Wednesday, May 2, 2012

This President and Nixon?

By Kimberly Strassel.   This is an important read:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Are you worried?
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.


Barack Obama at the University of North Carolina, April 24

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.
He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.
The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.
It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.
The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.

Z:  I'm not sure where his power ends....and I'm not sure if anybody's told him, either.


Always On Watch said...

That Obama has an "enemies list" and is bold enough to say so shouldn't surprise us.

If America re-elects Obama, the entire nation will get what it deserves. All the warning signs telling us that this man is a tyrant-wanna-be. With a second term, he'll be tyrant-in-fact.

-FJ said...

Rewarding friends (contributors) and punishing enemies has always been the "ends" of politics. That was, until the Enlightenment. Is it any wonder that our politics should "devolve" in a post-Enlightenment, post- Modern political era?

The Debonair Dudes World said...

Why don't they just change his name to Mr. Gutsy! or Mr. Wonderful?

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky and others have a point, this is standard politics. Barack Milhous Obama is just not subtle about it, and he has taken it to a new street thug low, which is to be expected from the corrupt Chicago machine.

Sam Huntington said...

“De chikins have come home to roost.”

The only reason the US government is not currently “fascist” is that the House of Representatives is in the hands of the Republican Party. Otherwise, radical national socialists would be firmly in control of every aspect of our government (excepting the Supreme Court … for now). The term “far left” may no longer apply to the so-called Progressive movement, for under Obama, this country is moving steadily toward totalitarianism —repudiating the left, the right, and the center.

Still, these labels are mere semantics. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” Any president that consistently behaves as though he is above the law probably is. Why should any American prefer that sort of president to one who prefers to operate within our constitutional framework? Recall that Obama believes the constitution is irrelevant to our modern setting.

It is not difficult to understand why people despise politicians: nothing is too low for them. Here we have a situation where there is no difference in Obama intimidating donors to his opponent’s campaign, and black Sturmabteilung standing outside voting precincts looking to intimidate voters away from casing ballots. I think it is a good thing when citizens do not trust elected officials —but I wonder at what point the American people will become intolerant of insufferable behavior.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. Gutsy! STOP using our troops for your photo OPS, and STOP pronouncing Paaaakistan and Talllllybomb like a Muslim.. Oh I forgot you are a Muslim.

Lisa said...

I guess Mitt Romney would be justified then in saying that The Multi Billionaire World market Manipulator who brought down the economies of England,Taiwan,Russia and possibly the US donated 800 million to Obama's 2008 campaign and also funds the Wall Street Occutards.

FairWitness said...

Barack Obama and his campaign continue to underestimate Conservatives. His "outing" of wealthy Romney campaign donors WILL NOT intimidate current or future donors. In fact, it will encourage more donations.

It's astounding how little President Obama understands the country and the citizens he's supposed to be leading and governing. This is more evidence that he's unworthy of the office he was honored with.

He will not be reelected. And if he keeps this crap up, he'll lose by a sizable margin. A majority of Americans already thoroughly reject him, his policies and his campaign tactics.

Thank God this siege and regime are almost over.

Ticker said...

All of this and I continue to hear people say and receive emails from people who say that "in good conscious" they can not and will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon thus they will throw away their vote by voting for some third party or just stay at home and not vote. It seems they forget that many of them did the same thing in 08 when they in "good conscious" vote for McCain because he was not "conservative enough". It seems they can not see what "good conscious" because of their farright religious views brings.
So to all those who have made such statement, thinking such thoughts , sending me e-mails with this concern I say go ahead and don't vote.
Remember all your talk and e-mails when Obama is re-elected and this country becomes a total socialist state.

Z said...

No, I don't think this is business as usual.
I would like anybody to get a link of any other president being as witheringly insulting to all Republicans as this one has. The way he talks about the Republicans in Congress if they don't play ball..that's absolutely new.

Also, I think this president says "I" more in one week than most other presidents did in years in office.

No, this list is not the's only a symptom ...the fact that he lets it be so obvious is deplorable...and, of course, the media's not featured his insults.

Also, whoever's behind Obama's never been named... yet the Left will annihilate the Koch Brothers as if they're evil money lenders...when so MANY DEMOCRATS are giving so much money, having HUGE dinners to raise money, etc...

that's the point.

cube said...

Anybody who stays home on election day because they can't "in good conscious" vote for Romney, or they vote, but for a third party candidate, is in fact VOTING FOR OBAMA.

Imagine a lame duck BO administration.

Get over yourselves and vote this joker out of office.

