/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
America should stop interfering in Egypt
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:
"Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be.
"Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides.
"The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners.
"This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage.
"Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt.
"American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification.
"Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed.
"Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians."
The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states:
"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
"Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be.
"Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides.
"The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners.
"This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage.
"Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt.
"American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification.
"Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed.
"Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians."
The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states:
"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Obama Drilling Reversal Jeopardizes Trillions in Economic Opportunity
/PRNewswire/ -- In the wake of an announcement by the administration to reverse its plans to expand offshore oil and gas exploration in the Eastern Gulf and up the Atlantic Coast, LSU finance professor and nationally renowned economist Joseph Mason released the following statement:
"Uncertainty is a major hindrance for economic growth. Yet, uncertainty has been the hallmark of the administration's energy policy over the past seven months. Today's default on its promise of expanded offshore access marks only the latest move by administration officials to saddle our still unstable economy with more uncertainty.
"By imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling, the administration cost nearly 20,000 Gulf workers their jobs as of September. While the growing tally of jobs lost as a result of its ongoing de facto shallow water drilling ban remains unknown, this much is certain. If the Interior denies U.S. companies the opportunity to buy new offshore drilling leases in 2011, American policymakers will put an astounding amount of economic potential in jeopardy.
"In a 2009 analysis , I determined that America stood to gain $8 trillion in additional GDP, $2.2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, and 1.2 million new jobs annually by opening access to our offshore resources. Given that those estimates were based on federal inventories of offshore oil and gas reserves that have not been updated for decades, the actual economic benefits are likely much greater. In the same vein, the economic opportunities denied would be much greater too.
"Rather than opening up the pipeline for future economic investment in the Gulf region and other areas with restricted offshore resources, the administration is sealing them off. Washington must steer clear of harmful policies that unnecessarily extend recovery and, instead, focus on efforts which will invite investment, create jobs, and energize our economy."
"Uncertainty is a major hindrance for economic growth. Yet, uncertainty has been the hallmark of the administration's energy policy over the past seven months. Today's default on its promise of expanded offshore access marks only the latest move by administration officials to saddle our still unstable economy with more uncertainty.
"By imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling, the administration cost nearly 20,000 Gulf workers their jobs as of September. While the growing tally of jobs lost as a result of its ongoing de facto shallow water drilling ban remains unknown, this much is certain. If the Interior denies U.S. companies the opportunity to buy new offshore drilling leases in 2011, American policymakers will put an astounding amount of economic potential in jeopardy.
"In a 2009 analysis , I determined that America stood to gain $8 trillion in additional GDP, $2.2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, and 1.2 million new jobs annually by opening access to our offshore resources. Given that those estimates were based on federal inventories of offshore oil and gas reserves that have not been updated for decades, the actual economic benefits are likely much greater. In the same vein, the economic opportunities denied would be much greater too.
"Rather than opening up the pipeline for future economic investment in the Gulf region and other areas with restricted offshore resources, the administration is sealing them off. Washington must steer clear of harmful policies that unnecessarily extend recovery and, instead, focus on efforts which will invite investment, create jobs, and energize our economy."
Friday, October 29, 2010
New Documents: Conservative Leader Disinvited from Speaking at Andrews Air Force Base Prayer Luncheon for Opposing Obama 'Issues'
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing the decision to retract an invitation to Family Research Council (FRC) President and Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins to serve as a guest speaker for a prayer breakfast held in February at Andrews Air Force Base. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Air Force officials were concerned about FRC statements opposing President Obama's policies.
The following is an excerpt from a January 29, 2010, Air Force email included among the documents:
"General [REDACTED] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org. That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief is named."
"CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story."
On October 2, 2009, a Chaplain for the Air Force extended an invitation to Mr. Perkins to serve as the keynote speaker at the 2010 National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for February 25, 2010, at Andrews Air Force Base: "Sir, it would be a great honor for our community if you would accept our humble invitation and share with us some of the basic principles that have guided you along the way," the Chaplain wrote.
However, in a letter dated January 29, 2010, the Air Force rescinded the invitation. The letter cited Family Research Council website statements calling them "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief."
"It seems like this administration's enemies list just gets longer and longer. Mr. Perkins is not only a respected national leader who has held public office but he is also a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. I find it unconscionable that the Air Force would ban Mr. Perkins from speaking to a prayer luncheon on a military base due to his organization's opposition to some of President Obama's 'issues,'" stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"This new scandal is bound to outrage many Americans and it raises additional questions about the Obama administration's commitment to the First Amendment."
Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access the Air Force records obtained by Judicial Watch.
The following is an excerpt from a January 29, 2010, Air Force email included among the documents:
"General [REDACTED] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org. That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief is named."
"CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story."
On October 2, 2009, a Chaplain for the Air Force extended an invitation to Mr. Perkins to serve as the keynote speaker at the 2010 National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for February 25, 2010, at Andrews Air Force Base: "Sir, it would be a great honor for our community if you would accept our humble invitation and share with us some of the basic principles that have guided you along the way," the Chaplain wrote.
However, in a letter dated January 29, 2010, the Air Force rescinded the invitation. The letter cited Family Research Council website statements calling them "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief."
"It seems like this administration's enemies list just gets longer and longer. Mr. Perkins is not only a respected national leader who has held public office but he is also a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. I find it unconscionable that the Air Force would ban Mr. Perkins from speaking to a prayer luncheon on a military base due to his organization's opposition to some of President Obama's 'issues,'" stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"This new scandal is bound to outrage many Americans and it raises additional questions about the Obama administration's commitment to the First Amendment."
Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access the Air Force records obtained by Judicial Watch.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
In the violent wake of President Obama's military surge in Afghanistan, and his failure to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, the Libertarian Party (LP) says anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian with a clear conscience.
Sadly, President Obama is spending an even larger percentage of America's money on the military than George W. Bush did. According to the tracking website usgovernmentspending.com, during the first two budget years of the Obama administration (FY 2010 and 2011), military spending is expected to be over 6 percent of GDP: a larger percentage of GDP than during any year of the Bush administration.
LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Anti-war liberals who thought President Obama and the Democrats would reduce military spending and American interventionism have been betrayed.
"Liberals have also been betrayed by Obama's unwillingness to reverse the serious civil liberties violations of the Bush administration. Obama has claimed the authority to kill American citizens overseas without indictment or trial. Even worse, he has claimed that 'state secrets' prevent his targets or their families from challenging him in court. Obama's expansion of the 'state secrets' claim is a page taken right out of the neoconservative playbook."
LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, "In many ways, the Obama administration is looking like four more years of George W. Bush. A vote for Libertarians sends a message for peace and respect for the Constitution."
Benedict continued, "It's important to remember that many congressional Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and many also voted for the War in Iraq. They tried to blame Bush later, even though they deserved just as much blame as Republicans."
The Libertarian National Committee has passed resolutions calling for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
On September 12, 2001, the day after the major terrorist attacks, two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne courageously spoke out against American interventionism. In his article he wrote, "When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?"
Benedict said, "The Libertarian Party doesn't have the resources to take the lead in organizing mass protests, but we like to join anti-war protests when we can find them. When George W. Bush was president, Democrats helped organize many anti-war protests. Now that Democrats are doing the war-making, protests are hard to find.
"I made an effort to express the Libertarian position at the One Nation March on October 2.
"The terrorists have tricked our government into massive overreaction, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a small number of America-hating fanatics. Many thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in the process. We have gotten bogged down trying to rebuild entire governments. Democrats and Republicans have both given in to this terrorist trickery. Libertarians, on the other hand, see through this trickery, and we would stop wasting lives and money on the disastrous policies of foreign interventionism."
Liberal vs. conservative support
There is a myth frequently repeated in the media that Libertarian candidates take votes from conservatives. In reality, the situation is mixed: many polls show that Libertarian candidates actually receive greater support from liberals.
In this Kansas poll, the Libertarian candidates received more support from liberals than conservatives.
This poll showed North Carolina Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler with more support from liberals than conservatives.
Hinkle said, "Libertarians have a lot in common with liberals. In fact, people with a libertarian philosophy often call themselves 'classical liberals,' in the sense of the word as it was used historically. Libertarians sometimes describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'
"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
Sadly, President Obama is spending an even larger percentage of America's money on the military than George W. Bush did. According to the tracking website usgovernmentspending.com, during the first two budget years of the Obama administration (FY 2010 and 2011), military spending is expected to be over 6 percent of GDP: a larger percentage of GDP than during any year of the Bush administration.
LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Anti-war liberals who thought President Obama and the Democrats would reduce military spending and American interventionism have been betrayed.
"Liberals have also been betrayed by Obama's unwillingness to reverse the serious civil liberties violations of the Bush administration. Obama has claimed the authority to kill American citizens overseas without indictment or trial. Even worse, he has claimed that 'state secrets' prevent his targets or their families from challenging him in court. Obama's expansion of the 'state secrets' claim is a page taken right out of the neoconservative playbook."
LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, "In many ways, the Obama administration is looking like four more years of George W. Bush. A vote for Libertarians sends a message for peace and respect for the Constitution."
Benedict continued, "It's important to remember that many congressional Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and many also voted for the War in Iraq. They tried to blame Bush later, even though they deserved just as much blame as Republicans."
The Libertarian National Committee has passed resolutions calling for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
On September 12, 2001, the day after the major terrorist attacks, two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne courageously spoke out against American interventionism. In his article he wrote, "When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?"
Benedict said, "The Libertarian Party doesn't have the resources to take the lead in organizing mass protests, but we like to join anti-war protests when we can find them. When George W. Bush was president, Democrats helped organize many anti-war protests. Now that Democrats are doing the war-making, protests are hard to find.
"I made an effort to express the Libertarian position at the One Nation March on October 2.
"The terrorists have tricked our government into massive overreaction, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a small number of America-hating fanatics. Many thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in the process. We have gotten bogged down trying to rebuild entire governments. Democrats and Republicans have both given in to this terrorist trickery. Libertarians, on the other hand, see through this trickery, and we would stop wasting lives and money on the disastrous policies of foreign interventionism."
Liberal vs. conservative support
There is a myth frequently repeated in the media that Libertarian candidates take votes from conservatives. In reality, the situation is mixed: many polls show that Libertarian candidates actually receive greater support from liberals.
In this Kansas poll, the Libertarian candidates received more support from liberals than conservatives.
This poll showed North Carolina Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler with more support from liberals than conservatives.
