Barack Hussein Obama Maintains an Enemies List

As Nation Celebrates Independence, Obama Tramples Conscience

by Keith Riler | Washington, DC | | 7/4/12

A prayer for this Fortnight for Freedom reminds us that we are “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” These cherished words from our Pledge of Allegiance now sound off-key and a bit unfamiliar. This admittedly is a blasphemous utterance. What’s up?

What’s up is an assault on every aspect of “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” by the Obama administration, which assault if successful could render our country unrecognizable.

One/indivisible. Jack Welch summarized President Obama’s divisive behavior well:

It was the insurance executives in health care. It was the bankers in the collapse. It was the oil companies as oil prices go up. It was Congress if things didn’t go the way he wanted. And recently it’s been the Supreme Court. He’s got an enemies list that would make Richard Nixon proud.

Jack forgot about the president’s attacks on the Cambridge police department, those making more than $200,000 a year, and stay-at-home moms. Given the sheer length of the list, Jack’s omissions are forgivable. We know that Barack Obama’s modus operandi is to first seek division. Real leaders build up and unite. He tears down and divides.

The president’s goal, executed through his HHS contraception edict, of splitting Catholics over their own teaching is one of the worst of his divisive offenses. As just a crass political move, the sowing of such discord is a manipulative, inappropriate, and awful use of the office of the president of the United States.

As a direct result of the example set by the president’s open season on Catholics, we now have the Freedom from Religion Foundation running division-seeking ads against the Catholic Church. “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church… Please Exit en Mass.”

Who might the next target be?

Under God. The president seeks to reduce the longstanding freedom of religion to a “freedom of worship,” effectively banishing religiously informed values and opinion from the public square. The HHS contraception edict explicitly attacks faith as a basis for decision-making.

As well, Obama’s insistence on having Christian religious symbols being hidden during his Georgetown speech, the administration’s favoring the losing side in the Hosanna-Tabor 9-0 case, and its shameful attack on a publicly prayerful pro-lifer are more examples of the president’s divisive quest to move us out from “under God.”

With liberty and justice for all. Describing the proper exercise of power, Joseph Pieper explained1:

It should … be perfectly clear and self-evident to the simplest kind of thinking that wherever prudence and justice are lacking, there can be no fitness for the proper exercise of power.

According to the moral doctrine of the West, the prudent man is certainly not merely a “tactician” able to steer an affair successfully to its conclusion. Prudence implies the kind of objectivity that lets itself be determined by reality, by insight into the facts.

Exercising … justice means, one the one hand, taking the common good into consideration and, on the other, respecting at the same time the dignity of the individual and giving him what is his due.

The Obama HHS mandate requires that individuals and organizations provide or pay for services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. These services include abortions, the provision of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception2. To the contrary, Catholic teaching requires that Catholics and Catholic organizations avoid both directly paying for and facilitating these practices.

We are at the point now where an individual who is morally opposed to abortion or contraception must pay an insurance premium so that others can abort and must purchase contraception for his or her employees.

By Pieper’s standard, the HHS actions are indefensible and, “to the simplest kind of thinking,” an unfit exercise of power. The actions are imprudent because there is no contraception problem. Studies demonstrate that increased contraception does not decrease pregnancies; it increases them. Even more basic, contraception is already plentifully available in the U.S. at little to no cost for women even of modest means. Target offers the pill for $9/month. Planned Parenthood offers free birth control pills, distributing contraception almost 4 million times a year.

The actions are also imprudent because the government has no compelling interest in selectively forcing individuals or organizations to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs — particularly given that the Obama administration has numerous alternatives to the HHS mandate, including paying for contraception through other programs established by duly enacted laws.

Contrary to President Obama, our founding fathers understood the rights of conscience well. As was noted by Thomas Jefferson, “[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority”3. The plentiful availability of contraception makes the HHS mandate unjust, and obnoxiously so, particularly since there is not a whiff of a common good argument for depriving individuals of their due freedom of religion and conscience. Thus, the HHS mandate not only violates, but derails “liberty and justice for all.”

Charles Chaput comments:

Religious freedom is a cornerstone of the American experience. This is so obvious that once upon a time, nobody needed to say it. But times have changed. So it’s worth recalling that Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson-in fact, nearly all the American founders-saw religious faith as vital to the life of a free people. Liberty and happiness grow organically out of virtue. And virtue needs grounding in religious faith.

These concepts of virtue and the good are important and real. But he whose will has become “distended by the exaggerated desire for the freedom of indeterminate choice” tends to lose sight of “the final end of the activity of freedom: delight in the possession of that which is loved”4. And we Americans love our freedoms of religion and conscience, not to mention our Pledge of Allegiance. On the contrary, eradication of objective moral standards and elimination of normative value systems and ideological spitefulness are neither good nor loved.

Our president has lost his way — losing sight of justice and prudence, virtue and good. As a result, “in this decisive hour in the history of our nation,” we are at the precipice of losing our freedoms of conscience and religion.

