Posts Tagged ‘Samuel Alito’

Democrats Are Demon-Possessed Moral Cockroaches. Not By My Standards But By THEIR Standards.

February 1, 2017

I lived through the eight miserable years of Obamunist tyranny.  I lived through the eight years where a party that calls itself “Democratic” demonstrated again and again that it had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with “democracy.”  I lived through the mainstream media gang-piling on anyone who in any way didn’t support Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical agenda as “obstructionists” and yes, even as “terrorists.”  Not to mention bigots and racists and every other hateful name under the sun.

For the Democrats, Barack Obama was “our president,” the “President of the United States of America.”  And Republicans OWED him their full loyalty and support.

I remember vividly the vicious riots that took place in Washington D.C. the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated as president.  Oh, wait a second.  That never happened.  It didn’t happen until butthurt Nazi liberal Democrats rioted the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. and 230 Democrats were charged with rioting as the protests got evil.

Amazingly, six “journalists” were among the rioters.  Because according to the mainstream media, to be a “journalist” today means to be a propagandist hack who rabidly hates Donald Trump and tries to ignite and incite mass violence against him.  Let’s be clear, they weren’t cleared of rioting because they didn’t riot; they were cleared of rioting because they were “journalists” and therefore allowed to riot.

“Based on the facts and circumstances, we determined that probable cause existed to support the filing of felony rioting charges,” said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in a statement about the 230 arrested. The office, which enforces criminal laws in Washington, D.C., would not comment on the actions of the six journalists.

Most “journalists” have dispensed with even any PRETENSE of objectivity.  I love this title because it’s so illustrative of what is going on: “NY Times writer who urged journalists to abandon objectivity to defeat Trump now says media needs ‘new strategy to cover him.’”  Hell, one of the “new strategies” being joining in rioting.  It really doesn’t surprise me at all they would join in the rioting with the rioters.  I can almost hear them saying, “Based on our reporting, you should loot and burn THIS building next!”

In the same way, I remember the day AFTER the Obama inauguration when a million angry activist showed up to protest the very Obama presidency.

Oh, wait.  That was Democrats too.

And I remember how Republicans employed every single vile trick that doesn’t exist in any playbook but the devil’s to obstruct and block President Obama from being able to appoint his cabinent because, after all, Republicans are obstructionists, right???

Oh, crap.  No.  Geez, I’m sorry.  Republicans had most of Obama’s administration in their positions right away.  That spirit of obstructionism and treason where a party that has been voted out of power tries to block every single thing the elected president tries to do is the spirit of Butthurt Nazism a.k.a. the Democratic Party.  It’s Democrats who are blocking and obstructing.   And Democrats, being Democrats, are the ones taking partisan, obstructionist, butthurt Nazi hissy fit to a new level: they are now refusing to do their basic job and even bother to show up at committee hearings.  Because to be a Democrat is to say, “If I violate the Constitution, If I violate the legitimate political process, if I violate the will of the people, I’ll get my wicked way.”

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

Back in 2009 I was pointing out what a total, abject LIE the heart of the Obama promise to America had turned out to be.  This guy was so damn partisan that it was beyond unreal from the moment he took office.  And yet  The New York Times had written of Obama as candidate:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Was Obama EVER a man capable of rising above partisan politics?  No.  Not even CLOSE.  Absolutely not.  As an easy example of that, as a Senator he was one of THE most radical liberal-progressives and unsuccessfully tried to filibuster Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.  Even Obama’s own party at that point acknowledged that what Obama tried to do was way, WAY too radical.

And so:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president.  And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

Through his press mouthpiece, Obama as president would ultimately – and cowardly – come to say he “regretted” his decision to be one of the most leftist partisan members of the U.S. Senate when his own damn tactics were brought up in his face to reveal the utter and abject moral hypocrisy that is “Democratic Party.”

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see.  Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it.  Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

Let’s go back to Joe Biden: Because We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

As we talk about the Republican response to Obama’s selection of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in an election year and the consequences of the Republican response today, allow me to take you on a trip down hypocrite Democrat lane from what I wrote at that time:

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”???  Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS.  Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster.  The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.  Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected.  These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.”  And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them.  And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

Democrats promise they will use the slander-tactic that they invented now known as “Borking”: This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

In the same manner, Justice Clarence Thomas literally faced down the Ku Klux Klan as a child who grew up as the child of a poor sharecropper in a house with a dirt floor – only to find the Democrats’ more evil and more psychotic and more dishonest.  As an example, the modern Klan monsters are BLACK Democrats who were willing to lynch Thomas for the sin of having a white wife.  And Democrats said in their vote, “You don’t get to do that and survive, uppity negro.”  They manufactured the very first “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves” by finding a backstabbing woman who had followed Judge Thomas from job to job for YEARS only to claim that he sexually harassed her the entire time that she had willingly kept following him.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise.  Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting.  It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei.  Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality.  You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