Hinkle said, "Libertarians have a lot in common with liberals. In fact, people with a libertarian philosophy often call themselves 'classical liberals,' in the sense of the word as it was used historically. Libertarians sometimes describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'
"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Ex-White House Spokesman Robert Weiner Asks, 'If There Were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, Why Can't There be Obama Republicans Now?' Roll Call Op-ed
/PRNewswire/ -- Ex-White House spokesman Robert Weiner, and policy analysts Jonathan Battaglia and Noah Merksamer, are asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"
In an op-ed in today's Roll Call, they assert that "In today's politics, bipartisanship seems like a distant memory. It was not always like this.
"Until the 1990s, we had consensus by issue, not by party -- fierce opposition and strong support, but not based primarily on party lines." Weiner traces the history of large minority votes on historic issues as contentious as today's -- Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and show their contrast to almost no minority votes on recent budgets, tax cuts, health care, the economy, and financial reform.
"In 1935, 92 percent of Congress voted for the Social Security Act, including 81 Republicans in the House. There were dissenters -- Rep. Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.) said that with Social Security, Americans would 'feel the lash of a dictator.' Sen. Daniel Hastings (R-Del.) declared that Social Security would 'end progress.' Yet the measure passed 77-6 in the Senate, 382-33 in the House.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with segregation. 70 percent voted 'aye,' including 136 Republicans in the House and 21 in the Senate. Republicans and Southern Democrats crossed party lines on both sides of the issue -- they were voting on the issue, not the party regimen.
"When Congress was debating Medicare in 1965, Sen. Carl Curtis (R-Neb.) called the program 'brazen socialism' -- sound familiar? Yet 72 percent of Congress supported Medicare's creation, including 70 Republicans in the House.
"Under former Speaker Tip O'Neill (D), the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 with 48 Democrats supporting it. In addition, O'Neill and Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) were able to keep Congress from slashing Social Security benefits amid President Reagan's cuts in domestic spending. Reagan and House Republicans were part of governing with bipartisanship.
"In contrast, last year's health care reform did not receive a single Republican vote in the House or Senate on final passage. Despite the bill's use of private insurance, no public option, no Medicare buy-in and 160 Republican amendments in the bill such as tax breaks for 95 percent of small businesses, the minority would not give the Democrats a vote. Democrats weren't flawless -- they let partisanship get in the way of including medical malpractice reform, despite Obama's public support for it. Regardless, in the past, a bill with such broad-based compromises would have received 30 to 100 Republican House votes on passage and 10 to 30 in the Senate.
"Only three Republicans in the Senate voted for Wall Street reform in July, despite the financial meltdown, and despite broad minority participation in the drafting.
"This recent unwillingness to compromise began in 1994, with the rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Contract With America. Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) earned the nickname 'The Hammer' because he punished those who did not support George W. Bush. The leadership triumvirate of DeLay, Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) would not allow Republican Congressmen to vote against the party only on major issues -- exactly the time to express one's conscience."
Weiner, Battaglia, and Merksamer conclude by asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"
In an op-ed in today's Roll Call, they assert that "In today's politics, bipartisanship seems like a distant memory. It was not always like this.
"Until the 1990s, we had consensus by issue, not by party -- fierce opposition and strong support, but not based primarily on party lines." Weiner traces the history of large minority votes on historic issues as contentious as today's -- Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and show their contrast to almost no minority votes on recent budgets, tax cuts, health care, the economy, and financial reform.
"In 1935, 92 percent of Congress voted for the Social Security Act, including 81 Republicans in the House. There were dissenters -- Rep. Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.) said that with Social Security, Americans would 'feel the lash of a dictator.' Sen. Daniel Hastings (R-Del.) declared that Social Security would 'end progress.' Yet the measure passed 77-6 in the Senate, 382-33 in the House.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with segregation. 70 percent voted 'aye,' including 136 Republicans in the House and 21 in the Senate. Republicans and Southern Democrats crossed party lines on both sides of the issue -- they were voting on the issue, not the party regimen.
"When Congress was debating Medicare in 1965, Sen. Carl Curtis (R-Neb.) called the program 'brazen socialism' -- sound familiar? Yet 72 percent of Congress supported Medicare's creation, including 70 Republicans in the House.
"Under former Speaker Tip O'Neill (D), the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 with 48 Democrats supporting it. In addition, O'Neill and Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) were able to keep Congress from slashing Social Security benefits amid President Reagan's cuts in domestic spending. Reagan and House Republicans were part of governing with bipartisanship.
"In contrast, last year's health care reform did not receive a single Republican vote in the House or Senate on final passage. Despite the bill's use of private insurance, no public option, no Medicare buy-in and 160 Republican amendments in the bill such as tax breaks for 95 percent of small businesses, the minority would not give the Democrats a vote. Democrats weren't flawless -- they let partisanship get in the way of including medical malpractice reform, despite Obama's public support for it. Regardless, in the past, a bill with such broad-based compromises would have received 30 to 100 Republican House votes on passage and 10 to 30 in the Senate.
"Only three Republicans in the Senate voted for Wall Street reform in July, despite the financial meltdown, and despite broad minority participation in the drafting.
"This recent unwillingness to compromise began in 1994, with the rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Contract With America. Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) earned the nickname 'The Hammer' because he punished those who did not support George W. Bush. The leadership triumvirate of DeLay, Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) would not allow Republican Congressmen to vote against the party only on major issues -- exactly the time to express one's conscience."
Weiner, Battaglia, and Merksamer conclude by asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Libertarians: Obama is shockingly pro-war
Following President Obama's "end of our combat mission" speech, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle released this statement:
"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.
"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.
"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.
