On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee, which ruled in favor of Citizens United. It was a conservative majority of justices who upheld our First Amendment rights of free speech, the right to freely associate and the freedom of the press. For those of us who believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution as our founding fathers and framers had intended, it was truly a victory. For all others, including President Obama, the progressives, liberals and those on the left, it was an injustice. How ironic.

President Obama became hysterical over the decision. A day after the ruling, he publicly announced it was a "major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Two days later, Obama stated that "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself … I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest." I can. How about his taking over of the very entities that he condemns?

Obama then went on to say that he was instructing his advisers to work with Congress in order to create a "forceful, bi-partisan response." Congress had introduced 17 bills and resolutions from January 20 to February 9th in an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Courts decision. Obama must think the American people are ignorant. All one needs to do is look at the top 10 contributors to Obama’s campaign and one would see that they were all large corporations. Let’s take a look at the decision Obama and the left are so opposed to.

First, there’s the court’s decision to abolish the federal ban on independent political expenditures by private corporations both profit and not-for-profit. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion noted that there were over 100,000 pages in the federal ban that held legal evidence that could not cite one case of corporate donations that were used to purchase a legislative vote.

The court’s decision went on to state that the First Amendment stands against attempts to distinguish among different speakers in order to control content.

Justice Kennedy warned that the danger of Congress enacting legislation to prevent speech that is critical for its members. Justice Stevens gave the dissenting opinion in favor of limiting free speech which shows his preference for favoritism and bias in his attempt to hide the distinction between private and public corporations. Justice Scalia, who was among those in the majority, had written a footnote to Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, exposing his error in the meaning of the First Amendment and in turn provided evidence of the favoritism.

You have to wonder whether those who oppose the court’s decision are ill-advised, illiterate, or just plain ignorant of our Constitution. I find it hard to believe that Obama could not understand the court’s decision. This is a man who had received an Ivy League education, majored in political science, graduated from Harvard Law, taught Constitution Law and yet doesn’t have a clue to what is in the First Amendment. If he did then he would know that the Supreme Court handed down a straight forward decision that eliminates the rhetoric and restores the First Amendment to that in which the founders had intended.