FairWitness said...

Hi Z, you're right about Obama's wealthy donors not being named. Be comforted by the fact that all the "outed" donors and the Koch brothers earned their "place(s) in the sun" by being exceptional individuals. They were not given passes like President Obama was. They have REAL power and authority, i.e., gravitas.

These successful men will not be intimidated by anybody, not even by the President of the United States. They're righteously indignant. They are outraged, I promise you.

President Obama is going down, he can't stop it. Obama has messed with the wrong men!

Anonymous said...

Obama is convinced that America is no longer a republic but a democracy. He is making this a "we against them" campaign. We'll find out if he is right this November.

Mustang said...

His power ends when the American people decide they’ve had enough of his destructive "hope and change." I’m not holding my breath, though.

Pris said...

Obama makes Nixon look like a babe in the woods! Only in his case, he has the state run media in his pocket. Nixon didn't!

Neither did Nixon have Republicans in his pocket, it was they who advised him to resign!

Thersites said...

The Republican's public image is no better than Obama's. And the MSM will ensure that it doesn't improve. Romney's negative campaigning hasn't helped in "restoring" the quality of the Republican brand.

Thersites said...

The public perception of Republicans is that there is no difference between the major parties. Republiicans reward friends and punish enemies, too. Planned Parenthood and Acorn being but two recent examples....

Sidbirt said...

Saying that Obama is just " average" as President is like calling Ted Bundy an "average" criminal. Regardless of whether one agrees with the reasons for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little argument about the incompetence of the Obama administration in in way that he has handled the recession. The American people are much poorer now then they were under Bush because of Obama and his administration. Make no mistake about it, Obama is responsible for the “worst recovery” in any recession since the Great Depression.
The record of Obama on the economy is much worst than any recession in the past. The economy was at near-depression. Obama has never taken any personal responsibility, he has never taken responsibility for the failures of their economic policy during the almost 4 years he has been in office. This upcoming election should not even be close, even if someone think that Obama is below average. The only reason it is going to be close is that 45% of American are committed to vote Democratic regardless of the relative quality of the candidate, and a good part of the people WILL vote for Obama only because of his color. Obama sure can’t run on his record, since the economy is still in terrible shape after three & ½ years of his leadership. Instead, it appears he’s going to campaign on the conceit that Bush left him with a much worse economy than anyone. As much as the job market is concerned, it newest statics show that it’s getting worse and not better. The “inherited a recession” BS just isn’t going to work any longer, it’s old news and never was true anyway.

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberalmann said...

Well, I know this will be deleted because i know who opposing viewpoint and especially one with facts are not tolerated here, or the right in general:

More Fox News lies.

Seems that's where Sidbirt is getting his 'facts' as well. Let's get the facts. Like how Obama inherited and horrible recession caused by the recklessness of the Bush administration. Yes, I'm blaming Bush. But Obama saved us from a depression, saved the banks and the auto industry who have paid back their bailout. GM is number 1 in the world again. Bush's bail out were outright gifts. Obama created more jobs in 2 years than Bush did in eight. The economy has grown every month since he's been in office. Bush increased the deficit by $5 trillion (2 wars off the books, Medicaid Part D unpaid for, tax cut to the wealthy unpaid for) Obama increased it (with the stimulus which saved us) by 1.3 trillion.

Give the economy back to the GOP and they'll finish the job of killing the middle class.

Let's get the facts:

Obama and Bush Debt Comparison:

Private Sector Growth Under Obama:

Obama and Bush Unemployment Comparison

Who increased the debt?:

Thersites said...

GM paid back who, Libbyman?

Thersites said...

Why is CBO still carrying a $25 billion loss for the auto industry bailouts, then?

oh that's right, they borrowed the money to pay their near term notes back "on time". So borrowing money to pay the mortgage is considered good financial policy now?

Thersites said...

btw- Did Obama ever "fix" FANNIE and FREDDIE?

Oooops, he decided not to even try. And as far as FHA goes, he threw THAT under the same bus. Of course, Obama will never have to record those losses. That cost wil have to be bourne and paid for by future generations of American leaders and taxpayers....

now let's all say it together, "Thanks, Barack!"

Leticia said...

If there is one thing that is very clear is that Obama is a narcissist and he believes he is above the law, doesn't have to answer to anyone, rolls over congress and the senate.

He believes he that he is some kind demi-god, I know that is a bit far-fetched. But that's the truth. He honestly believes he is untouchable.

We must make sure this man doesn't get re-elected or else we will be dealing with a dictator.