"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.
"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.
"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."
The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.
"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.
"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.
"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.
"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.
"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."
The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
President Obama Still Doesn't Get It, Says Small Business Advocate
/PRNewswire/ -- A national small business advocate agrees with President Barack Obama when he said a "magic bullet" doesn't exist for solving our current economic woes. However, she is urging the president to understand why businesses are not hiring and holding back on investments. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, perhaps if the President and his economic team get a true grasp of what's holding businesses back, the Administration would depart from its enthusiastic support of legislative and regulatory measures that are working to restrain our free enterprise system and prolong the recession.
"Small business owners feel they are under siege from Washington, and at a moment in time when they are facing the most difficult period in the history of their businesses," said Kerrigan. "Unfortunately, the small business lending bill is not an ample policy solution to leverage the potential of America's small business sector. The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions. At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy. Anti-growth policies have led to low confidence among our nation's entrepreneurs, and it will not get better unless Washington backs off the never-ending stream of proposed tax hikes and intrusive policies that threaten all industries and all businesses," Kerrigan added.
According to Kerrigan, every industry and most businesses are under siege from Washington. Whether its new regulatory initiatives from the Department of Labor that threaten to tie America's workplaces in knots, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that will drive energy and business costs higher, to the expanded 1099-MISC reporting requirement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) included in the new health care law and more, there is no business or workplace activity that the federal government has left untouched from burdensome and costly regulation. And then there is the new health care law, which by now most businesses realize is driving their health insurance costs higher and eventually will snatch away the health plans they currently provide despite promises to the contrary by President Obama.
New and proposed regulations in the telecommunications, energy, health care, and financial services sector only add to the uncertainty and anti-business thrust. To the casual observer and average American, it's quite easy to understand why businesses are not hiring and investment is weak. Yet, according to Kerrigan, our elite and well-educated political leaders simply don't get it.
"At this point, it appears that our economy will stay weak and business activity and hiring will remain anemic until business owners see a massive shift in the political environment," observed Kerrigan. "It seems most business owners are done with this Congress, and they are at least hoping that a divided government next year will bring practical, pro-growth governing policies to Washington," she concluded.
"Small business owners feel they are under siege from Washington, and at a moment in time when they are facing the most difficult period in the history of their businesses," said Kerrigan. "Unfortunately, the small business lending bill is not an ample policy solution to leverage the potential of America's small business sector. The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions. At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy. Anti-growth policies have led to low confidence among our nation's entrepreneurs, and it will not get better unless Washington backs off the never-ending stream of proposed tax hikes and intrusive policies that threaten all industries and all businesses," Kerrigan added.
According to Kerrigan, every industry and most businesses are under siege from Washington. Whether its new regulatory initiatives from the Department of Labor that threaten to tie America's workplaces in knots, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that will drive energy and business costs higher, to the expanded 1099-MISC reporting requirement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) included in the new health care law and more, there is no business or workplace activity that the federal government has left untouched from burdensome and costly regulation. And then there is the new health care law, which by now most businesses realize is driving their health insurance costs higher and eventually will snatch away the health plans they currently provide despite promises to the contrary by President Obama.
New and proposed regulations in the telecommunications, energy, health care, and financial services sector only add to the uncertainty and anti-business thrust. To the casual observer and average American, it's quite easy to understand why businesses are not hiring and investment is weak. Yet, according to Kerrigan, our elite and well-educated political leaders simply don't get it.
"At this point, it appears that our economy will stay weak and business activity and hiring will remain anemic until business owners see a massive shift in the political environment," observed Kerrigan. "It seems most business owners are done with this Congress, and they are at least hoping that a divided government next year will bring practical, pro-growth governing policies to Washington," she concluded.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Republicans Most Skeptical of Obama's Christianity after Viewing Graham's Comments
/PRNewswire/ -- Results of a new national study among 1,003 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Republicans reported being the most skeptical of President Obama's religious affiliation after viewing a video of Franklin Graham's comments regarding his religious practices.
The study was conducted during August 23 -24 by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website to obtain Americans' perceptions of President Obama's religion and the influence that his religious beliefs may have on his decision-making. To view detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Among political parties, 43% of Republicans reported that Obama was of Muslim faith compared to 13% of Democrats and 22% of Independents.
Among the findings:
Which religion do you think Barack Obama practices?
While viewing the video, participants indicated their perceived levels of agreement by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked to respond to post-viewing questions.
The study was conducted during August 23 -24 by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website to obtain Americans' perceptions of President Obama's religion and the influence that his religious beliefs may have on his decision-making. To view detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Among political parties, 43% of Republicans reported that Obama was of Muslim faith compared to 13% of Democrats and 22% of Independents.
Among the findings:
Which religion do you think Barack Obama practices?
Democrats Republicans Independent
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Islam 13% 13% 45% 43% 24% 22%
Christianity 76% 81% 32% 34% 58% 62%
Judaism 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2%
Buddhism 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0%
Hinduism 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0%
Other 7% 4% 18% 12% 13% 16%While viewing the video, participants indicated their perceived levels of agreement by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked to respond to post-viewing questions.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Obama Administration Facing Critical Decision on Cuba Travel Policy
/PRNewswire/ -- "Time Magazine poses the right question, 'Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?'" said John McAuliff, founder and executive director of a twenty-five-year-old non-governmental organization, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.
