Barack Obama: so hypocritical, it’s almost grotesque

October 10, 2010

Recently, President Obama joined in a campaign by the Democrats and other left-wingers  to vilify the US Chamber of Commerce by accusing it of using foreign money to fund its political operations:

Referring to a study by the liberal group ThinkProgress that – correctly – notes that the US Chamber of Commerce has some funding sources abroad, including foreign corporations and American Chambers of Commerce around the world (or “AmChams”), the President said, “just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations.”

The president then took this step, saying, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from.”

Chamber officials say that money coming from foreign donors cannot be used for political activity under the 1907 Tillman Act, and that the charge is false.

Forget whether the charge is correct or not. Ignore the fact that this is a desperate, xenophobic smear job by a party facing a massacre at the polls.

It’s the hypocrisy that’s jaw-dropping, given that Obama’s own presidential campaign winked at foreign money. Michael Barone explains:

Glenn Reynolds nails this one: the Obama Democrats’ campaign riff against foreign donations to Democrats is bogus—and according to the New York Times, no less. This looks like a matter of projection, since it’s well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals. Here’s the Washington Post on this back in October 2008: Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

Go read the rest of the article and follow the other links back to reports from 2008 on the Obama campaign and odd donations. Here’s another. Obama and the Democrats engaged in rampant cheating regarding foreign donations, and now they have the gall to falsely accuse the Chamber of Commerce of doing what they themselves did?

Just another day of Life Under Alinsky Rules:

“Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

And, we should add, “Lie about it and hope the rubes fall for it.”

RELATED: Of course, in 2008 the Obama campaign was just following the precedent established by Clinton and Gore.

UPDATE: And here’s the cherry on top: The President’s chief political adviser, David Axelrod, says he doesn’t have to produce proof – it’s up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. Wow. Just shameless.

UPDATE II, 10/11/10: Ed Morrissey calls Obama’s baseless accusations “McCarthyism” and a form of tyranny. He’s right.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Today in History: the Battle of Tours

October 10, 2010

Today is the 1,278th anniversary of the Battle of Tours, at which a Frankish army under Charles Martel (“Charles the Hammer”) defeated a Muslim invasion from conquered Spain. Tours marked the high tide of the Islamic advance into Western Europe, though raids along the Mediterranean coast would continue for several centuries, and Islamic armies invading from the East would almost a thousand years later reach the gates of Vienna.

As I like to say, the current jihad is just the latest episode in a very old war.

RELATED: Historian Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent chapter on the Battle of Tours, which he refers to as “Poitiers,” in his book “Carnage and Culture.”


Silence, peasant!

October 10, 2010

President Thinskin strikes again: While in Iowa at the end of last month to hear from the common folk in their own backyards, Obama was met with unwanted honesty from one of the little people. So, what’s an enlightened being to do when one of the mundanes says something other than praise? Why, cut off his mike, of course:

Trying to sell his economic record in Iowa yesterday, President Obama got an earful from a successful businessman who pleaded with him not to raise taxes.

“One of the things that concerns me is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts,” said David Greenspon, referring to Democratic plans to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and on families and certain businesses earning more than $250,000.

“The repeal — I don’t care if it is 5 percent — that’s 5 percent that would create a job,” he told Obama during a meeting with about 70 people in a couple’s back yard in Des Moines.

“Five percent on millions of dollars of profit creates many jobs . . . As the government gets more and more involved in business and more and more involved in taxes, what you’re finding is you’re strangling those job-creation vehicles.”

Before Greenspon could complete his question, his microphone was cut off and taken out of his hand.

You’d have thought, after the Joe the Plumber incident, that the President would be more careful when wandering into people’s neighborhoods. Americans, after all, have a habit of speaking their minds even to big shots with big titles – and maybe especially to them. One of the skills a politician needs is being able to react with grace even to those who disagree with him. Instead, as the article relates, Obama showed petulance and frustration.

And, of course, incidents like this just reinforce the image that Obama is an out-of-touch elitist who only hears what he wants to hear. A leader, especially in a democratic republic, needs to hear contradictory views if he is to govern effectively. Cutting off Greespon’s mike, on the other hand, is a symbolic slamming of the doors to the ivory tower. It’s a “Kodak moment” that captures the essence of the progressive attitude: “We know best, so be quiet and do as you’re told. You’re welcome.”

Way to bond with the common man, sir.

Via Hot Air.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)