state of the union

my only thoughts on the state of the union address is to the amount of attention and response being given to supreme court justice samuel alito's apparent mouthing of "not true" to president obama's comments on the recent citizens united vs fec ruling.

in case you missed alito, here it is:



firstly, the only reason this is even getting any play is due to the infamous shout of "you lie!" from rep. joe wilson when obama was addressing congress regarding the health care bill.

now my overall opinion is that the office of the presidency should be shown the utmost respect and we can not have individuals shouting out comments during addresses to congress and the american people. but the question is, why are people feeling compelled to do so?

joe wilson
during the president's address to congress he denied that health care would be provided to illegal immigrants, prompting joe wilson's outburst of "you lie!"

while, technically, the bill did not state that healthcare would be provided for illegal immigrants, it also did not allow for any checks of citizenship. the federation for american immigration reform (fair) argues that illegal immigrants can not be denied health care specifically because there isn't anything in the bill to check for citizenship. several days after the presidents address, the white house had to strengthen its position stating that illegal immigrants would be barred from purchasing health care coverage through the exchange stating that "verification requirements are something we would work out with congress."

justice alito
during the state of the union, president obama stated, "the supreme court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. well, I don't think american elections should be bankrolled by america's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

however, "under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in citizens united. thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign."

so, what's more egregious -- an individual objecting to a statement (even if it's in the hallowed halls of congress) or congress and the american people being presented with information that is not completely factual?