Lars Larson: The President owes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce an apology

The slurs began about a week ago. The President of the United States and his surrogates went to the public saying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was taking foreign money and illegally injecting it into America’s electoral process. Now, that’s an ugly slur.

It’s an accusation of committing a crime against an organization where there was no proof. In fact, the President’s own man, David Axelrod had to admit to Bob Schieffer on CBS that there was no proof.

The President has finally dropped it from his speeches and no longer talks about it.

I think he owes them an apology. You say someone has committed a crime. You say someone who represents American business has done the American public wrong. Then, you find out there’s no proof of it. Mr. President it is time for you to apologize.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:05 | Posted in Measure 37 | 17 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Ricky

    He is increasingly becoming irrelevant. If he did apologize, what difference would it make? Why would they even accept an apology?
    I never thought I would see a worse prez than Carter, but now I have.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    You know, this is one of those things that initially I thought “Imagine the moral indignation of the left had a Republican president done this sort of thing, they are such hypocrites”

    Then I realized something – the left truly doesn’t see demanding of others that which they would not demand of themselves as hypocrisy or even inconsistency. Its part of the intrinsic totalitarian nature of leftism – it is wrong if you do it but by definition not wrong if we do it.

    This is why there will be no apology from Obama, he honestly feels he would be entitled to do this and it is not wrong because he is the one doing it.

    Its the same reason the left has no problem with any number of things. The deficit? Nothing wrong with running it up because they are the ones doing it. If it is someone else doing it, then its wrong.

    This is exactly why we see such a totalitarian attitude in the left, when you hold yourself to absolutely zero standards but hold all others accountable, naturally you tend to think of other people as beneath you thus needing to be controlled by you.

    It is the lefts most profound blind spot, lack of introspection. It’s also the main reason they tend to not be popular for long on a national basis.

    To be sure, no one likes the lefts policies, thats why they have to hide them when they run for office. Obama and Clinton both ran as moderates, not as liberals. However their policies are not exactly what gets them thrown out, its the lack of introspection.

    Clinton after 94 did a thing that was mistaken for genius, and only so because it is so rare in a liberal – he was introspective.

    In a move most would regard as common sense, Clinton took the political message of 94 and became far more moderate. Since it is so astonishingly rare for a liberal to do something like this, the press were in awe. Whatever success Clinton had was due precisely to this one basic move.

    With Obama everyone wonders. The path is clear – it was a mistake to assume that when you hide your agenda and win an election, that means your agenda is validated.

    Again, this is basic common sense, but the lefts lack of introspection makes it hard for them to see it.

    Will Obama change course after November? Personally I dont think so. Any man who writes two autobiographies before he is 45 is a little too arrogant to have any introspection.

    • wnd

      Bravo!

    • valley p

      “Its part of the intrinsic totalitarian nature of leftism”

      Oh no….not this one again. Anything to the left of Rupert is inherently totalitarian. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, anti-child labor laws, social security, the 40 hour week, the weekend, the clean air and water acts, Medicare….all brought to you by totalitarians.

      “The deficit? Nothing wrong with running it up because they are the ones doing it. If it is someone else doing it, then its wrong.”

      Pot calls kettle black. The last balanced budget, 4 of them in fact, were brought to you by a liberal democrat. Here is a prediction: The next balanced budget, if you ever see one, will be brought to you by a liberal democrat.

      “This is exactly why we see such a totalitarian attitude in the left, when you hold yourself to absolutely zero standards but hold all others accountable, ”

      Now why does that sound like the Republican/tea party? “We screwed up the entire economy left you with 2 unfinished wars, a doubled debt, and a 1.4 trillion 2009 deficit. Obama and the democrats have had not quite 2 years to fix this entire mess, we did everything we could to prevent them, and now you should elect us again because we are much better now maybe.”

      Holding themselves to zero standards, and having the chutzpah to expect us to forget what they did when last in power. Why not? It appears to be working. Go for it.

      “To be sure, no one likes the lefts policies,…”

      To be sure. That is why everyone is yelling for repeal of the minimum wage, SSI, medicare, anti pollution laws, government insurance on their bank deposits, return of Jim Crow laws, and the ending of food and drug inspections. They just don’t like our policies. No question about that.

      Teaparty Luke writes: “Why shouldn’t the Chamber like many other businesses and organizations have to disclose where the money is coming from?”

      I think the answer is pretty obvious Luke.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >To be sure. That is why everyone is yelling for repeal of the minimum wage, SSI, medicare, anti pollution laws,

        You are going to argue your position going into this election is because people like your policies?

