Remember Barack Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address, when he broke with every historical precedent to verbally assault the justices of the Supreme Court over the Citizens United decision?
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests ó including foreign corporations ó to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I donít think American elections should be bankrolled by Americaís most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and thatís why Iím urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
You remember the Citizens United case, of course -- it was the one in which the Obama Administration actually argued before the Supreme Court that campaign finance laws trumped the First Amendment to the degree that the government could ban books, movies, and other communications that mentioned a candidate in the period shortly before an election. After all,, Obama and his minions argued -- corporate speech (other than that by reliably liberal news media for which an exception existed in the law) corrupts the electoral process.
So of course, the Obama Administration is now engaged in what is, by the standard set by the Administration's arguments before the Supreme Court and President Obama's own words, a thoroughly corrupt practice in its effort to help Sony Pictures rush a film version of the take-down of Osama bin Laden to the big screen only 3 1/2 weeks before the 2012 presidential election.
The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obamaís growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made ďThe Hurt LockerĒ will no doubt reflect the presidentís cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 ó perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.
The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.
It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the presidentís image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently ó to the surprise of some military officers ó at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.
Yep, that's right -- Obama's minions in the regime are working hard to aid the very sort of effort that Obama decried as corrupting of the political system even after it was found to be constitutional by the courts. That is truly hypocritical -- after all, even if it is permitted by law, shouldn't a man who claims to have higher moral standards eschew such corporate assistance and make every effort to get the release of the movie delayed a few weeks -- perhaps into the Thanksgiving weekend or over the Christmas holiday, when it would not have the sort of impact on the election that the unusual October release date would have.
And then there are two other issues at work here. The first is that, unlike the movie at issue in the Citizens United case, there is definite cooperation between those making the film and its intended beneficiary, Barack Obama. That gets into the question of illegal coordination with a supposedly independent actor, which is a crime. What's more, those doing the coordination on Obama's behalf are not on the campaign payroll, but are instead drawing their salaries from the federal government -- a big no-no under campaign finance laws. So even if we set the Citizens United issue aside, the odor of corruption in this situation is overpowering.