"The Obama Administration must choose quickly how much to enable travel to Cuba for non-tourist people-to-people purposes. It has obligated itself to respond to Cuba's ongoing release of 'Black Spring' prisoners. Half of those who were still imprisoned since 2004 have already been freed," McAuliff observed.
McAuliff added, "the White House could take a minimalist approach and simply reinstate President Clinton's policy, which required time consuming and costly case-by-case applications to the bureaucratic and politicized judgment of the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department. Or it could implement its pro-dialogue values and grant general licenses to the remaining eleven categories of non-tourist travel, just as it did for the category of Cuban American family visits more than a year ago."
"Under general licenses, travel could be freely organized by schools, cultural institutions, Chambers of Commerce, religious bodies, World Affairs Councils, humanitarian organizations, advocacy groups and other not-for-profit organizations. Tens of thousands of seriously interested Americans can meet their Cuban counterparts and create mutual understanding and trust, needed in both countries," McAuliff argued.
McAuliff urged the Administration to resist pressure from the exile mind-set of five Cuban Americans in the House and Senate. "Polls demonstrate that they no longer represent their own community, much less the two-thirds of Americans who support freedom of travel to Cuba. On Saturday they wrote to the President distorting the clear intent of the law, which gives him complete authority to allow non-tourist travel."
"They opposed even family travel and will denounce any and all reforms, so there is no reason for the White House to be constrained by their misleading statement that they, 'are deeply troubled that such changes would result in economic benefits to the Cuban regime.' At peak in 2003 only 80,000 people-to-people visitors went to Cuba, a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.4 million foreigners in Cuba last year, including 300,000 Cuban Americans."
McAuliff said, "What really troubles the old guard is that personal contact between diverse Cubans and Americans will puncture their isolationist balloon and contribute to reform in both countries, including the end of all U.S. and Cuban travel and trade restrictions."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012476,00.html?xid=rss-topstor ies#ixzz0xQrh1qvI
"The Obama Administration must choose quickly how much to enable travel to Cuba for non-tourist people-to-people purposes. It has obligated itself to respond to Cuba's ongoing release of 'Black Spring' prisoners. Half of those who were still imprisoned since 2004 have already been freed," McAuliff observed.
McAuliff added, "the White House could take a minimalist approach and simply reinstate President Clinton's policy, which required time consuming and costly case-by-case applications to the bureaucratic and politicized judgment of the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department. Or it could implement its pro-dialogue values and grant general licenses to the remaining eleven categories of non-tourist travel, just as it did for the category of Cuban American family visits more than a year ago."
"Under general licenses, travel could be freely organized by schools, cultural institutions, Chambers of Commerce, religious bodies, World Affairs Councils, humanitarian organizations, advocacy groups and other not-for-profit organizations. Tens of thousands of seriously interested Americans can meet their Cuban counterparts and create mutual understanding and trust, needed in both countries," McAuliff argued.
McAuliff urged the Administration to resist pressure from the exile mind-set of five Cuban Americans in the House and Senate. "Polls demonstrate that they no longer represent their own community, much less the two-thirds of Americans who support freedom of travel to Cuba. On Saturday they wrote to the President distorting the clear intent of the law, which gives him complete authority to allow non-tourist travel."
"They opposed even family travel and will denounce any and all reforms, so there is no reason for the White House to be constrained by their misleading statement that they, 'are deeply troubled that such changes would result in economic benefits to the Cuban regime.' At peak in 2003 only 80,000 people-to-people visitors went to Cuba, a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.4 million foreigners in Cuba last year, including 300,000 Cuban Americans."
McAuliff said, "What really troubles the old guard is that personal contact between diverse Cubans and Americans will puncture their isolationist balloon and contribute to reform in both countries, including the end of all U.S. and Cuban travel and trade restrictions."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012476,00.html?xid=rss-topstor ies#ixzz0xQrh1qvI
Thursday, August 19, 2010
New Pew Research Center Survey Reveals Growing Number of Americans Who Say Barack Obama is a Muslim
/PRNewswire/ -- A new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that a substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim -- an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
-- Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm
elections
-- Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010
congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
-- "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common
themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim -- an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
-- Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm
elections
-- Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010
congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
-- "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common
themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Bauer Says That Obama's Support for Ground Zero Mosque Leads to the 'Final and Irrevocable Divorce' of the People From the President
/PRNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Saturday said that President Obama's comments at a White House dinner in support of a mosque at Ground Zero was "proof positive" that he has lost touch with his fellow citizens and that his break from them can no longer be repaired.
The president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families made the following statement:
"Last night at a White House Iftar dinner in celebration of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, President Obama chose to endorse the building of a mosque on the hallowed soil of Ground Zero. In doing so, he sided with radical Islamic advocacy groups over 9-11 families and the overwhelming majority of the American people. This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists. I believe history will reveal that the President's actions last night will directly result in his final and irrevocable divorce from the American people."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families made the following statement:
"Last night at a White House Iftar dinner in celebration of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, President Obama chose to endorse the building of a mosque on the hallowed soil of Ground Zero. In doing so, he sided with radical Islamic advocacy groups over 9-11 families and the overwhelming majority of the American people. This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists. I believe history will reveal that the President's actions last night will directly result in his final and irrevocable divorce from the American people."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, July 22, 2010
FRC Calls Obama Administration's Defense of the National Day of Prayer Inadequate
/PRNewswire/ -- Today Family Research Council and The Liberty Institute announced the filing of a motion for argument in a recent National Day of Prayer (NDP) case citing the Obama Administration's weak defense of the NDP as the cause. Last April, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. The district court's decision is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's Justice Department filed a brief that doesn't go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square," Perkins said.
Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC's amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins' remarks:
"In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the 'freedom to worship' but much more is at stake in this case - our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.
"FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer - a tradition as old as the country itself - is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.
"The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset," concluded Klukowski.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's Justice Department filed a brief that doesn't go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square," Perkins said.
Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC's amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins' remarks:
"In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the 'freedom to worship' but much more is at stake in this case - our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.
"FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer - a tradition as old as the country itself - is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.
"The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset," concluded Klukowski.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Ridiculous pornography trial violates Constitution
The federal trial of pornographer John Stagliano began last week. Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement July 15:
"The Obama Administration's prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty.
"As Reason magazine's Richard Abowitz wrote, 'The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.'
"Many Americans find it far more obscene that Democrats and Republicans are piling trillions of dollars of debt on our children and grandchildren, in order to further the creation and expansion of bad federal programs. The president should be worrying more about these problems, and less about prosecuting and censoring Mr. Stagliano.
"Different people will have different opinions about how valuable or harmful Mr. Stagliano's products are. Fortunately, no one is forced to watch them.
"Federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.
"In addition, there appear to be serious irregularities in the judge's conduct of the trial. He is reportedly refusing to allow the defense to call expert witnesses; refusing to allow the jurors to see the entirety of the films, even though that is necessary to apply the legal tests required by earlier Supreme Court rulings; and refusing to allow the press to see evidence or the questionnaires that were used in jury selection.
"It is worth noting that this case was not initiated by citizen complaints. FBI agents just purchased the materials, watched them, and then brought charges. It's clear that the FBI budget needs to be cut.
"Apparently President Obama's Justice Department is no different than former President Bush's when it comes to prosecuting speech. Obama has sustained the 'Obscene Prosecution Task Force,' which was created by the Bush Administration in 2005."
The Libertarian Party's platform states, "We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology."
Disclosure: John Stagliano has been a donor to the Libertarian National Committee.
"The Obama Administration's prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty.
"As Reason magazine's Richard Abowitz wrote, 'The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.'
"Many Americans find it far more obscene that Democrats and Republicans are piling trillions of dollars of debt on our children and grandchildren, in order to further the creation and expansion of bad federal programs. The president should be worrying more about these problems, and less about prosecuting and censoring Mr. Stagliano.
"Different people will have different opinions about how valuable or harmful Mr. Stagliano's products are. Fortunately, no one is forced to watch them.
"Federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.
"In addition, there appear to be serious irregularities in the judge's conduct of the trial. He is reportedly refusing to allow the defense to call expert witnesses; refusing to allow the jurors to see the entirety of the films, even though that is necessary to apply the legal tests required by earlier Supreme Court rulings; and refusing to allow the press to see evidence or the questionnaires that were used in jury selection.
"It is worth noting that this case was not initiated by citizen complaints. FBI agents just purchased the materials, watched them, and then brought charges. It's clear that the FBI budget needs to be cut.
"Apparently President Obama's Justice Department is no different than former President Bush's when it comes to prosecuting speech. Obama has sustained the 'Obscene Prosecution Task Force,' which was created by the Bush Administration in 2005."
The Libertarian Party's platform states, "We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology."
Disclosure: John Stagliano has been a donor to the Libertarian National Committee.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
FRC Action: Donald Berwick's Views on Rationing Will Undermine U.S. Health Care System
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the White House announced that Donald Berwick will be appointed to serve as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dr. Berwick is the President and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement. He will play an instrumental role in implementing the recently-enacted health care overhaul law.
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement regarding the President's choice:
"Donald Berwick is another example of President Obama's extreme liberal agenda, and only the latest in President Obama's numerous missteps related to health care in America.
"Donald Berwick has stated himself that England's socialized medical services are better than those in the United States, and has said that 'any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.'
"Another quote from just last year shows how Dr. Berwick makes very clear his view of the government's role in health care. He stated in an interview that '[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'
"Americans should keep their eyes open to guard their health from Donald Berwick's extreme view of medicine. He will only bring America's high standards for health care services down, and hurt Americans through rationing and lower standards of medical treatment."
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement regarding the President's choice:
"Donald Berwick is another example of President Obama's extreme liberal agenda, and only the latest in President Obama's numerous missteps related to health care in America.
"Donald Berwick has stated himself that England's socialized medical services are better than those in the United States, and has said that 'any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.'
"Another quote from just last year shows how Dr. Berwick makes very clear his view of the government's role in health care. He stated in an interview that '[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'
"Americans should keep their eyes open to guard their health from Donald Berwick's extreme view of medicine. He will only bring America's high standards for health care services down, and hurt Americans through rationing and lower standards of medical treatment."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
CARE to Obama: Take Wildlife Refuge Cuts Off the Table
/PRNewswire/ -- In a letter delivered to President Obama today, a national coalition of wildlife conservation and sporting organizations has asked the President to take cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge System's budget off the table as he considers cutting federal agency spending by five percent in FY 2012. The coalition called the proposed cuts "wrong and inappropriate" at a time when refuges and the species they protect are dealing with potentially one of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It is neither the time nor the place to propose funding cuts for the National Wildlife Refuge System or for the Fish and Wildlife Service," said Evan Hirsche, Chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). "Agencies are already spread thin responding to the belching oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and the President's proposed five percent budget cut would have dire consequences in the Refuge System's ability to help wildlife recover. The survival of species like the brown pelican, which was only recently removed from the endangered species list, is now looking more bleak than it did just a year ago."