        Dean, we are talking about your policies now, no one likes them, thats why you are in trouble. you are probably the only person on the planet who thinks that the trouble you are in going into this election is not due to your policies.

        Face it, you guys ran up the debt like no ones business and tried to control too much of peoples lives. Everyone sees that your concern about the deficit in 2008 was a pack of lies. “It’s all Bush’s fault” worked two years ago, it aint working now.

    • Founding Fathers

      “the left truly doesn’t see demanding of others that which they would not demand of themselves”

      You mean like the unaccountable Lars Larson demanding accountability of others?

      Like sending out an email purportedly from the “Times Picyaune” that appears to have been made up, and when asked for the source, provided none.

      Like claiming that the U.S. Senate had “held hearings” into John McCain’s birth, when it did no such thing.

      Like claiming that nearly all of the terrorist attacks in the last 40 years were by Muslims. I guess he’s forgotten about Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, Shelley Shannon, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, and the Turnidges, most of whom share many beliefs with Lars and most of those on Oregon Catalyst.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Like claiming that the U.S. Senate had “held hearings” into John McCain’s birth, when it did no such thing.

        Oh good Lord are you still on about this? Face it, you are wrong, the Senate did and now you are continuing to make up this nonsense that they didn’t. What silliness.

        • Founding Fathers

          Tell you what, Rupert, can you point us to the Senate record of these hearings?

          The post was taken down — at least Lars had the intelligence to realize that it made him look bad to have a clear falsehood up under his name. You seem to be lacking in same.

  • Teaparty Luke

    Why shouldn’t the Camber like many other businesses and organizations have to disclose where the money is coming from. Is transparancy too much to ask? Why all the secrecy is there is nothing to hide?

  • Teaparty Luke

    Should have read:

    Why shouldn’t the Chamber like many other businesses and organizations have to disclose where the money is coming from? Is transparency too much to ask for? Why all the secrecy if there is nothing to hide?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Why shouldn’t the Camber like many other businesses and organizations have to disclose where the money is coming from.

      Because it violates the first amendment. Now I know you and your liberal pals tend not to like that and I am sure you would have been cheering on Alabama in NAACP v. State of Alabama but the fact is freedom of association is something valued by some of us.

      We went through this in the McCarthy hearings and with desegregation – you can’t go on fishing expeditions in an attempt to chill the opinions of a group who disagrees with you.

      The standard is government must meet strict scrutiny to demand this sort of thing. It is up to the government to prove its case, not individuals or groups to prove innocence.

      This is exactly the totalitarian attitude of the left that so many people have a problem with.

      The country is saying thanks but no thanks to this sort of thing.

      • valley p

        “Because it violates the first amendment.”

        Horsepucky. It may violate your peculiar version of the 1st amendment. Disclosure of donations used for political purposes is not a first amendment violation. If the Chamber wants to keep its secret on who is providing the money for their campaign, fine, then they can suffer the accusations that they are indeed using money from foreign businesses, which they clearly get money from, in these campaigns.

        Totalitarian schmotalitarian. You don’t know the meaning of the word. You think any idea counter to your own is totalitarian. Get over it.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Horsepucky. It may violate your peculiar version of the 1st amendment.

          OK – so we will put you down on the Alabama side in NAACP v Alabama. Nothing wrong with that, nice to know where you stand.

          Again, this is a perfect example of the lefts inclination towards totalitarianism.

          You have no basis in law for what you want, the sole reason to do it is to intimidate political opposition and you support it. Thats exactly the totalitarian impulse I am talking about. Thank you for providing such a good example.

          Hey Dean – At last, I have discovered something you are good at!

          >Disclosure of donations used for political purposes is not a first amendment violation.

          And no one ever argued it was. If you want to disclose your donations I dont care who you are, go ahead, Thats not what we are talking about here though.

          We are talking about the president trying to claim someone must prove their innocence. The president trying to force that on a fishing expedition is a violation of the first amendment. You might not like that, but the law says otherwise.

          In short what you need to understand is just because a Democrat president does it doesn’t mean its legal.

          >Totalitarian schmotalitarian. You don’t know the meaning of the word. You think any idea counter to your own is totalitarian. Get over it.

          Please try and stay focused, we are talking about you trying to silence opposing views. Thats totalitarian.

          I am not saying ideas other than mine are totalitarian.

