Remember when Barack Hussein Obama courted and accepted foreign dollars to fuel his presidential bid? Even before anyone reported about Obama’s decision to shut down all audits and checks to confirm that his donors were U.S. Citizens, FemiSex was one of the very first to raise a red flag over Obama’s illegal overseas donors. (see links below) Buy a book from Amazon and the credit card will be checked for a triangulation of name address and history to be sure the all things match up. Mr. Obama instructed his staff to dismantle such systems so that anyone, at any place around the globe, could use a credit card to funnel money into his pockets. We got the bizarre "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130 despite a $2,300 limit. And no one ever investigated the overseas fraudulent donations –estimated to be in the many millions!— because Obama didn’t use any federal funds, despite his promise to do so.

Barack was elected, it is very safe to say, in no small part because of illegal overseas donations. This Fraudulent Dude now has the GALL to get up before the American peeps and lie about the effect a recent SCOTUS—saying the decision “will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.”
FemiSex is appalled that Obama is such a fat cat hypocrite who is fond of wild misrepresentations. First off the statement is untrue and …second, after his windfall profiteering from millions in overseas donations to his campaign from non-US citizens, what a case of : I am above the law! What is good for me, is …well, not for everyone else.

Here is what a rapid Obot supporter—Jeffery Tobin-- has to say on the issue:

Obama was on shakier ground when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections. The court's opinion very carefully said it was not deciding the issue with regard to foreign entities. So the court may yet give the green light to these foreign companies -- but it hasn't done so yet.

And PolitiFact points out the Obama statement was “barely true.”
They give a convoluted explanation but fyi….here is something of an opinion primer on the issue from a NYTimes Op-Ed by Jan Witold Baran:

So what will actually occur as a result of the Citizens United case? The answer is at once mundane and momentous.
Since the 1970s, Congress has passed an assortment of laws that banned anyone from spending money on independent ads — laws that were uniformly declared unconstitutional when they restricted spending by individuals, political action committees and political parties. But in a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the court upheld a ban on corporate spending to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
Because of the 1990 ruling, corporations and unions have been limited to so-called issue ads, which usually end with statements like “call Candidate Jones and tell her” — take your choice — “to stop raising taxes/ support health care reform/ support alternative energy sources.” Now that Citizens United has overturned Austin, corporations and unions can run independent ads that contain words of express advocacy. So instead of “Call Candidate Jones and demand that she not raise taxes,” it can be: “Vote for Candidate Smith because Candidate Jones wants to raise taxes.”

------------
The main problem we see from this Court decision is that it will only make it that much harder for women to be elected. The powers that be at corporations are male and they will use their clout to say don't vote Hillary, as they did in the case at hand.
I personally know a few of the men who were behind the anti-Hillary video that Citizens United made. These are men who see women as 2nd class citizens and as such must never be allowed a real seat of power. Trouble is….the media is run by such men and the same problem is played out in the press each and every day—no Supreme Court opening of floodgates needed!

Far more than this Citizens United case, women should be worried and wondering about how to dismantle the power structures at the top of media and corporations that steamroll energy into keeping women subordinate.

Let’s end with a few quotes that are examples of male fear of female power and/or the willingness to blame women for male failings.

From the NYTimes Op-ED titled: “Don’t give up now!” published January 26th 2010.

It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to abandon comprehensive health care reform just because voters in the Massachusetts Senate race last week decided that they liked the Republican, Scott Brown, more than the Democrat, Martha Coakley.
Ms. Coakley ran an inept campaign.

And from that same day’s paper (“The Populist Addiction), David Brooks--whose cloaked love for Obama is about as cloaked as Elton’s John’s sexuality—wrote about Sarah Palin as a divisive woman saying: she

“has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites.”

Missing? Yep, Obama famous tirade against bible humpers and their guns. Brooks, for the record, will ALWAYS be against female power.

As for the CEO male power thing, here is an unguarded gem from the right-leaning CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey from a recent New Yorker profile.

“She scares me a little bit; she’s a very powerful woman.”

Ah spoken like a true patriarch. Men are terrified of strong women. One of the men I know who gave generous support to the vehement anti-Hillary video at the heart of the Supreme Court decision discussed above admitted to me that he would never like to work for a woman. He told me he was now past THAT worry but…he wanted to enshrine the status quo. Ah, as do the liberal dudes at the Times. As does Mr. Obama. As does….oh, well you get the point: This Court decison is akin with the decision played out daily in magazines and newspapers around the country.
Power gets to speak.
Power is male.
Power must stay male.

In the meantime, Mr. Obama is gearing up his overseas donors for a redo in 2012. Obama said he wanted Congress to over-rule the SC decision on Citizens United. How about we really get serious about updating campaign finance rules and demand that all small donor be identified and that common sense rules apply to weed out Hard Money foreign donations that are illegal? The rules are hoary, dating back to the 70s! Well before the Internet made fraud so easy, as easy and "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y and anyone in the entire region of say, Germany or Lebanon, or….yikes!

links:

http://www.femisex.com/content/femisex-raised-red-flag-donor-fraud-and-c...

http://www.femisex.com/content/flush-obama-%E2%80%93is-obama-being-massi...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/28/toobin.obama.alito/index.html?hpt=...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-ob...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26baran.html?scp=1&sq=stampede...