I have used the word “Nazi” to describe Democrats.  Because a modern-day Democrat IS a Nazi who has TEN TIMES the holocaust horror show in the abortion mills with sixty million murdered human beings.  I started seeing Democrats viciously attacking people who had merely exercised their 1st Amendment right to attend a peaceful campaign rally for the political candidate of their choiceI saw multiple examples of this across the nation.  I came to discover Democrats literally used the same tactics Hitler used in his own rise to power by employing goons and thugs to violently disrupt GOP political rallies.  They did that at the very highest levels, up to Obama, the White House, Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  Do you realize how utterly treasonous to the spirit of democracy, to our Constitution, to our way of life, that is???Democrats today are actually now even MORE violent than the people who still bear the name “Nazi.”  That’s how VILE these roaches are.  So when I call Democrats “Nazis,” it’s NOT merely allegorical, or figurative: it is a statement of proven fact as this Democratic Party has become an utterly rabid, toxic hate machine.

Democrats are people who will say one thing with a self-righteous frenzied rabidity.  How DARE you not support our president?  And then – because abject moral HYPOCRISY is the defining trait of every single Democrat in America – they will just as self-righteously and with just as much frenzied rabidity go back on everything they said when it had been convenient for them to say it.

Conservatives, and just plain ordinary decent people, have got to rise up the way our forefathers rose up against this kind of evil.  And yes, we have to be willing to fight these people on their own vicious terms.  You tried to bring hell to us, and it is past time for us to bring hell home to you Democrats where it truly belongs.

One of the things that most offends me is that, if Republicans win, we install judges who actually follow the Constitution.  But if Democrats win, they install judges who will read their extreme political agendas into every law they want to.    That’s kind of analogous to a football game where one team got to use machine guns against the other team; it creates a rather unequal playing field.  Justice Scalia described this history and issued a warning some years back:

He added that the role of a Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law, not inventing it.
“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.
Discussing pro-abortion judges who created a right to abortion, Scalia warned her, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

Even arch-feminist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has repeatedly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast” and was a terrible decision in terms of our legal process.  She also acknowledged her own Democrat-racist view that Roe v. Wade was to eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Why shouldn’t an arch-conservative justice not be able to impose a terrible law out of an immoral philosophy the way liberal judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did???

That regret Scalia described needs to start happening now.  Democrats need to be viciously punched hard in the face with their own system of interpretation that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that means whatever the hell the most rabid right wing judge WANTS it to mean.  When you have one side telling the other that a woman has the right to murder a man’s child and that man has no right whatsoever to stop it but has to support that child if the “mother” somehow doesn’t murder her own child; when you have one side telling the other that homosexuals and transgenders have every right in the book but Christians don’t even have the right to live according to their most deeply held morality according to a Bible that defined our entire civilization for two thousand years – all in rabid violation of every sacred Constitutional principle – something truly depraved and evil has occurred.  And it’s long past time to STOP it.  Thomas Jefferson WARNED this would happen.  And tragically the ONLY way to stop it now is to start fighting fire with fire: If a few right wing justices truly begin to show up who read their OWN intent into the Constitution the way liberal judges have done for decades, it will be the equivalent of what happened when the Allies started reciprocating with the same poison gas the Germans had inflicted on them, such that they both agree to cease-and-desist.

I would submit that we pass a law today that when Donald Trump is out of office, the next president will not have to face the kind of garbage that I have documented above.  That any Senator who tries to Bork or Thomas a nominee for the Supreme Court will go to prison and face hard time for abusing the power of the office through slander; to pass a law banning the filibuster or the nuclear option; to ban executive orders that defy the law and the clear intent of the Congress that alone is supposed to have the power to make the law, the way Obama kept imposing; that sort of thing.  I believe we should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the time of a Supreme Court appointment to a specified period of years.  And I say “After Trump” because Obama got to enjoy this power for eight years, and it is only fair and legitimate that the people that Democrats pissed on get to piss on them now.

I WARNED you liberal progressives that eventually a right wing president would come along who would make you scream in anguish; I IMPLORED you to stop being naked fascists.  But for eight years you allowed Obama to ram his agenda through by imperia fiat.  And now the shoe is on the other foot, because to quote Obama, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, WE won.”  And so if President Donald Trump issues the following two executive orders: one declaring the Democratic Party is the party of treason and terrorism; and the other being the “Hunt Every Democrat Down with Dogs and Burn Them ALIVE Act,” then you shouldn’t even have the damn right to request an extension to the two-minute head start before we unleash the dogs.

