Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama to SCOTUS -- "You Suck"

From an NYT (imagine that) opinion article on The Obama SCOTUS Diss:
Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.”
As opposed to anti-capitalist, anti-American community organizer who present themselves and are treated as the representatives of people who do not necessarily share or even know all of their views, but claim their numbers anyway.    Or how about the fact that the Obama campaign took down any checks on who was contributing through the website -- you could be from China, Saudi Arabia, Iran ... put down any name you want.  The donation would go through.   So much better to have foriegn operatives contributing than American Corporate interests.

Mr. Obama came came from the Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Cloward & Piven, Jeramiah Wright school of "tear the system down". Much is made of his "Constitutional Scholar" "Taught Constitutional Law" background.  I think in his study of the constitution he probably spent a lot of time arguing over such things what the meaning of the word "is" is so that he can make it "mean" what he wants it to mean. Kinda like FDR did. And FDR did slam the Supreme Court when it did it's job and started striking down policies that were unconstitutional -- you know, doing it's job as a check on the other two branches of the Government. So FDR then tried to stack the Supreme Court. He looked for loopholes in the letter of the law to deliberately circumvent its intent.

I read "Rules for Radicals".  I could teach a class and lecture on it, but it doesn't mean I support Alinsky or believe in what he believes in.

Teaching a class on it means nothing with respect to your intentions or your core beliefs. He may know the Constitution like the back of his hand, but he learned it with an eye toward how he can make it turn inside out on itself, that is apparent.

I maintain that, as usual, he was intentionally imprecise -- as a "Constitutional Scholar", he knows it not to be true. As a disciple of Alinsky, he doesn't care. He knew he had a big national audience, and that's the message he wants out. And he's always vague and imprecise in his trademark "soaring" (teleprompter-driven) rhetoric -- so that he can't be nailed down on anything. He's far slicker than even Slick Willie....
"This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”"
Fortunately, he's also arrogant. It's when he speaks off the cuff in settings he believes to be friendly where you get insight on where the man is really coming from -- and that's where he's gotten himself into the most trouble.


Cylar said...

"So much better to have foriegn operatives contributing than American Corporate interests."

Because those foreign governments are the ones that Obama considers friendly to his ideology, remember?

This sounds eerily familiar. Remember the 1996 presidential election when Gore got caught red-handed soliciting Chinese foreign campaign contributions from US government property? Remember Charlie Yah Lin Trie? Something AWFULLY familiar about all this.

philmon said...

Oh, I think Hillary had questionable Chinese contributors this time around as well.

Oh -- I purposely picked those governments. It could be anyone. France, Australia ... but it could also be the ones I mentioned.