          I am saying the attempt to silence political opposition through intimidation, which is what you are advocating for here, is an example of the lefts natural totalitarian inclinations.

          You are going to argue the left has a problem with totalitarian tendencies?

          Seriously?

          I mean with the lefts record you would seriously take this position?

          I doubt many other people would but you are entitled to your opinion. I think most know based on history to be extremely wary of the left precisely because they have such a propensity for totalitarianism.

          I mean its only been the case that virtually every major totalitarian regime of the last century has come straight from the left.

          Need we remind you of the millions the left has killed?

          Need we remind you that the only groups of any real note today who still advocate mass murder of political opposition tend to be on the left?

          Sure there are fringe groups on the right who advocate the same thing, but they are shunned by the vast majority.

          On the left its a different story, groups that advocate for wholesale murder of the opposition are embraced by the left, not shunned.

          Get real, if you are going to try and argue the left doesn’t have a real problem with totalitarian inclinations, especially with current and past history, you are off your rocker.

          • valley p

            “the sole reason to do it is to intimidate political opposition and you support it.”

            Nonsense. The sole reason to do it is disclosure about who is spending gobs of money to influence the politics of the United States of America. Let people draw their own conclusions once they see who is spending money to try and get what outcome. Eliminate bags of cash provided anonymously. That is too much to ask?

            “we are talking about you trying to silence opposing views. Thats totalitarian. ”

            Nonsense. Disclosure is not “silencing.” Regulating is not “silencing”. Rules of engagement are not prohibitions of speech. No one is attempting to silence anyone. And free speech of individuals is not equated to free speech of corporations in the constitution. That is a Scalia invention that overturned over 100 years of practice that we somehow survived.

            “You are going to argue the left has a problem with totalitarian tendencies?”

            I don’t need to “argue” it. Its a fact born out by experience. The left has consistently expanded the reach of freedom in this nation since its founding. Unless you think it was the right who freed the slaves, granted women the right to vote, fought Jim Crow, and is currently fighting for the rights of gay people to live equal lives. (Come to think of it, you probably DO think it was the right that accomplished those things because you live in a fantasy world).

            Sorry Rupert, Hitler was a man of the right, As was Franco, Pinochet, Samoza, the Klan, and the Argentine Junta among many others. Ask your Jewish friends who vote “left” at around 80% consistently why they disagree with your characterization of Fascism as leftist. Racism and Fascism are joined at the hip and always will be, and they come from your side of the aisle, not mine. Even today your side (Gingrich, O-Reilly, Palin, Paladino, Angle) are arguing we should treat all Muslims as potential terrorists. Where does guilt by ethnic or religious association logically lead? And it was and still is YOUR side arguing we should be legally torturing suspects. Who does torture? Totalitarian regimes, not democratic ones.

            Yeah…the extreme left can and has ended in totalitarianism. So has the extreme right. I’d say its about equal. Neither side has any more tendency than the other to go all the way to its extremes. If this were the case, Sweden, the most socialist (left) nation in Europe, would have drifted to totalitarianism a long time ago. They didn’t. In fact they have drifted back towards the center. That would be impossible under your and Glen Beck’s twisted logic. Not that this stops you from your fantasies.

            The non-extreme left is far more democratic than the non-extreme right, and that is where most politics happens.

  • Tunes59

    Let’s put this in perspective. This attack on the Chamber being pushed by the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org which are front groups funded primarily by George Soros. Soros born “Schwartz György” in Hungary, worked for the N***S during WWll helping them round up Jews. The public story is Soros made his billions through hedge fund trading. That’s right one of those evil Wall Street types. He was even convicted of insider trading in Europe. So we have a foreign born, N*** collaborator, billionaire wants to destroy a 100 year old American institution. I think I will wait until there is some actual evidence before I start goose stepping.

    In the run up to the ’08 elections Soros publicly stated he intended to buy the Whitehouse. One unanswered question is if the Whitehouse is taking its marching orders from Soros?

    • Anonymous

      I was hoping we could get through this without beating the tired of George Soros horse, but I guess that was too much to ask. For every left-wing moneybags like Soros there are about 20 right-wing moneybags like the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, Robert Mercer (see Jeff Mapes this morning) etc.

    • Anonymous

      “Soros born “Schwartz György” in Hungary, worked for the N***S during WWll helping them round up Jews.”

      That is a bald-faced lie perpetrated by Ann Coulter. See: https://mediamatters.org/research/201009200038

      Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you no decency? (It’s a rhetorical question — we already know the answer.)

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)