Sunday, January 31, 2010
OBAMA HIGH COURT INSULT
January 30th, 2010
Among the many untruths and misstatements in his so-called State of the Union Address, Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court for issuing a ruling allowing foreign corporations to influence elections in the United States. The statement, which caused Democrats including Nancy Pelosi to rise and applaud, was a lie.
The next day the White house was forced to “clarify” this statement, saying that US companies owned by foreigners could contribute to political campaigns. That is also a lie and a new “clarification” had to be issued.
In the history of the nation, presidents have only mentioned the Supreme Court nine times in a State of the Union Address. In each instance, nothing antagonistic was said. Obama’s direct attack on the Supreme Court with the Justices present was a true first and shows Obama’s real temperament, one of anger and hostility to anyone he disagrees with.
source: The Religious Freedom Coalition is a non-profit educational organization head quartered in Washington, DC.
Among the many untruths and misstatements in his so-called State of the Union Address, Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court for issuing a ruling allowing foreign corporations to influence elections in the United States. The statement, which caused Democrats including Nancy Pelosi to rise and applaud, was a lie.
The next day the White house was forced to “clarify” this statement, saying that US companies owned by foreigners could contribute to political campaigns. That is also a lie and a new “clarification” had to be issued.
In the history of the nation, presidents have only mentioned the Supreme Court nine times in a State of the Union Address. In each instance, nothing antagonistic was said. Obama’s direct attack on the Supreme Court with the Justices present was a true first and shows Obama’s real temperament, one of anger and hostility to anyone he disagrees with.
source: The Religious Freedom Coalition is a non-profit educational organization head quartered in Washington, DC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)






An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.