National wildlife refuges protect a host of species that are being decimated in the Gulf of Mexico, including sea turtles, manatees and numerous migratory birds. The FWS is projecting that 20% of its nationwide staff will be deployed to the Gulf at some point to address the ongoing crisis, making it difficult for the agency to address ongoing refuge needs or future emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. Should the proposed funding cuts occur, the problems will be magnified ten-fold. Understaffed wildlife refuges will be forced to make difficult decisions to cut programs that protect wildlife, such as vital scientific monitoring programs. Ultimately, the cuts will compromise the System's congressionally mandated conservation mission.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse coalition of 22 conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations representing more than 15 million members and supporters. According to a recent CARE report on Refuge System funding needs, the Refuge System currently faces a $3.7 billion operations and maintenance backlog.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"It is neither the time nor the place to propose funding cuts for the National Wildlife Refuge System or for the Fish and Wildlife Service," said Evan Hirsche, Chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). "Agencies are already spread thin responding to the belching oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and the President's proposed five percent budget cut would have dire consequences in the Refuge System's ability to help wildlife recover. The survival of species like the brown pelican, which was only recently removed from the endangered species list, is now looking more bleak than it did just a year ago."
National wildlife refuges protect a host of species that are being decimated in the Gulf of Mexico, including sea turtles, manatees and numerous migratory birds. The FWS is projecting that 20% of its nationwide staff will be deployed to the Gulf at some point to address the ongoing crisis, making it difficult for the agency to address ongoing refuge needs or future emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. Should the proposed funding cuts occur, the problems will be magnified ten-fold. Understaffed wildlife refuges will be forced to make difficult decisions to cut programs that protect wildlife, such as vital scientific monitoring programs. Ultimately, the cuts will compromise the System's congressionally mandated conservation mission.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse coalition of 22 conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations representing more than 15 million members and supporters. According to a recent CARE report on Refuge System funding needs, the Refuge System currently faces a $3.7 billion operations and maintenance backlog.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Obama Justice Department Tells Court to Shield White House Visitor Logs From Full Disclosure and FOIA Law
/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the Obama Justice Department advanced the erroneous claim in an April 21, 2010, court filing that Secret Service's logs of White House visitors are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As Judicial Watch noted in its original complaint filed on December 7, 2009, this claim "has been litigated and rejected repeatedly" by the courts.
The Justice Department filing comes in Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit seeking records for all visitors to the White House from January 20, 2009, to the present. On February 22, 2010, Judicial Watch filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" in its lawsuit, noting that the rule of law and court precedent do not support the position of the Obama administration:
"At issue here is whether Secret Service visitor logs are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'), 5 U.S.C. SS 552. To date, every court that has reached this issue has concluded that the requested documents are agency records and must be processed in response to a properly submitted FOIA request. As no disputes of material fact exist as to the nature of the records, summary judgment as to this straightforward legal issue should be entered now."
Noting court precedent, Judicial Watch argued in its motion that the visitor logs were "created by" the U.S. Secret Service and that they remain "under agency control." Judicial Watch also noted that the U.S. Secret Service had released the visitor logs in response to previous FOIA requests from Judicial Watch and other parties, further demonstrating that these records are under the control of the U.S. Secret Service and subject to FOIA.
However, Obama Justice Department lawyers countered in their court filing that "the district court cases on which [Judicial Watch] relies for a contrary conclusion were incorrectly decided," and stuck by their argument that the visitor logs "are not agency (Secret Service) records subject to FOIA." Justice Department lawyers also repeated the blanket argument that to release these records could compromise national security and praised the Obama administration's efforts to "voluntarily" release some White House visitor logs to the public. (In 2009, the Obama White House began to release, in order to settle related litigation, a select number of Secret Service visitor logs to the public. However, tens of thousands of other records continue to be withheld in defiance of FOIA law.)
The Obama White House admits in the new court filing that it is taking records from the Secret Service in order to ensure that they are not disclosed under FOIA. The Obama administration speculates that there would be "dire national security consequences" if certain White House visitors are disclosed. The Obama White House wants to be able to withhold visitor logs until as long as 12 years after President Obama leaves office.
On October 27, at the request of the White House, Judicial Watch staff visited with senior White House officials led by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government, to discuss Judicial Watch's pursuit of the visitor logs. During the meeting, White House officials offered to make some accommodations to Judicial Watch on the visitor logs and encouraged Judicial Watch to publicly praise the Obama administration's commitment to transparency. However, the White House refused to abandon its legally indefensible contention that the visitor logs are not subject to FOIA law, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit.
"The Obama administration would undermine a key transparency law in order to keep White House visitor logs secret," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Only the Obama administration could offer to release pre-scrubbed White House visitor logs while withholding tens of thousands of other records and call it transparency. President Obama has violated his campaign promises of openness and transparency. We hope the court will do what it has done on previous occasions and uphold FOIA law."
