To Save America: Abolishing Obama's Socialist State and Restoring Our Unique American Way

by Newt Gingrich

  Perhaps this shouldn’t have surprised us. After all, it’s clear the Left cannot tell the American people the truth about their goals and the way they operate.

  Imagine if candidate Obama, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, had in 2008 declared,

  We are going to pass a $787 billion spending bill that no member of Congress had time to read, explode the deficit to unsustainable levels, seize control of private car companies, push for a massive energy tax, socialize the health system, sign an enormous number of earmarks, negotiate in secret with senators whom we will bribe to vote for a health bill their constituents oppose, and give the Environmental Protection Agency massive bureaucratic power to intimidate American businesses while dictating pay and bonus policy to dozens of companies. Oh, and our Justice Department will consistently favor protecting the rights of terrorists over the lives of Americans.

  I’m not a fortune teller, but I can confidently predict that platform is not going to win any elections. Since the secular-socialist Left cannot tell the truth and survive, it uses deception and machine politics to gain power, with the goal of subverting and destroying traditional America—our economic system, our relationship to government, and our values.

  CHAPTER FOUR

  The Secular- Socialist Machine in Action

  One of the most disturbing developments in modern American political life has been the rise of an anti-democratic political machine that increasingly controls Washington, many state capitols, and many cities and counties.

  A political machine does not care about popular opinion. In fact, its very reason for being is to crush such opinion by the weight of organized money and manpower. And when it can’t crush public opinion, it seeks simply to outlast it.

  Patience is a key element to a political machine’s survival. People get angry at politicians and they vote (as in the 2009 California spending and taxing referendum) or they turn out for tea parties (as hundreds of thousands did that spring). But they tend to quickly go back to their daily routines. Having expressed themselves, they think politicians will listen. And while we are engaged in our daily business, we forget that the business of a political machine is surviving in power.

  A political machine understands that an attack on any part of the machine is an attack on the whole machine. Therefore, even the most innocuous reform, if it affects the machine, can produce a furious counterattack as the machine brings to bear its full financial power and its organizational strength.

  California provides a perfect example. In the early 1900s, the progressive movement led by Hiram Johnson shattered the old railroad-dominated political machine and inaugurated a period of genuinely popular government in the Golden State, with citizens gaining unprecedented power via the ballot initiative and the referendum. For well over a half century, California experienced constant reform and widespread popular involvement in government.

  But when Californians passed Proposition 13—the anti-tax, anti-spending referendum of 1978—the Left realized popular political participation was undermining their goals. Thus, they created the California political machine—an interlocking coalition of interest groups that rely on government money and government-imposed rules to enrich their members at the expense of the rest of society. Beginning with Democratic State Assembly speaker Willie Brown in 1980, the Left have controlled California through a money-driven special-interest system that is impervious to popular opposition.

  In November 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor in response to public anger over California’s machine politics as personified by his predecessor, Gray Davis. In an unusual recall election, Schwarzenegger ran as an outsider, beholden to no one, who would clean house in a state that was in a deep fiscal hole. Schwarzenegger had a string of early successes in office, but he was unprepared for the ferocity he would encounter when he tried to enact reforms that threatened the Sacramento political machine.

  In June 2005, Schwarzenegger called a special election and backed four propositions that were the centerpieces of his reform efforts. Two of these were controversial from the start. Proposition 76 would have authorized the governor to slow the rate of increase of state spending on education and other public services, while Proposition 77 would have transferred redistricting—the periodic redrawing of electoral districts—from the legislature to a panel of three retired judges appointed by the legislature.

  Education spending is always a heated topic, so it was no shock that a June 2005 poll showed 35 percent supported Proposition 76 while 42 percent opposed it. Proposition 77, surprisingly, was also contentious (perhaps because of a distrust of judges), with the same poll showing 35 percent for it and 46 percent opposed.

  However, Proposition 74—increasing the amount of time it takes for teachers to gain tenure from two to five years—and Proposition 75—requiring unions to obtain their members’ permission to use any portion of union dues for political donations—were initially very popular, earning 61 percent and 57 percent approval, respectively.

  These two measures threatened the power of unions and would have substantially weakened the Sacramento political machine. So the machine responded with total war.

  It was the most expensive special election in history, costing by some accounts more than $300 million. Unions alone spent more than $100 million in advertising and voter mobilization efforts. The result: all eight ballot initiatives were defeated, including the four backed by Schwarzenegger. Despite their initial popularity, propositions 74 and 75 lost by ten points or more. Propositions 76 and 77 were beaten by even larger margins.

