Source: Jeannie DeAngelis

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.

Trending: DOJ Establishes ‘Office Of Environmental Justice’

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 statement did 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.”