… weekly radio address of Saturday, September 18, is a good case in point. Let’s analyze his remarks, one paragraph at a time:
First Paragraph – “Back in January, in my State of the Union Address, I warned of the danger posed by a Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United. This decision overturned decades of law and precedent. It gave the special interests the power to spend without limit – and without public disclosure – to run ads in order to influence elections.”
The State of the Union Address that Obama refers to will be remembered as a singular event in American history. Until that day, no previous president had ever criticized the decisions of the Court as the justices sat, a captive audience, just feet from where he stood. To criticize the Court in that manner is bad enough manners, but to lie about and misrepresent the actions of the Court in that setting is unforgivable and only serves to demonstrate Obama’s unsuitability for the job he purports to hold. His remarks were so shocking that Associate Justice Sam Alito was shown to mouth the words “not true.” The members of the Court are not obligated to attend the State of the Union Address and it remains to be seen whether members of the Roberts Court will attend future addresses so long as Obama remains in power.
Second Paragraph – “Now, as an election approaches, it’s not just a theory. We can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become. We see it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads or who’s paying for them. Even foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer.”
It’s almost as if Obama is describing the contributor lists from his 2008 campaign which contain tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions with the names addresses, and occupations of unknowing American contributors assigned to them to make them appear legitimate. In short, we don’t know who is behind Obama and who it was that financed his 2008 campaign. What we do know is that no person or group of persons has ever been more destructive of our republican form of government than those who bought the U.S. presidency for Obama.
Third Paragraph – “We’ve tried to fix this with a new law – one that would simply require that you say who you are and who’s paying for your ad. This way, voters are able to make an informed judgment about a group’s motivations. Anyone running these ads would have to stand by their claims. And foreign-controlled corporations would be restricted from spending money to influence elections, just as they were before the Supreme Court opened up this loophole.”
Is Obama really serious about having the sponsors of campaign ads identify themselves? How would he react if the name of his principal sponsor, the international Communist George Soros, would suddenly show up hundreds or thousands of times in ads supporting Democratic causes and candidates? And just how would it serve the American people to know who’s paying for a particular ad? Corporations who sponsor ads are merely trying to elect people who will help to maintain an economic environment in which businesses can produce and sell a product at a profit. If television viewers understood that, what sort of informed judgment or motivation would that engender among union members who’ve been taught that profits are a bad thing?
Obama’s statement seems to imply that corporations who support free market causes are engaged in some sort of conspiracy against the public interest. Perhaps that’s the looking glass through which a totally unqualified man with a long list of socialist and communist mentors sees the business world.
Fourth Paragraph – “This is common sense. In fact, this is the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for decades. Yet, the Republican leaders in Congress have so far said “no.” They’ve blocked this bill from even coming up for a vote in the Senate. It’s politics at its worst. But it’s not hard to understand why.”
What Obama is saying is that he’d like to see a system in which special interests that support only Democrats are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on liberal and leftist causes.
Fifth Paragraph – “Over the past two years, we have fought back against the entrenched special interests – weakening their hold on the levers of power in Washington. We have taken a stand against the worst abuses of the financial industry and health insurance companies. We’ve rolled back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. And we’ve restored enforcement of common sense rules to protect clean air and clean water. We have refused to go along with business as usual.”
The truth is, Obama has done just the opposite of what he says. By appointing SEIU lawyer Craig Becker to a seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), he has fully endorsed the concept of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. And in promoting the AFL-CIO’s “card check” scheme he has fully endorsed the use of strong-arm tactics in union organizing drives, forcing workers to vote for union representation against their own self-interests. While claiming to have taken a stand against the worst abuses of the financial industry and health insurance companies, Obama endorses the violent actions of SEIU thugs, AFL-CIO goons, and ACORN, as well as the unethical and self-serving excesses of teachers unions, and trial lawyers.
Sixth Paragraph – “Now the special interests want to take Congress back, and return to the days when lobbyists wrote the laws. And a partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents. It’s a power grab, pure and simple. They’re hoping they can ride this wave of unchecked influence all the way to victory.”
Obama’s charge that the special interests want to “return to the days when lobbyists wrote the laws” is clear evidence that he knows no more about the workings of government than the average fourth-grader. Had he spent his time in the Illinois State Senate doing something other than planning his run for the U.S. Senate, and had he spent his brief few months in the Senate doing something other than planning his run for the White House, he might be aware that most of what is passed into law in Congress and the state legislatures originates with lobbyists.
The right of the people to petition the Congress for redress of grievances, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is a right that is most often exercised through lobbyists. Of course, having been an instructor in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as he claims to have been, one would expect him to have some idea of that concept… but apparently not.
Seventh Paragraph – “What is clear is that Congress has a responsibility to act. But the truth is, any law will come too late to prevent the damage that has already been done this election season. That is why, any time you see an attack ad by one of these shadowy groups, you should ask yourself, who is paying for this ad? Is it the health insurance lobby? The oil industry? The credit card companies?”
The America-hating George Soros? ACLU benefactor Peter Lewis? The AFL-CIO? The NEA? The radical left AARP? No one but a dedicated Marxist, or a complete ignoramus, would ever assume universal malevolence on the part of health insurance companies, oil companies, and credit card companies. In fact, the last thing Obama would ever want to see is an objective analysis, issue by issue, of what it is that motivates business interests versus what it is that motivates the primary constituencies of the Democrat Party… labor unions, teachers unions, public employee unions, trial lawyers, gays, lesbians, etc., etc.
Eighth Paragraph – “But more than that, you can make sure that the tens of millions of dollars spent on misleading ads do not drown out your voice. Because no matter how many ads they run – no matter how many elections they try to buy – the power to determine the fate of this country doesn’t lie in their hands. It lies in yours. It’s up to all of us to defend that most basic American principle of a government of, by, and for the people. What’s at stake is not just an election. It’s our democracy itself.”
So how does the tens of millions of dollars spent on “misleading” ads compare to the nearly one trillion dollars in stimulus funds that Obama has used to pay off favored Democratic voting blocs under the guise of “job creation?” Simple arithmetic tells us that, for every dollar spent on issue advocacy by corporate and conservative interests, Obama and congressional Democrats have wasted $20,000 on reckless stimulus spending.
By merely branding such issue advocacy ads as “misleading,” Obama hopes to make it so. But the many lopsided victories of Tea Party candidates and conservative Republicans over moderate Republicans and Democrats should be enough to convince Obama that the days when he and his liberal supporters could hoodwink the American people are over. The fate of this country does rest in the hands of the people and they will deliver a strong message to Democrats in November that will echo across this land for generations. It is not a message they will like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Authors Note: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Karl Rove has said, "How dare he?" Obama's totally unsupported claim that the U.S. Chamber is buying votes for Republicans with illegal money brought into the country from overseas is… what? I can't think of a word to adequately describe my outrage. The least I could do is to send the Chamber a copy of my column from October 21, 2008, titled "Obama Is Bought, But Who Owns Him?" in which I show conclusively that much of Obama's campaign cash came from illegal foreign sources… smuggled into the country through Swiss credit card transfers and made to appear legitimate by adding names, addresses, and occupations of unsuspecting folks on his $10 and $20 contributor list. I'm hoping the Chamber will decide to play a little "hardball" with him.