  A Los Angeles Times op-ed by broadcaster John Ziegler aptly summed up the result. It was titled “How the Liars Won”:

  The entire special election was dictated by 30 second TV ads. . . . The vast majority of the commercials—which, for merely a couple of hundred million dollars, took over our television sets for the final weeks of the campaign—treated the truth as a mere technicality and the facts as just an obstacle to a goal apparently inspired by Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis’ famous mantra, “Just Win Baby.”

  . . . In general the news media seems to have created a matrix through which we were supposed to view all political discourse with such extreme cynicism that it is presumed that no one is telling the truth. So if one side claims that 2 + 2=4 and the other claims 2 + 2=100, there appears to be a consensus that the real answer must be somewhere in the middle. Ask yourself who prevails in that scenario? Obviously, it is the liars who win big because the truth, by its very nature, cannot be exaggerated.

  Of course, we’ve already learned just how little the truth matters to the secular-socialist machine.

  BRIBERY AND PAYOFFS OF THE SECULAR-SOCIALIST MACHINE

  The governance of a machine is always infused with lies and corruption.

  The machine that currently runs Washington, D.C., is no exception. Having promised honest and accountable government, the administration picked a Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, who failed to pay his taxes. Then, Obama’s officials announced grandly they will do no business with companies that fail to pay their taxes.

  Similarly, it made perfect sense for Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate committee overseeing mortgage lenders, to take a sweetheart deal from a mortgage lender. After all, if you’re going to work hard to get power, shouldn’t you get something back for your troubles?

  After people become corrupt, it’s natural for them to bribe others in the same manner. That’s why rule-breaking, writing payoffs into legislative bills, and fawning over special interests is the modus operandi of the secular-socialist machine.

  The machine uses government resources to enhance its power, pay off allies, and buy off others. We’ve seen political machines in America in the past, mostly at the municipal level. But the modern era is even more dangerous due to the emergence of a huge government in Washington with enormous power and resources. This has enabled secular socialists to use payoffs and special favors on a grand scale in order to constru
ct a national political machine. And in order to maintain their machine, secular socialists have to pillage government assets to reward their friends and allies.

  This machine is now running the country. The only question is whether it will become permanent, or the American people will dislodge it.

  ONCE, WE WOULD HAVE CALLED IT A SCANDAL

  A prime example of the machine in action can be seen in the automobile bailout and in the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings for Chrysler. Although the Democrats and the mainstream media tried to treat this extraordinary intervention as routine, it wasn’t. In fact, there was a time when we would have called it a scandal.

  In 1921, for example, oil tycoon Harry Sinclair gave several prize head of cattle and around $269,000 to President Harding’s secretary of the interior, Albert Fall. In return, Sinclair got the exclusive rights to drill in an oil field in Wyoming. Sinclair’s no-bid contract exploded into the Teapot Dome scandal, the most notorious example of political corruption in America prior to Watergate.

  Now, consider the Chrysler bankruptcy. Between 2000 and 2008, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union gave $23,675,562 to the Democratic Party and its candidates while giving just $193,540 to Republicans. In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama.

  In return, in a rigged proceeding in which the federal government disregarded bankruptcy law in order to engineer a desired political outcome, the unions were made the primary beneficiaries of the Chrysler bankruptcy. The Obama Treasury Department strong-armed Chrysler’s creditors into a deal in which the UAW was given 55 percent ownership of the company while Chrysler’s secured creditors—investors who normally receive priority in bankruptcy proceedings—were left with just 29 cents on the dollar. These secured creditors included the state of Indiana’s teacher pension fund which, according to Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, lost at least $4.6 million in the bankruptcy.

  As rotten as it was, the Chrysler bankruptcy was just a prelude to the General Motors bankruptcy, again brokered by the Obama administration. And once again, the big losers were the bondholders, who included substitute teachers in Florida and retired tool and dye supervisors in Michigan. Holding $27 billion in GM debt, they are receiving a 10 percent stake in the new company. In contrast, the UAW, which is owed about $20 billion from GM, is walking away with 17.5 percent of the company and a cool $9 billion in cash.

  According to a Barron’s magazine analysis, while the bondholders will be lucky to recover 15 cents on the dollar, the UAW can expect to recover up to 60-70 cents on the dollar—four to five times what the bondholders will receive. As the magazine noted, “Never has an American union done so well at the expense of shareholders and creditors.”

  Bankruptcy was once a legal process in which an insolvent company, an impartial judge, and creditors cooperated in good faith to make the best of a bad situation. Under the secular-socialist machine, the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies became a naked opportunity for political patronage.

  In the end, the losers weren’t just the secured creditors and the taxpayers who footed the bill for all these bailouts, but the rule of law itself.

  COERCIVE TACTICS OF THE SECULAR-SOCIALIST MACHINE

  Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of President Obama’s first year in office is the machine’s brazen willingness to use the power of the state to coerce and intimidate his opponents while rewarding his political allies.

