Americans for Prosperity Respond to Attack from President Bully Obama

American Presidents of the past have reserved their most pointed and damning rhethorical attacks for the true enemies of America.

By contrast, President Barack Obama coddles those enemies and conveys his animosity toward his domestic political opponents. It's sad, destabilizing and dangerous for the President of the United States to continue his attacks on American citizens he may disagree with while kowtowing to non-citizens who want to kill American citizens.

In the spirit of ensuring that Travis Monitor readers see the full response of a group that was attacked by President Obama while he was here in Travis County a few weeks back, here is the full Americans For Prosperity press release release commenting on this travesty:

AFP – TEXAS ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN ADDRESSES RECENT ATTACKS ON AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Ben Streusand, Texas Advisory Board Chairman for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), responds to President Obama’s comments criticizing AFP’s grassroots origins and its funding:

“President Obama’s comments at a Democratic party fundraiser August 9th, in Austin were decidedly unpresidential and showed a disturbing contempt for citizens who simply have a different vision for our country than that of the President.

“AFP’s legal, ethical, and honorable activities, such as demonstrations against Obamacare, opposition to the American Recovery Act (stimulus), and sponsorship of the statewide event held in Austin, the Defending the American Dream® Summit on July 4th, have helped educate people on these issues and contributed to a vital discourse on these critical issues. This kind of debate and expression is a crucial part of the functioning of a free society and a strong democracy.

“The President’s attack, as well as a recent article in THE NEW YORKER, by Jane Mayer, is a barely-veiled attempt to discredit our group and our members, who are simply exercising their right to disagree with the policies coming out of this administration.

“Our decisions to engage in public policy debates are governed by our primary mission, which is to advocate in support of free market policies and solutions. One must ask whether it is really the role of the President of the United States to attempt to chill free speech, simply because that speech happens to disagree with his own views.
“Our national membership consists of 1.2 million members, of which 74,000 reside in the state of Texas. To imagine that any corporation could control our agenda is ludicrous. They only positive aspect of this unfortunate incident is that we must be having some impact on the administrations policies to warrant the President’s attempt to discredit us.”