Advertisements

Obama Continues To Demonize: This Time The U.S. Supreme Court

January 28, 2010

Since I wrote this (but before I posted it) we have a Supreme Court Justice responding to Obama’s continued demagoguery of SCOTUS.

Obama was saying:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.”  In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue.  You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you.  He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”?  You become the enemy of the religion.  And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”?  Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy.  Damn free speech!  Damn First Amendment!  Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

Let’s agree with Barry Hussein’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s take on it instead (see the embedded video):

“When you think about the First Amendment…you think it’s highly overrated.”

That joke dismissing the First Amendment was about as funny as Josef Stalin’s kneeslapper:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

Here’s an important question: Just why is our demagogic president and his lackeys so unhinged over this decision?

It comes back to the idea of his racist, Marxist, anti-American reverend’s words about “chickens coming home to roost“:

From the previously cited New York Times article:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser.  When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.  Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations.  One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked.  Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

Why is it “striking at our democracy itself” to finally allow corporations to have a voice against a president who has given one sweetheart deal after another to labor unions, while working toward giving labor unions the right to force unions on businesses without a legitimate private vote via card check?

Here’s another example: one of the top bankruptcy attorneys in the country has stated that the Obama White House threatened to destroy his firm using the mainstream media if it continued to oppose Obama’s “Take my offer or else” offer for Chrysler investors.

Here’s another one: Humana was attacked, demonized, and handed an illegal gag order for trying to correct the record as the White House levied lies against it.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond.  They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition.  By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

This is an important fact:

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.”  They don’t like businesses.  And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.”  Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count.  And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.

Supreme Court Justice Mouths ‘That’s Not True’ To Lying Obama Speech

January 27, 2010

Remember Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You LIE!” retort during Obama’s last speech in the Capitol Building?  Wilson’s statement was about the only honest thing said throughout the speech.  And Joe Wilson’s honest rebuke of Obama’s lies netted him at least $2.7 million in contributions.

Well, now we have our new “Joe Wilson” – coming straight from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed response of “That’s not true” to Obama’s demagoguery:

Politico sets up the moment:

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

Basically, if the Supreme Court says it’s legal to murder 50 million babies, the Democrats claim that the voice of God has spoken – and that ruling cannot be questioned.  But if that very same court says that corporations have a right to exercise free speech, then THAT’S an abortion of justice.

Obama’s denunciation of the Supreme Court in a venue in which they could not defend themselves – and with a line that was intended to generate a Democrat standing ovation all around them – was a despicable disrespect of our separate branches of government as well as being rude.  The Justices showed up for Obama’s speech out of courtesy for the executive and legislative branches; they did not show up to be attacked.

Just as Joe Wilson was CORRECT in his contention that Barack Obama had lied, Justice Alito was correct in pointing out that Obama had not told the truth.  A central claim in Obama’s slanderous attack against the Supreme Court decision was that foreign corporations would be able to influence the political process.  But that isn’t true:

Another area of interest is the possible effect of this decision on foreign political spending in U.S. elections. It is important to note (as much public comment on this decision does not) that under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited under section 441e of the statute, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in Citizens United. Thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign. Further, the U.S. subsidiaries of international companies are already subject to FEC restrictions on spending non-U.S. funds in U.S. elections, or allowing foreign nationals a role in the decision-making process. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

An article in Big Journalism sets up the legitimate major issues (as opposed to Obama’s illegitimate demagoguery) surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling:

Lost in most of the coverage of the decision (and conveniently ignored by President Obama, former “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School), is that, as Justice Kennedy points out, the ban on electioneering speech never applied to one type of corporation. And what type of corporation would be exempt from laws and regulations that chill the speech of all its corporate brethren? Why, the media corporation, as Justice Kennedy points out on page 35 of the opinion:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

The author of the above article contends that big media will be hurt by this ruling, since presently they are the only corporations that get free speech, and therefore are the only corporations that get to speak for all the other corporations through the filter of their liberal biases.

It’s also more than a little hypocritical for Obama to wax so self-righteous now when he had so little problem accepting all kinds of campaign contributions that in all likelihood included foreign money without every bothering to check.

And, of course, the very big-media corporations who were alone allowed to exercise their free speech never bothered to look at the Obama foreign money issue.

You want to hear the REAL reason Obama is so angry at this decision?  Because he is finally bothered by the notion that one’s chickens can come “home to roost.”

From the New York Times:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Obama has repeatedly demonized entire industries (banks, auto manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, etc.).  And now a whopping 77% of investors believe that Obama is anti-business.

So it will be something of a textbook case of poetic justice that the businesses that Obama viciously attacked finally get their own shot at being able to attack him for a change.