Please remember that you are choosing to read my opinions.

No president, of any party or ideology, could tell millions of Americans that their sacred building desecrates American holy ground. This would understandably be taken as a presidential assault on the deepest beliefs of his fellow citizens. It would be an unprecedented act of sectarianism, alienating an entire faith tradition from the American experiment. If a church or synagogue can be built on a commercial street in Lower Manhattan, declaring a mosque off-limits would officially equate Islam with violence and terrorism. No president would consider making such a statement. And those commentators who urge the president to do so fundamentally misunderstand the presidency itself.

Michael Gerson

It seems the opposition to the President has latched onto the criticism of the Supreme Court's Jan. 21st, 2010 ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)  allowing corporations to spend their funds to influence elections. People are saying that he "hammered" the supreme court, by criticizing one ruling. What he said was this:

"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.  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’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

While the bulk of the law affected by the decision isn't even 8 years old, it did possibly negatively effect it. He didn't lambast the Supreme Court, or even dwell long on them for long. He just mentioned that they did make a ruling and he believes that their ruling isn't best for the United States political system. He used it as a stepping stone to talk about a belief that he has espoused for years now, that American elections shouldn't be "bankrolled by America's most powerful interests". While he said he thinks it was the wrong decision, a sentiment that 4 out of 9 justices apparently agreed with, he put the burden of correcting any possible negative side effects on Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. Personally, I think his statement during the State of the Union epitomizes the checks and balances the Founding Fathers envisioned.

The only possible good thing that could come out of the Supreme Court ruling is that corporations and special interest groups don't need to hide behind political action committees any longer, but they probably will anyway. In the opinion of this man, only citizens of the United States should have First Amendment rights to protect. A corporation is not a citizen, it isn't even necessarily made up of like-minded people with similar political interests. It is a legal entity... a business firm, separate from the persons involved. While some rights should be guaranteed, as far as being allowed to effect the political system more than actual citizens is not good for the people of the United States of America.

While the folks over at Politifact.com gave the president's statement a barely true, in this instance even a barely true seems true enough. From their article, Why Alito Shook His Head, you can read up on some of the points being mentioned, such as:

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

"Some people think that Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United logically leads there," said Robert Kelner, who chairs the election and political law practice group at the law firm Covington & Burling. "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We don't know for sure."

Brett Kappel, a political law specialist with the law firm Arent Fox, said the Citizens United opinion "certainly could be read as declaring this provision unconstitutional, so I'd have to say the president's interpretation is correct -- but we won't really know for sure until a court rules on the issue."

Until a court rules on the issue, which is how these things typically work. Hopefully President Obama is wrong in this case, but even if he is, the heart of what he said is still true. We need to ensure that our elections, and our politicians, are not soiled by corporate greed. This is our government, and we should be its primary influence.

Nothing goes with a good car washing like outlandish political commentary.

Rouge Warrior: GOING ROGUE is an awesome new adventure shooter game featuring Sarah "Rogue" Palin and Richard "REPO Dick" Cheney's weird ass personalities in an action-packed game explosion fun time! Playing as Sarah "Rogue" Palin, you go behind the iron curtain to disrupt a suspected Russian ballistic missile program discovered by living in close proximity to Russia via Alaska! Soon into the mission, you create a conspiracy in your mind that could turn the tides of the war on terrors in the evil doers' favor if others believe it. You must then GO ROGUE to take the mission into your own hands as you balance your 2012 campaign for president with a dangerous awesome mission into the bowels of the USSR to destroy a technology that could change the balance of geopoliticological powers, leaving a trail of delusion in your wake!