The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (11 page)
Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
11.8Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Thus, if anyone was expecting Obama to change course to a more harmonious path, they would be disappointed. David Plouffe continued to reinforce Obama’s proclivities toward bullying and community organizing against his opponents, as well as his flair for ridicule. To demonize and diminish the tea party in the midst of yet another political standoff over the budget and a potential government shutdown, Plouffe said in late September 2011, “We’re not going to make progress on the deficit, on things we can do right now for jobs, on tax cuts, unless those 30 or 40 Tea Party members of the Republican House stop being the focal point of our discussion.” Plouffe further accused Republicans of “playing politics with disasters,” referring to the claim that the Federal Emergency Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund would be insolvent unless a continuing resolution were passed.
Obama, for his part, was ridiculing accusations that he stoked class warfare even as he stridently did so. He told a crowd in Ohio, “If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher makes me a warrior for the middle class, I’ll wear that charge as a badge of honor. Because the only class warfare I’ve seen is the battle that’s been waged against the middle class in this country for a decade.”
127
127
The next day, in California campaigning again, Obama said that the Republican vision of government would “fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.” Lavishing his militant leftist base with the choicest of red meats, he declared, “From the moment I took office what we’ve seen is a constant ideological pushback against any kind of sensible reforms that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity.”
128
128
At the end of Obama’s second year in office, CNN asked, “Which president, in recent history, had the most polarizing second year in office? The answer,” wrote CNN political producer Shannon Travis, “President Obama, according to a fresh analysis.” Travis cited a Gallup poll comparing Obama’s second year approval numbers—from January 2010 to January 2011—to those of other presidents, reporting that some 81 percent of Democrats approved while only 13 percent of Republicans did, representing a 68 percent gap, higher than any other president in his second year. George W. Bush had a higher gap during the most contentious periods of the Iraq War, but Obama was clearly trending toward record-setting territory in just his second year, in stark contrast to the conciliatory image on which he’d campaigned.
129
129
This is the inevitable result of Obama’s brawling, ends-justifies-the-means attitude toward his opponents. Portraying Republicans and tea partiers as advocates of everything from racism to mass death, Obama and his allies don’t engage with conservatives, but seek to thoroughly discredit them as honorable human beings. For this administration, the personal is indeed political—and they will resort to any means necessary to win.
CHAPTER THREE
THE WAR ON THE DISOBEDIENT
T
hroughout his entire presidency, President Obama has not only habitually bullied his political opponents, he’s harassed any person, organization, or industry he perceives as hindering his agenda. Disrespecting the separation of powers doctrine, Obama even threw his weight around the Supreme Court, warning the “unelected” justices that it would be “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” for them to overturn ObamaCare—though, since the individual mandate is manifestly unconstitutional, striking it down would hardly be unprecedented at all; it would just be a big blow to Obama’s agenda. What
was
unprecedented was for a sitting president to directly comment on a case pending before the Court in an effort either to intimidate the justices into ruling his way, or to lay a foundation to politicize the decision if they didn’t.
1
hroughout his entire presidency, President Obama has not only habitually bullied his political opponents, he’s harassed any person, organization, or industry he perceives as hindering his agenda. Disrespecting the separation of powers doctrine, Obama even threw his weight around the Supreme Court, warning the “unelected” justices that it would be “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” for them to overturn ObamaCare—though, since the individual mandate is manifestly unconstitutional, striking it down would hardly be unprecedented at all; it would just be a big blow to Obama’s agenda. What
was
unprecedented was for a sitting president to directly comment on a case pending before the Court in an effort either to intimidate the justices into ruling his way, or to lay a foundation to politicize the decision if they didn’t.
1
It doesn’t matter that his domineering approach is inconsistent with his professed bipartisanship or his calls for a new tone in politics. Nor does it seem to matter when others call attention to his intimidation tactics. He was raised in Chicago’s mean streets of “community organizing,” and that is all he knows. His vaunted rhetorical powers that served him so well on the campaign trail have yielded him no fruit since he took office; he has failed to persuade the American people to buy into his agenda no matter how many speeches he has delivered on ObamaCare, his “Jobs Bill,” or any other initiative. And whenever he encounters resistance to one of his transformative government schemes, he always falls back on the same thing: his legacy of political brawling.
