Posted on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:33pm By GavinoSo much for changing the tone and style in Washington, DC. Even as he implored others to play nicely, President Obama was chastising America’s Supreme Court Justices on live television during his State of the Union lecture on Wednesday – and getting his facts hopelessly wrong in the process.
Are Americans tiring of the style as well as the substance?
For a President to attack the Justices during this annual address is unprecedented. In such a setting, of course, the Justices have no opportunity to respond. The President was no doubt counting on his own backbenchers to applaud the admonishment, which they did, adding insult to injury. Hugo Chavez would have been pleased with such a show.
Barack Obama said: “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. 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.”
This is political clanger. The Court ruled unconstitutional parts of new laws, passed recently, not a century ago. A ban on political donations from foreign corporations was untouched by the Court. Nothing in the Court’s verdict allows American elections to be underwritten by foreign entities.
But behind the gross disrespect and the gross error is an equally gross irony. There was a major beneficiary of foreign donations during America’s 2008 election campaign: Barack Obama. Millions of dollars were provided to his campaign through credit card payments over the internet that could not be traced but are believed to have come in large part from outside of America.
If Americans should be deciding American elections, the President should be closing the loophole that allowed him to be “bankrolled” by overseas money.
For the time being, Americans like Barack Obama’s style more than his substance. The President’s popularity is hovering in the 48-50 per cent range, which is higher than many of his policies, particularly ObamaCare. But this won’t hold up if Americans tire of his lectures, recoil against his personal attacks and become wise to his hypocrisy.
As his style becomes more prominent in the minds of Americans, this remaining pillar of the President’s popularity is likely to tumble too.
My vote for the most dangerous man in the world is not Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor is it Usama Bin Ladin. It is Mr. Obama without regard for the Constitution or the checks and balance instituted by our founding fathers, he believes him self to be omnipotent and accountable to no one. He can without regards for others say and do what he likes and suppress the thoughts and speech of others. If our congress has not realized we are witnessing a true attempt to set aside our constitution and do as Mr. Obama wishes. We (the voters, Congress and the media) seems to believe that Mr. Obama is just misguided. Isn’t that what the people in Germany, Venezuela and Iran have said? If we don’t protect those Justices and the other protections given to us by the constitution we will find many in this country in prison, chains, work camps or worse.
Obama has taken on a more “aggressive” style in his latest speeches, as in the State of The Union, and when speaking before the Republican retreat. Perhaps he is beginning to understand that Peloci and Reid can’t run the ship of state for him.
An ongoing attempt to blame the Republicans for his own ideological failures ignores the fact that it was a lack of an agreement between House and Senate democrats that caused the health care bill to be set aside.
A fact that we should all consider when listening to Obama speak, and when considering his proposals, is that before all else, he is a Muslim! Before he professes to be a world citizen, an American [?], or a democrat, his soul belongs to Islam.
Not following the teachings of Muhammed can have extreme consequences for a Muslim. Keep this in mind when considering the actions of our President.
One item to follow, on which I suspect the dialogue will be muted, is the president’s support to change the law to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. How does our society decide which moral choices, or lifestyles raise to the level to warrant legal protection or access and which ones do not? For instance, if homesexuals and transexuals are allowed to legally serve in the armed forces, why not polygamist, or others with more varied bents? Is the second order effect of this change, what some would deem progress, the removal of UCMJ prosecution for adultery? Is another the removal an officer’s obligation for the morals of his/her unit? Despite the pending change many states will still not allow same sex marriage, so will
the ACLU stand up for the potential discrimination against heterosexual military members who commit adultery?
Otis…This issue reminds me of the outcry that resulted from the report on s SEAL pinning ceremonies where a new SEAl’s pin has pounded into his chest and caused minor bleeding. The general public was outraged at this barbaric behavior and the Navy was forced to end the practice (officially). This bonding ceremony may have seemed anacronistic to some but it is all part of a chain that bonds these warriors together. SEALs (and the military in general) do things in their service to their country that aren’t done in the civilian world to accomplish their mission and they depend on their buddies to have their back. Every diminution of the “things” that build that trust have the potential to weaken the effectiveness/morale of our troops. I can’t say with certainty that repealing the Don’t ask, don’t tell law will have a major impact on our war fighting capability but as you noted with your second order effects it could be a slippery slope. Is that a risk we want to take with the finest military force that has ever walked the earth?
JoeB, Agree I cannot say how this will impact our warfighting capability, but I can say fairly certainly it will impact commanders. My experience says this is a done deal. The panel empowered to look into and charter the way ahead is an attempt to say it was thoughtfully done, and the right thing to do. The right thing to do depends on who the question is addressed to. Present poles indicate younger military members, females, and people who have friends that are, or know of, gay support the initiative. So if they are asked, the answer is yes its the right thing to do so get on with it and catch up to society writ large’s position on the matter. Their logic is often based on the premise –which I fell is misbased–that the military of a democracy should reflect the society from which it comes. If we were in a draft, then I might agree the military should refelect the society from which drawn. But we are not a draft military –designed to draw from all echelons and demographics in society –we recruit, selectively, and in realtiy hire those that “fit the mold” and are likely to positively contribute to the military mission.
Second order effects on good discipline and cost need to be considered and weighed. For instance, in the military we often billet personnel on an ad hoc nature, two or more to a room. Often when we do this–and normally for that matter–genders are segregated. For we do recognize human sexuality and belive it a breach to co-billet opposite sexes. Do we now then force everyone to declare their sexual preference prior to making billeting arrangements? Do we do the same for same sex showers? If it is okay for gay members to share billeting and showers with like sex, then why not heterosexuals?
Food for thought and worth watching.
Historically, which military forces have allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the military? How does a commanding officer deal with allegations of abuse by or towards openly gay servicemen? How will enlisted men deal with, for example, what they see as unfair treatment from an openly gay officer? How will morale be affected when war heroes are discharged following allegations of abuse? Will military tribunals need new guidelines to adjudicate allegations of abuse one way or the other? How will all these types of issues impact recruitment?