Yes - they have the right to proceed over any objection, simply because the greater good of all others in that area takes precedence over that of a single objector. In fact they have the right to arrest the objector, and proceed with their search despite objection - which is a felony, by the way.
Horse manure. What law requires us to permit a search without a warrant based on "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" in the absence of either an immediate threat in that particular residence or a risk of the destruction of evidence? I am quite confident that no such law exists.
I don't know what your motive is for defending this extreme governmental overreach, but I would like to see you name the relevant court case that allowed fishing expeditions at multiple addresses or the law that requires an entire neighborhood to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights on demand. I didn't think even Obama or his supporters would go this far so soon, and I am sure there is no lawful precedent. I want to make sure this does not establish a precedent that is accepted by decent people.
BTW, It would not take much money to win the lawsuit if I was arrested for refusing to permit a warrantless search of my home when the police had no reason to believe their target was on my property. I would win that one, and as much as I despise lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, I would enjoy that one, because I would be defending fundamental human rights - the opposite of frivolous.