The new tactic-Intimidation used on those who don’t contribute to Obama’s campaign


Comment by Jim Campbell

H/T RS (The GOP needs to put on its war face–if it has one.  We are looking down the barrel of fascism plain and simple.)

Voters who hated Bush wanted Obama?

In an attempt to have it both ways, Obama is not satisfied with voter intimidation so he has added donor intimidation in an attempt to plug the holes in his sinking ship. 

Desperate people do desperate things and Obama is clearly desperate.  Obama follows no rule of law, he believes our Constitution is beneath him. He once envisioned himself as king, now he’s acting like a petulant child whose red wagon lost its wheels. 

It’s rather entertaining to see him unravel as he finally sees the end of his reign of terror.  There is only one fitting place for this mad man.  A super max federal prison.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

The personification of evil

The President Has a List

Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

The Wall Street Journal

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Try this thought experiment: (It’s not an 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.  (More Below)

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.

“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.

Write to kim@wsj.com

About these ads

5 responses to “The new tactic-Intimidation used on those who don’t contribute to Obama’s campaign

  1. Vowel_Movement

    I hope that I am the first to coin the following neologism to describe a very unsavory person and Ganst’a Rapper Occupying the White House.

    B.S. Kewel Awww Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, becomes:
    B.O. Kewel Awww Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, Preezy Steezy.!
    Translation and Glossary of Terms:
    For Non-Slo Jamming, Non-Ghetto [English] speaking people that are redolent of Bologna scented. [White Honky Mo Fo’n Devils]
    Barry Sotoro Cool Yes becomes:
    Barack Obama Cool Yes, President of the United States of America.! Or In short, B.O. BOKY

  2. I agree with the picture Obama = the personifacation of EVIL

  3. All that has to happen is that he would get to install another of his radical cronies into the Supreme Court in place of one of the more moderate judges. Pray for the Supremes, that they outlive Obama’s regime. We MUST take back the Senate and keep the House.

  4. The dramatist Eugene O’Neill seems to have been a Prophet of Biblical Proportions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s