The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

2016 Doesn't Mean Obama's Power Over America Will End

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  With the election in 2016, we'll finally be done with Obama's power over our nation.   

Here's the Horse Sense:  2016 not only won't be the end of Obama's power over our nation, his power will continue but there will be even less ability to control him.

If you think President Obama is done influencing, even controlling, our government after 2016, then you've got another think coming.  He may be leaving office after 2016, but he's planning on big influence after that date.  He's not going away.  The only difference will be that as a private citizen he'll be even harder to stop than as president (not that the Republicans tried to stop him during his presidency anyway).  He's setting himself up for huge influence and control after he leaves the Oval Office, and few people even realize it.

The Washington Post is reporting that out of Obama's campaigns came an organization called Organizing for Action (OFA).  While an organization of this type should wind down as a president nears the end of his term, OFA is continuing full steam ahead.  They are still raising money and working towards furthering Obama's agenda, which does not stop when he leaves office.  His plan is to influence, if not to control, the Democrat Party for years, maybe even decades to come.

OFA is set up with a huge email list of donors that it works to get support for Obama's progressive agenda.  By doing this he is able to control the party and push things to go his way.  OFA has been involved with enrolling people in Obamacare, setting and running political rallies, promoting LGBT issues, immigration issues, and climate change policies.  And they've done this through use of Obama's email list that was essential for his campaign victories.  

The WAPO article tells us that while these were usually the tasks of the national political committees, "in 2002, the emergence of national committees as national political machines was short-circuited."  It goes on to say:
 
"Although Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is best remembered for striking down some campaign finance restrictions, perhaps as important are the portions of 2002’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that the Supreme Court let stand. While fundraising restrictions on Political Action Committees and other forms of “independent” groups were eliminated, the BCRA’s new regulations on contributions to party committees were upheld. The most significant remaining regulation was the so-called soft money ban, which proscribed the national party organizations from raising unregulated funds."
It then goes on to explain what it means:
"Prior to the BCRA’s passage, campaign finance law distinguished between money raised for the purposes of “electioneering” on behalf of candidates for office (what was then called “hard money”) and dollars earmarked for all other purposes (referred to as “soft money”). Individual donors were –as now – restricted in the amount of hard money they could donate, but there was no cap on soft money donations before 2002. Since then, however, no distinction has been enforced between hard money and soft; all donations to political parties have been subject to the same limits."
These days the parties focus most of their funds on contributions to candidates that are in highly competitive elections (i.e.; the GOP pours money into elections where establishment Republican candidates are being challenged by conservatives so that the conservatives will be defeated).  And this is where Obama has been so smart.  Using OFA, they can accept unlimited contributions and then promote policies that don't fall under the regulation of campaign finance laws.  
OFA also holds workshops to train their followers to be community organizers and workers to work for Democrat candidates.  More than 10,000 were trained to work in the 2014 midterm elections and many of those are already joining 2016 presidential campaigns.  OFA even recently sent out an email saying they were securing the "future of the Progressive movement."  And if you've done even the smallest amount of homework you understand that the Progressive movement is based on Marxist ideology that is pushing America towards communism.
While the article says that "former President Obama may well keep OFA intact after he leaves office. With its state of the art digital platform, 30 million e-mail addresses, 3 million donors and 2 million active participants, OFA 4.0 could continue to be a useful ally to progressive politicians and causes."  I think it's foolish to think he will do anything less than keep OFA going.  Why else would he still be raising money and training people through OFA?  It would make no sense to continue building an organization if he plans to shut it down. 

This is the danger of the Progressive movement, not just President Obama.  Yes, he's their figurehead leader, but only a figurehead (although he's an expert at progressive tactics and is most likely a key architect in this process).  However, he clearly does not make the final decisions.  Someone or some group behind the scenes undoubtedly gives him his directions.  Some even say it's Valerie Jarrett, who certainly has huge influence over him.  However, I suspect that she's a key player, but not the total power "behind the throne" and we shouldn't think that if Obama and/or Jarrett were gone that this wouldn't continue.


The progressives have spent a century building to where they are at today.  Whether they use Obama or someone else, they are deeply embedded into our system.  And they include many Republicans at the top of the GOP.  After all, when was the last time people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell really fought for what the voters elected them to fight for?  As I've said for many years, the progressive plan has been to so infiltrate and influence both parties that they have the same goals.  Then, when the voters get fed up with one party and throw them out, the other party who steps in will continue on the same path to the same goals. 

And doesn't that look exactly like what's been happening?

Don't let the label of "Republican" fool you.  Obviously it means very little anymore.  While the Republican Party platform is much different than the Democrat Party platform, most Republican politicians don't embrace it.  That's why David Bratt was able to unseat Eric Cantor in his Virginia congressional race by simply going to voters, showing the Republican Party platform and saying he was running on that and Cantor couldn't counter him because he didn't stand with the platform.  Just because someone calls themselves a Republican doesn't mean they live up to the platform of the party.  And sadly, today most Republican politicians don't.

The task at hand for American voters is simple; the progressives in both parties and must be stopped if America is to survive.  If you don't stop them, they will not stop until you don't exist.