well as exercising the First Amendment right to protest.
Simply put, depending on the ideological leaning of the topic, one week, the right to free speech should be restricted and the “flawed” Constitution adjusted, and the next week, the right to free speech exercised and the sacred Constitution protected.
The couple explained why that’s necessary in the following way:
Today, millions of Americans woke up fearing that their essential freedoms under the Constitution were at risk. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to overturn the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, then it will not only reverse nearly 50 years of precedent – it will relegate the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues.
That rant should have begun by ‘relegating’ “intensely personal decisions” to the ‘before you participate in the procreative act’ column. Next, the statement could have explained to America why the precedent set by the First Amendment in 1791 is less of a pattern for freedom than a poorly thought-out decision made in 1973?
Please note, when addressing the need to oppose this controversy, both Biden and Obama coincidentally mentioned the word “whims.”
Nevertheless, what Barack and Michelle failed to acknowledge in their quickly released communiqué was that there are “millions of [other] Americans” who’ve also woken up every day for the last 50 years and who lament the 62 million lives snuffed out “under [the auspices of a] Constitution” established to protect both “life and liberty,” neither of which was meant to exclude one from the other. Those Americans are thankful that at least on the federal level, the “essential freedoms under the Constitution” will also apply to the 3,000 unborn Americans whose lives are “at risk” every single day.
What Obama shared, as if it was settled truth, was that despite 98% of all abortions being solely for convenience’s sake, he and his wife believe the more than 60 million women who disposed of 20% of the current U.S. population did not approach the decision “lightly.” How he knows that statistic is anyone’s guess.
Ironically, Obama’s statement also argued that ceasing federal support for abortion “pose[s] grave risks” to the health, fertility, and life of – wait for it – schoolgirls without cars and poor working women who choose abortion over the lives of their children.
Wait! Isn’t the former president amongst those who insist federal control of gun ownership ensures the “grave risks” posed by guns would be eliminated? If that’s true, and government equals safety and the assurance that illegal firearms will be impossible to access if gun laws are enacted, why then doesn’t the same hold true when it comes to access to illegal abortion? If restricting guns saves American lives, so should restricting abortion.
Shelly and Barry reminded anyone who might disagree with whatever self-contradictory thing they think or say here:
A clear majority of Americans support Roe. Yet we recognize that while many are angry and frustrated by this report, some of those who support Roe may feel helpless and instinctively turn back to their work, or families, or daily tasks – telling themselves that because this outcome may have been predictable, there’s nothing any of us can do.
Is trust in a “clear majority” why Obama feels comfortable floating a subliminal suggestion that anarchist types not “turn back to their work” but instead participate in Alinsky-style chaos on behalf of those who make up less than 2% of the annual abortion statistics – namely rape victims, and women who require medically-necessary abortions?
Fostering outrage as potential fuel for another summer of pre-election violence, the community agitator then recommended everyone, including women without transportation and money, exercise the freedom of speech he had called dangerous at Stanford, skip either school or work, and attend local pro-abortion protests and campaigns. And to “act,” not just “think about these people,” by “standing” with those like himself who have “sounded the alarm” for decades that the federally-funded butchery was in danger of being shut down.
In ‘Born Alive’ Barack’s sphere of influence, policy disagreement now translates into “fascism” and forced submission to subhuman government fiat is viewed as “democracy.” Thus, assured his convincing skills are sufficient, Obama must feel comfortable omitting data that explains who and why women have abortions and state as a fact that a “clear majority of Americans” consensus exists of people who without exception support the unfettered slaughter and incineration of living human beings.
Let’s face it, radicals like Barack and Michelle despise the type of democracy they claim they want to preserve. Not once in that strongly written statementdid the couple appeal to the opposing side, or advocate for personal accountability, express respect for human life, or call for a calm, measured response until the court’s decision is finalized.
So, there you have it, the man who recently suggested the Supreme Court needs to revamp the Constitution and redefine the First Amendment is now contradicting his own convoluted argument by warning that the same court he hoped would revise the First Amendment, now be opposed with a heavy-handed outworking of “free speech.”
Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; many of us have created some nice methods and we are looking to trade methods with other folks, why not shoot me an e-mail if interested.
Wow, this article is good, my sister is analyzing these things, thus I am going to inform her.
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.
Does your website have a contact page? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail. I’ve got some recommendations for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we communicate?
Nice answer back in return of this query with real arguments and describing everything about that.
If you wish for to take a great deal from this piece of writing then you have to apply such strategies to your won blog.
I think this is one of the such a lot significant information for me. And i’m satisfied reading your article. However want to observation on few common things, The website taste is great, the articles is in reality excellent : D. Just right task, cheers
Hi it’s me, I am also visiting this web site regularly, this site is in fact pleasant and the people are really sharing nice thoughts.
Hi there i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anywhere, when i read this post i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible post.
For latest news you have to visit world-wide-web and on world-wide-web I found this web site as a best site for most up-to-date updates.
I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also go to see this webpage on regular basis to take updated from most recent news.
Currently it seems like BlogEngine is the top blogging platform out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the images aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different browsers and both show the same results.
Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this post and the rest of the site is extremely good.
Yes! Finally something about %keyword1%.
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find
this topic to be really something which I think
I would never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad
for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I
will try to get the hang of it!
It’s an remarkable piece of writing for all the web viewers; they will get benefit from it I am sure.
Hi! I’ve been following your web site for a long time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Lubbock Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the great job!
Hi, I do believe this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it 😉 I will come back once again since I book-marked it. Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.
Great blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog shine. Please let me know where you got your design. Cheers
For newest news you have to visit world wide web and on internet I found this website as a best website for newest updates.