Sam Huntington said...

Liberalmann’s argument is ridiculous on its face. His “data” (source unknown) reflects $1.8 trillion in Bush Tax Cuts as federal spending. This means that whoever put this data together is daft. No sane person will include tax cuts as part of federal spending.

When Liberalmann begins to toss around data to support his sophomoric propositions, he needs to make sure his source is credible. Failure to cite a credible source makes his argument invalid. Liberalmann would know this if he had progressed to the 9th grade.

Kim Amadeo is President of World Money Watch. She has 20 years senior level experience in economic analysis and business strategy working for major international corporations. She has two master’s degrees: one from MIT in business, and the other from Boston College in Planning. Here is her summary of the Bush vs. Obama economies:

“Despite their political differences, Bush and Obama used a similar expansionary fiscal policy—sensible as both presidents had to confront economic recession. Expansionary policy stimulates economic growth, but in the long term this policy actually damages the economy by increasing the federal debt.

“Bush inherited the Clinton/Gore recession. After taking office, he implemented tax cuts, designed to jump-start consumer spending. The attacks on 9/11 demanded substantial increases in federal spending to meet the needs of survivors; subsequently, Bush economic policy focused on the war on terror. In 2004, Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (2003) to help businesses recover from the lingering effects of the 2001 recession —which the 9/11 attacks aggravated. Hurricane Katrina demanded additional federal outlays to the tune of $233 billion.

“Mr. Bush did not respond to the Subprime Mortgage Crisis with any fiscal policy or regulation.” Note: Bush did address his concerns to the Democratic Congress, but they ignored him. “Bush then left it up to the Federal Reserve to address the resultant banking crisis with monetary policy only.

“After the 2010 elections, Obama appointed former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to head the Economic Advisory panel. Obama then launched his $787 billion economic stimulus program, which returned the economy to positive GDP growth. Obama also pushed through the Health Care Reform Act (ObamaCare), supported the Dodd-Frank Banking Reform Act, increased federal regulations on non-banking financial companies, and created the consumer protection agency.

“Both presidents increased the federal debt through deficit spending. High federal debt equates to higher interest rates, and this in turn will slow the economy. A slow economy works against the interest of business owners and the unemployed.”

End of Amadeo summary.

For the record, US debt has increased under President Obama. Gross federal debt in 2010 was $10 trillion. Of this, public debt was $5.3 trillion. Gross federal debt in 2012 is $16.4 trillion, of which public debt totaled $9.7 trillion. Source: U. S. Government Debt.

Chuck said...

I agree with you Z, this is not politics as usual.

The real question is will Holder use the JD to punish these contributors?

Mustang said...

Four more years of Obama--why, that's 28 dog years! Yikes!

Elmers Brother said...

debt under Obama worse then Bush

Z said...

Blogger Z said...
You said "Well, I know this will be deleted because i know who opposing viewpoint and especially one with facts are not tolerated here, or the right in general" ...even though you know so well that I like diverging opinions...I just can't stand your stupid insults and wrong information.

And then YOU say WE don't tolerate?

I left your comment only for comic relief. Thanks. By the way, we ARE the middle class, did it ever occur to you that we support ourselves? Oh, and I'm a woman, so your idiotic DNC/Obama war on women accusations are as absolutely ridiculous as "Republicans are racists" when we were so excited over Herman Cain.
:-) Keep pitchin', You never get it to the catcher, that's for sure.

Mustang...perish the thought. I think O's done 28 years of damage already.

Sidbirt, welcome to GeeeZ and please remember that Liberals will NEVER EVER understand.\

Thersites, you say "The public perception of Republicans is that there is no difference between the major parties"

Sorry, that's not my perception....we all know there's enough difference to keep this country at least afloat if we finally get Obama OUT.
As for political shenanigans...there you go again. Wanting perfection, the perfect candidate... I think you're old enough to know better, right?

Thersites said...

Speaking of wanting perfection (instead of cynically accepting mediocrity as "the best we can do"), what do you make of the French Far Right and Marie Le Pen's appropriation of Joan of Arc, of late?

I'd say that the French are getting sick of political cynicism and in the mood for "perfect" martyrs.... and who said that the Tea Party had no "legs"?

Z said...

Thersites...thanks, I didn't know it's the 600th year.
Having lived in France for four years, I have to admit I never saw or heard her name ONCE but she's still obviously considered a beloved martyr.
Her goal was to get the English was apparently (supposedly) a divine message/instruction to her.