  A perfect example was the investigation launched by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services into the insurance company Humana for having the gall to send its members a letter describing how the healthcare bill would negatively affect their benefits.

  Another stunning example was reported by FOX News’ Andrew Napolitano, who had to hide the name of the people and the institution involved because of threats made by the administration. Napolitano revealed that in spring 2009, a major bank that had accepted a relatively small amount of TARP money wanted to return the money to the government. The Obama administration, however, refused to accept it and threatened “adverse” consequences if the bank’s chairman pursued the matter. This report is particularly troubling considering the administration’s attempts shortly thereafter to convert TARP recipients’ preferred stock into common stock, which would give the government voting rights on the banks’ management or policy.

  Finally, who can forget the administration’s war against FOX News? As opposition grew to their efforts to nationalize healthcare, administration officials began calling on other news organizations to shun FOX for producing, as then-White House communications director Anita Dunn put it, “opinion journalism masquerading as news.” The White House even refused to provide guests to FOX News Sunday for having the temerity to fact-check assertions made by administration officials. Other news organizations, rightly concluding they could be the next target, refused to ostracize FOX, and the administration eventually backed down.

  This wasn’t the first time Team Obama tried to intimidate a news program. In August 2008, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to call and email a Chicago radio station—WGN AM—to protest the appearance on the station of conservative journalist Stanley Kurtz, who had been investigating Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

  HOLDING THE CONSTITUTION HOSTAGE

  Perhaps the worst example of the machine’s intimidation tactics is President Obama’s unconstitutional use of the Environmental Protection Agency to blackmail Congress into passing his cap-and-tax energy bill.

  In summer 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the job-killing cap-and-trade energy tax bill. But because the bill needed sixty votes, including those of senators from coal producing states, it was obviously going nowhere in the Senate.

  So at the end of 2009, the administration tried to bully the Senate into passing the bill. They cited a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Bush Administration had refused to do so, realizing it would create a morass of new regulations and bureaucracy. But as the UN’s annual climate change conference began in Copenhagen on December 7, Obama’s EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, announced the EPA now considers six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, dangerous to the environment and public health, and that the EPA would begin drawing up new regulations to arbitrarily reduce them.

  The announcement deliberately coincided with the climate change conference, which aims to establish an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the president cannot implement a treaty by himself; he needs the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. So the EPA’s announcement was actually a threat to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives. Obama was indicating he would commit the United States to carbon-cutting goals reached at Copenhagen, and if the Senate refused to approve a carbon-cutting treaty or to pass cap and trade, Obama would simply use the EPA to regulate carbon whether the Senate likes it or not.

  Senator John Kerry, a co-sponsor of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, aptly summed it up: “The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.”

  This is a breathtakingly anti-democratic and unconstitutional arrogation of power by the president. Even Democratic senator Jim Webb warned Obama in a public letter that “only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”

  But for a president trained to value the acquisition of power above all else, why let the Constitution obstruct that goal?

  THE MACHINE’S MILLIONAIRE BACKERS

  Finally, no overview of the secular-socialist machine would be complete without acknowledging its key source of funding: a clique of left-wing millionaires operating outside the Democratic Party.

  A “shadow party,” as David Horowitz and Richard Poe coined it, was enabled by a rapid influx of money from a few rich liberals united in their opposition to George W. Bush and their frustration wit
h the Democratic establishment’s ineffectiveness and lack of ideological purity.

  Horowitz and Poe’s book The Shadow Party, along with Matt Bai’s The Argument, detailed the modus operandi of this new power center. By funneling money through interlocutor organizations to left-wing groups, these benefactors created an alternative structure that compliments the Democratic Party while pushing it to the Left. Conveniently, this method allows the donors to avoid compliance with campaign finance laws that regulate political parties.

  This funding enriched established far-left groups like ACORN and People for the American Way. But it also helped to create new liberal “message machines” like the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America, organizations that quickly grew to dominate the Democratic Party, scooping up its resources and volunteers.

  Having aided the Democratic victories in the 2006 mid-term elections, this shadow party was also instrumental in the overwhelming fundraising and organizing success of the Obama campaign, creating a ready network of volunteers and financing to defeat Hillary Clinton and then John McCain.

  A small group of far-left tycoons presides over this entire effort: George Soros, Peter Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, and Stephen Bing.

  Soros, who declared in 2003 that defeating President Bush was “the central focus of my life,” is the key figure. Through his various organizations, he finances an array of domestic and international left-wing causes. A major supporter of international efforts to curtail gun rights, Soros funds the International Action Network on Small Arms, which is pushing for a UN arms treaty to regulate international weapons sales. The Bush administration opposed this anti-democratic power grab, but the Obama administration has vaguely indicated openness to it.