HOW MANY OTHER PAPERS HAVE GOTTEN CALLS LIKE THIS?”No criticism, no matter how small or insignificant, seems to escape the notice of this thin-skinned president. When the
Pleasanton Weekly
, a small weekly newspaper in California, ran a feature on the presidential helicopter Marine One, the White House bristled that the story reflected poorly on Michelle Obama—because it included one sentence indicating that the first lady acted dismissively toward the pilots. One would think the White House has more pressing concerns than a slightly unfavorable story in a small local paper, but
Pleasanton Weekly
president Gina Channell-Allen said a White House official asked her to cut that reference from the article. While the first lady’s press secretary, Katie McCormick, denied contact with the paper, Allen stuck by her story, saying she “complied” with the request “because it was not worth making a fuss over.”
2
HotAir.com
raised an interesting question: “How many other papers have gotten calls like this?”
3
Pleasanton Weekly
, a small weekly newspaper in California, ran a feature on the presidential helicopter Marine One, the White House bristled that the story reflected poorly on Michelle Obama—because it included one sentence indicating that the first lady acted dismissively toward the pilots. One would think the White House has more pressing concerns than a slightly unfavorable story in a small local paper, but
Pleasanton Weekly
president Gina Channell-Allen said a White House official asked her to cut that reference from the article. While the first lady’s press secretary, Katie McCormick, denied contact with the paper, Allen stuck by her story, saying she “complied” with the request “because it was not worth making a fuss over.”
2
HotAir.com
raised an interesting question: “How many other papers have gotten calls like this?”
3
The administration tries to browbeat bigger newspapers as well, such as its banishment of the
Boston Herald
from an Obama event in Boston as punishment for its printing a front-page op-ed by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich unapologetically pronounced, “I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits.” Moreover, White House press secretary Jay Carney personally called MSNBC to object to comments political analyst Mark Halperin had made about Obama. According to the Daily Caller, MSNBC immediately suspended Halperin indefinitely.
4
Boston Herald
from an Obama event in Boston as punishment for its printing a front-page op-ed by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich unapologetically pronounced, “I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits.” Moreover, White House press secretary Jay Carney personally called MSNBC to object to comments political analyst Mark Halperin had made about Obama. According to the Daily Caller, MSNBC immediately suspended Halperin indefinitely.
4
The White House also blacklisted
San Francisco Chronicle
reporter Carla Marinucci because she had the audacity to record, via cellphone, a video of protesters at an Obama fundraiser in the Bay Area and post it on the internet. True to form, the White House denied it had threatened Marinucci’s banishment, but the
Chronicle
‘s editor, Ward Bushee, stood his ground. “Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday,” he said. “It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed at all.” Phil Bronstein, another
Chronicle
reporter, corroborated Bushee’s story, saying “The Chronicle’s report is accurate…. I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward’s statement.” Making matters worse, numerous journalists confirmed that the White House had issued implied threats of additional punishment if the story of its banishment of Marinucci became public.
5
San Francisco Chronicle
reporter Carla Marinucci because she had the audacity to record, via cellphone, a video of protesters at an Obama fundraiser in the Bay Area and post it on the internet. True to form, the White House denied it had threatened Marinucci’s banishment, but the
Chronicle
‘s editor, Ward Bushee, stood his ground. “Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday,” he said. “It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed at all.” Phil Bronstein, another
Chronicle
reporter, corroborated Bushee’s story, saying “The Chronicle’s report is accurate…. I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward’s statement.” Making matters worse, numerous journalists confirmed that the White House had issued implied threats of additional punishment if the story of its banishment of Marinucci became public.
5
Bronstein noted that the blacklisting “affects the newsgathering of our largest regional paper (and sfgate) and how local citizens get their information,” adding that “Carla cannot do her job to the best of her ability if she can’t use all the tools available to her as a journalist.” Bronstein concluded, “The President’s practice not just with transparency but in other dealings with the press has not been tracking his words, despite the cool glamour and easy conversation that makes him seem so much more open than the last guy…. Barack Obama sold himself successfully as a fresh wind for the 21
st
century. In important matters of communication, technology, openness and the press, it’s not too late for him to demonstrate that.”
6
st
century. In important matters of communication, technology, openness and the press, it’s not too late for him to demonstrate that.”
6
Clearly, intimidating the press has become standard fare for a president who, ironically, vowed to make his administration “the most open and transparent in history.”