Well, Marie Le Penn is using the memory of Mademoiselle d'Arc and probably rightfully so, as Le Penn and her father have fought so hard for French SANITY in France again, trying to not simply hand their whole (gorgeous, amazing, incredible, marvelous) culture to islam (all the while PAYING for them as they take over, by the way).
Sadly, the media and the other lefties have painted LePenn's party as xenophobes and hate mongers (her father WAS pretty rabid against illegals, I have to admit and probably deserves a little of the criticism) if you said you liked LePenn, you were looked at oddly.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I was there for one of the elections during which ol' Chirac was reelected and several French asked me what I thought of Monsieur Le Penn and I said I could see his point...not ONE of them was aghast but they'd kind of look at me like "I agree, but I can't say that out loud", kidding ...

Yes, Marie is a bit of a Tea Party type, but the LePenns rather invented taking their country back from illegals desirous of spoiling their amazing country.....
I have to admit I know little about the rest of her platform, so I'm not sure quite HOW similar she is to Tea Party activists.

Thersites said...

As a devotee of Pallas Athena, I admit to favouring women in armour... especially if they wear feathers in their hair...

Thersites said...

If gm is doing so well, let them pay off their loans instead of giving bonuses to union scum....

Thersites said...

...payoffs from Democrats to union friends... thestock and bondholders of the old GM being but 1%ers to be taxed and robbed (Republicans).

Rita said...

The economy is saved? Dang, someone must have forgotten to tell me and most of the people I know. Last year we made less money than we have in about 15 years. Several of my friends and family who had never drawn an unemployment check in their lives were on unemployment.

I have never been a spender, but I haven't had to worry about an extra dollar on an item in the grocery store until last year.

This "saved ecomony" is worse than I remember it being under Jimmy Carter. If that's saving an economy, I'd hate to see what Lib--- thinks is a bad economy.

I suppose if I was some ideallic college kid who had my mamma make my meals and Obama telling me I don't have to pay my student loans, I might think he's God's gift to mankind too.

Actually I wouldn't. My parents taught me life isn't fair and they taught me not to borrow what I could never pay back and they taught me that no one else was responsible for my lack of responsibility.

But isn't it amazing that Obama found Osama all on his own. Of course he refused to use any of the intel gathered from KSM during the Bush years. Yet he alone was responsible for sniffing out the terrorist leaders.

Damn. Libdip has convinced me. I'm voting for Obama in November.

Rita said...

WE'RE UNIFORMED? Really? How did they find out who Osama's messenger was? Obama must have used his divinty powers to know that and his Sherlock Holmes genes to track that messenger to find out exactly where and when Osama would be in his compound.

Your ignorance on the reality of the killing of Osama is a complete embarrassment to every liberal with an IQ above 75.

Go away. There's a reason you're flunking out of life.

Z said...

Rita....I'm not even reading LibJerk anymore...just deleting, particularly after what he just called me on the top post.

Sorry that your comments are hanging out there...only writing this so people realize you aren't commenting to air (although, come to think about it, maybe that IS all that's between the poor guy's ears!? :-)

Rita said...

Glad you did Z. If the lib-idiot could do anything but spout nonsense from DailyKos, it might be worth a discussion.

He's an ignorant, spoiled kid. Just thank God he's not YOUR kid.

Z said...

oh, GOD, Rita...there's a thought!
ya, something to be grateful for, for sure!

SCdottr2012 said...

This report is disgusting but I am not shocked by it, just perplexed at how crudely and amateurish the Obama campaign tends to be.
I suppose it says something about his support.

Today I read that Mr.Obama had composite girfriends in his younger days. My my.

I do not wear armour but have been practicing with a bow and am doing rather well with my targets.

Z said...

SCDottr....Yes, Vanity Fair has a glowing account of Obama's young dating days...
SUDDENLY, JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS, SOMEBODY KNOWS HIM! Remember even leftwingers have asked why nobody seems to know the guy from the past.
This article kills two birds with one stone; anybody who believed the homosexual rumors is assuaged and anybody who wondered why nobody he'd ever dated had come forward, can now rest assured that he's the FABULOUS HETEROSEXUAL STUD that most leftwingers think he is anyway :-)

beamish said...

...on the other hand, Barack Obama is to the right of Mitt Romney on ANY issue you can think of.

Beatzby Stull said...

You should also know that the vent meets the National codes for building. Aside from the dust and slight mess the CafSelect does an exceptional job of grinding beans to the desired grind you want whether it's an espresso or regular coffee machine you use. If you're able to find a large fridge with the same energy usage as a small unit, then it's definitely worth choosing.