Unmoored from a good and loved end, it is no surprise that Obama policies are merely tactics adrift, leaving substantial damage in their wake. After three and a half years, it is clear that our tactician-in-chief is long on clever and short on good, rendering his cleverness worse than a waste.

Chesterton reminds us that “if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man”5. And of Napoleon, his brother Lucien commented, “I’ve long discerned in him a completely self-centered ambition that outstrips his love of the common good. I really believe in a free state, [hence] he is a dangerous man”6.

Thus far, President Obama has sought to dramatically rework “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” If he successfully strikes “one/indivisible,” “under God,” and “with liberty and justice for all;” we are left with “nation” — not quite the same ring, and certainly not what voters expected, but precisely the blank slate eagerly sought by those who would mold our lives in their image.

President Obama certainly has a right to believe that a civilized coexistence among (i) a secular state, (ii) the Church, and (iii) individuals who live their faith in the midst of the world is undesirable — but his efforts to terminate such a coexistence are a violation of our natural and constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

Had the president been honest about his intentions regarding “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” he might not be the president. Those who still love the nation described in our Pledge of Allegiance might keep that in mind in November.

Why Obama keeps an enemies list
July 01, 2012
Floyd & Mary Beth Brown, Bemidji Pioneer

When the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel exposed that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. President Richard Nixon and Sen. Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list, they just couldn’t understand it.

To understand it, you need to understand the abiding constant in the Obama political philosophy. In an America used to political expediency, the media and pundit class are having trouble coming to terms with the guiding philosophy of Obama.

To understand why Barack Obama attacks his enemies with unbridled viciousness, you have to come to terms with his true allegiance. Obama is committed to only one objective. He desires to move America to socialism, and he will sacrifice himself to make progress in the dialectic struggle of history. At his core Barack Obama isn’t a Christian or a Muslim, he isn’t a pacifist, he isn’t even a lightweight over his head. At his core Barack Obama is a socialist. Marxism is his religion.

Marxists have always been comfortable with using any means to keep and increase the power of the centralized state. Barack Obama is committed to using all the force of government and coercion to achieve his goals.

This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don’t even exist. He isn’t interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them or leaving office.

This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities he just dictates them through executive order. Don’t enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution’s old fashioned limits to executive power.

Obama has been bathed in Marxist philosophy his entire life. He was brought up in a home with a Marxist/atheist mother. He was mentored by a black nationalist communist in Hawaii named Frank Marshall Davis. He was trained as community organizer to employ the Marxist tactics of Saul Alinsky. He attended a church for 20 years headed by a black nationalist who despises capitalism and western civilization.

He was a member of the “New Party” when he ran for the state Senate in Illinois back in the mid-1990s. He denies this, but there are photos. The New Party was a group of leftists dedicated to destroying the free enterprise system and converting our country into a European Socialist welfare state.

Back in 1964 America faced a similar time for choosing, and Ronald Reagan traveled the country on behalf of Barry Goldwater who was then seeking the presidency. Reagan gave a speech called A Time for Choosing and it became a classic tract, joining the great speeches that have defined the American experience.

In this speech, Reagan issued a challenge that again confronts us, that again can guide us in selecting our next president and charting our nation’s course from here:

“This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves...

“A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Once again, it is a time for choosing.

Obama Another Nixon? Yes, According To Sen. Mitch McConnell

by Annie Pei
June 15th, 2012

In a Thursday interview with Fox News, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized President Barack Obama by branding his effort to silence critics as “Nixonian.”

McConnell’s statement was made in reference to the president’s alleged “enemies list,” which the Wall Street Journal claimed specifically identifies major donors to GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign. Titled “Behind the Curtain: A History of Mitt Romney’s Donors” the web item singles out eight individuals who have made significant monetary contributions to the Romney campaign. Thrown under the two headings “Donors who benefit from betting against America” and “Special-interest donors,” the list calls out individuals like Blackstone partner Paul “Chip” Schorr for outsourcing American firm services to India and PBF Energy CEO Paul O’Malley for fiddling with oil and commodities prices.

The list has sparked anger among GOP supporters who have since accused Obama of harassing Romney’s contributors.

“The campaign has rifled through one donor’s divorce records,” said McConnell. “They’ve got the IRS, the SEC and other agencies going after contributors, trying to frighten people and intimate them out of exercising their rights to participate in the American political discourse, which is being done by a lot of different groups, and no longer are they all on the political left.”

He also criticized top Obama aide David Axelrod for floating the idea of a constitutional amendment that would stem campaign spending. In McConnell’s eyes, the amendment would control “who gets to speak, and who doesn’t.”

“It’s really quite Nixonian. I think you’d have to go back to Richard Nixon to find the last time you had group of people both through the campaign and through the power of the fed government really trying to harass and silence critics, and I think they need to be called on it.”

McConnell’s accusation follows Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel’s allegation of the same nature, reflecting a deepening concern among the right about the Obama administration’s campaign tactics.

The President Has a List
Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign.

April 26, 2012
The Wall Street Journal
Kimberly Strassel

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.