7
As blogger Keith Koffler observed, “The Obama White House has long practiced the tactic of bullying reporters who write what it doesn’t like.”
8
“IT’S GOING TO COST YOU”7
As blogger Keith Koffler observed, “The Obama White House has long practiced the tactic of bullying reporters who write what it doesn’t like.”
8
Consistent with their penchant for class warfare, Obama and his administration have demonized entire industries. As I document in chapter seven, they have launched a sustained assault on oil companies, threatening a criminal investigation into British Petroleum over the Gulf oil spill and vowing to punish the whole industry with higher taxes.
9
With no place for oil producers in his utopian dreams, Obama has given the Department of the Interior the green light to harass them. Upping the pressure, in 2010 the department created the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, an office exclusively dedicated to extracting royalties from energy companies. The agency’s zealous chief, Gregory J. Gould, issued a threat to oil companies that ran afoul of the department’s edicts, announcing, “We’re sending a message to the industry that if you do cut corners, it’s going to cost you. You could quickly take care of the federal deficit if you use the maximum [penalties].”
10
9
With no place for oil producers in his utopian dreams, Obama has given the Department of the Interior the green light to harass them. Upping the pressure, in 2010 the department created the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, an office exclusively dedicated to extracting royalties from energy companies. The agency’s zealous chief, Gregory J. Gould, issued a threat to oil companies that ran afoul of the department’s edicts, announcing, “We’re sending a message to the industry that if you do cut corners, it’s going to cost you. You could quickly take care of the federal deficit if you use the maximum [penalties].”
10
The industry is well aware that the administration views it as the enemy. Allison Nyholm, a royalty expert with American Petroleum Institute, remarked, “We are worried about an adversarial process. There is huge discretion in the fines. That is where the rub is going to occur.”
11
As a big-spending liberal, Obama really ought to be thankful for oil companies, which contribute royalties from thousands of offshore oil and gas leases to the tune of some $10 billion to $13 billion a year, reportedly constituting the government’s second biggest source of revenue after federal taxes.
12
11
As a big-spending liberal, Obama really ought to be thankful for oil companies, which contribute royalties from thousands of offshore oil and gas leases to the tune of some $10 billion to $13 billion a year, reportedly constituting the government’s second biggest source of revenue after federal taxes.
12
Aside from oil firms, the administration has also turned investment companies into a favorite whipping boy. Vice President Joe Biden denounced hedge fund managers as people who “play with other people’s money,” and “get taxed at 15 percent because they call it capital gains.”
13
This was a cheap shot, meant to imply that hedge fund managers enjoy special tax treatment when in fact they are subject to the same capital gains tax rate as everyone else. Capital gains are always subject to a lower rate than ordinary income because they are based on income derived from the sale of assets. The White House consistently conflates the two types of taxes as part of its class war strategy to demonize the “wealthy.”
BUSINESS: THE NEW PUBLIC ENEMY #113
This was a cheap shot, meant to imply that hedge fund managers enjoy special tax treatment when in fact they are subject to the same capital gains tax rate as everyone else. Capital gains are always subject to a lower rate than ordinary income because they are based on income derived from the sale of assets. The White House consistently conflates the two types of taxes as part of its class war strategy to demonize the “wealthy.”
When President Obama nominated M. Patricia Smith for solicitor of the Department of Labor on March 20, 2009, Republicans were concerned by her track record as New York State commissioner of labor, including her cozy relationship with unions. In that position, she created a first-of-its-kind program that involved the deputizing of unions and advocacy groups as watchdogs against private sector businesses, with an eye especially to reporting wage violations. Employing typical liberal euphemisms, Smith insisted the unions and advocacy groups were merely helping the Labor Commission with “education,” but an internal memo revealed that the Commission referred to the groups as “enforcers.” Republicans and businesses regarded this program as an “unprecedented and unwarranted” intrusion on private companies that would not only have a chilling effect on business, but could empower unions to pressure companies into accepting union contract terms or into unionizing their firms. Within weeks of her initiation of the “wage watch” program, numerous trade groups representing restaurants, retail outlets, convenience stores, and other types of business in New York drafted a letter to Smith complaining that the program “steps well over the boundaries of even the most constructive collaboration with community groups and advocates.”
Some GOP lawmakers called on Obama to withdraw Smith’s nomination, saying she misled the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee about the function of the “wage watch” program. Senator Mike Enzi wrote Obama, “If it was her intention to mislead the Senate, then I must oppose her nomination. If she unintentionally gave inaccurate statements to the Senate, then I question her ability to manage a large corporation, since she does not have a clear understanding of what is taking place in her own department in New York.” When pressed at her confirmation hearing, Smith said she had no plans to consider this type of program at the federal level.
14
14
As it turns out, the Republicans’ concerns were vindicated. Perhaps Smith didn’t recreate a “wage watch” program at the federal level per se, but she went further; under her direction, the Department of Labor staff issued a draft “operating plan” to significantly increase enforcement measures against private sector employers suspected of committing unfair labor practices, a move the National Legal and Policy Center described as a “plan to bully employers.” The think tank, having examined the plan, concluded that its details “indicate Smith, like her boss, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, views the department’s relationship with business as necessarily highly adversarial.”
15
15
Smith showcased her anti-business animus in her draft “operating plan,” which was reportedly adopted by the Labor Department. Rife with presuppositions about the inherent improprieties of private sector employers, the plan effectively aimed to turn the department into a menacing enemy of businesses. The plan called for “identifying a public affairs liaison in each regional office to send stronger, clearer messages to the regulated community about DOL’s emphasis on litigation.” One tactic would be for the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to “deter (employers) through shaming.” As the
Wall Street Journal
‘s John Fund observed, “Whatever it might involve, it doesn’t sound appropriate for an agency charged with carrying out the law in an even-handed fashion.” The National Policy Center noted, “These liaisons can’t be expected to be even-handed, as their very job depends on threatening employers with lawsuits. They will give working with (as opposed to working against) employers secondary priority.”
16
Wall Street Journal
‘s John Fund observed, “Whatever it might involve, it doesn’t sound appropriate for an agency charged with carrying out the law in an even-handed fashion.” The National Policy Center noted, “These liaisons can’t be expected to be even-handed, as their very job depends on threatening employers with lawsuits. They will give working with (as opposed to working against) employers secondary priority.”
16
The plan also directed the department to “engage in enterprise-wide enforcement,” meaning they would target multiple work sites of a single company. It further advocated “imposing shorter deadlines for implementing remedial measures in conciliation agreements and consent decrees.”
17
17
It also called for the department to “engage in greater use of injunctive relief,” which was practically a mandate for compliance enforcement lawsuits, and would surely involve court-imposed penalties that might exceed heavy administrative fines.
Perhaps the most disturbing provision of the plan is one that called for the department to “identify and pursue test cases” to stretch the meaning of the law. This is an extremely aggressive use of the judicial system to expand the law’s parameters, effectively transforming the department into a vehicle that seeks out trouble rather than trying to quell it. The department has over 400 lawyers throughout the United States who could systematically harass private companies, all as a means of imperiously forcing changes in the employer-employee relationship that conform to the liberal ideological vision.
This decidedly anti-business attitude is in stark contrast to that shown by the Bush Labor Department under Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who argued that “the best way to protect workers is to help employers understand their legal obligations and promote collaborative working relationships between employers and workers on safety and other issues.” In other words, the Republican approach has not been to deny the role of government altogether, but it certainly hasn’t identified employers as the government’s number one enemy. Bush’s approach worked: workplace injuries and illnesses declined some 21 percent beginning in 2002 and reached record lows at the end of Bush’s second term.
18
18
The Obama administration’s anti-business bias is even more offensive in light of how favorably it treats unions. It has reversed Bush administration policies requiring greater union transparency, promoted a card check policy to intimidate employees from opting out of union representation, and the Obama Labor Department rescinded its Form T-1, which, in order to promote transparency, required unions to disclose information on strike funds and other accounts under their authority. In addition, the Labor Department intended to shift whistleblowing oversight authority from OSHA to the Office of Labor-Management Standards—conveniently, just as the administration has gutted that office’s staff and funding.
19
19
Other books
Kristi Gold - Hotel Marchand 04 by Damage Control
What She Craves by Anne Rainey
Murder Served Cold by Elizabeth Holly
Mackenzie Legacy, The by Anderson, Derrolyn
Corporate Daddy by Arlene James
The Baby by Lisa Drakeford
Bugging Out by Noah Mann
Death Of A Dream Maker by Katy Munger
Jake's War, Book Two of Wizards by Booth, John