The Justice Department filing comes in Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit seeking records for all visitors to the White House from January 20, 2009, to the present. On February 22, 2010, Judicial Watch filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" in its lawsuit, noting that the rule of law and court precedent do not support the position of the Obama administration:
"At issue here is whether Secret Service visitor logs are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'), 5 U.S.C. SS 552. To date, every court that has reached this issue has concluded that the requested documents are agency records and must be processed in response to a properly submitted FOIA request. As no disputes of material fact exist as to the nature of the records, summary judgment as to this straightforward legal issue should be entered now."
Noting court precedent, Judicial Watch argued in its motion that the visitor logs were "created by" the U.S. Secret Service and that they remain "under agency control." Judicial Watch also noted that the U.S. Secret Service had released the visitor logs in response to previous FOIA requests from Judicial Watch and other parties, further demonstrating that these records are under the control of the U.S. Secret Service and subject to FOIA.
However, Obama Justice Department lawyers countered in their court filing that "the district court cases on which [Judicial Watch] relies for a contrary conclusion were incorrectly decided," and stuck by their argument that the visitor logs "are not agency (Secret Service) records subject to FOIA." Justice Department lawyers also repeated the blanket argument that to release these records could compromise national security and praised the Obama administration's efforts to "voluntarily" release some White House visitor logs to the public. (In 2009, the Obama White House began to release, in order to settle related litigation, a select number of Secret Service visitor logs to the public. However, tens of thousands of other records continue to be withheld in defiance of FOIA law.)
The Obama White House admits in the new court filing that it is taking records from the Secret Service in order to ensure that they are not disclosed under FOIA. The Obama administration speculates that there would be "dire national security consequences" if certain White House visitors are disclosed. The Obama White House wants to be able to withhold visitor logs until as long as 12 years after President Obama leaves office.
On October 27, at the request of the White House, Judicial Watch staff visited with senior White House officials led by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government, to discuss Judicial Watch's pursuit of the visitor logs. During the meeting, White House officials offered to make some accommodations to Judicial Watch on the visitor logs and encouraged Judicial Watch to publicly praise the Obama administration's commitment to transparency. However, the White House refused to abandon its legally indefensible contention that the visitor logs are not subject to FOIA law, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit.
"The Obama administration would undermine a key transparency law in order to keep White House visitor logs secret," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Only the Obama administration could offer to release pre-scrubbed White House visitor logs while withholding tens of thousands of other records and call it transparency. President Obama has violated his campaign promises of openness and transparency. We hope the court will do what it has done on previous occasions and uphold FOIA law."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
ATR: The Individual Mandate Excise Tax is a Tax
/PRNewswire/ -- A close reading of President Obama's healthcare plan finds several terms to describe the tax Americans will pay if they choose not to purchase qualifying health insurance. These terms include "payment," "assessment," and "individual responsibility."
-- This same tax has also variously been referred to as a "penalty," a
"fee," or a "fine." In fact, it's none of those things, precisely.
It's a tax. The various synonyms used are designed to hide that
simple fact. The reason for wanting to do so is clear: since this tax
would be assigned to any uninsured American (including those making
less than $250,000 per year), it's a pretty apparent violation of the
President's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on working
families.
-- The evidence that this tax on the uninsured is in fact a tax comes
from a thorough reading of the Senate healthcare bill's uninsurance
tax section (which the Obama plan specifically says it is starting
from).
-- Page 322 of the Senate bill (the "Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act") says that "any penalty imposed by this section with respect
to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under Chapter
1 [of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)] for the taxable year which
includes such month." The procedure to collect the tax on page 336 of
the bill references Chapter 68 of the IRC. On page 337 of the bill, a
new Chapter 48 is added to Subtitle D of the Code (Miscellaneous
Excise Taxes) in order to create the uninsurance tax. Page 341 of the
bill continues to reference various parts of the Code that need to be
amended in order to cover this new tax.
-- Anyone reading this precise legislative language can see how this tax
would be collected. An uninsured individual would add the excise tax
to their regular income tax burden on the 1040 Form every April. It
is much like other excise taxes collected on the 1040 (early IRA
withdrawal tax, for example).
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
-- This same tax has also variously been referred to as a "penalty," a
"fee," or a "fine." In fact, it's none of those things, precisely.
It's a tax. The various synonyms used are designed to hide that
simple fact. The reason for wanting to do so is clear: since this tax
would be assigned to any uninsured American (including those making
less than $250,000 per year), it's a pretty apparent violation of the
President's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on working
families.
-- The evidence that this tax on the uninsured is in fact a tax comes
from a thorough reading of the Senate healthcare bill's uninsurance
tax section (which the Obama plan specifically says it is starting
from).
-- Page 322 of the Senate bill (the "Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act") says that "any penalty imposed by this section with respect
to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under Chapter
1 [of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)] for the taxable year which
includes such month." The procedure to collect the tax on page 336 of
the bill references Chapter 68 of the IRC. On page 337 of the bill, a
new Chapter 48 is added to Subtitle D of the Code (Miscellaneous
Excise Taxes) in order to create the uninsurance tax. Page 341 of the
bill continues to reference various parts of the Code that need to be
amended in order to cover this new tax.
-- Anyone reading this precise legislative language can see how this tax
would be collected. An uninsured individual would add the excise tax
to their regular income tax burden on the 1040 Form every April. It
is much like other excise taxes collected on the 1040 (early IRA
withdrawal tax, for example).
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, February 12, 2010
Seniors Coalition: 'Mr. President, Senior Citizens Cannot and Will Not Bail You Out'
/Standard Newswire/ -- The Seniors Coalition, which represents the interests of over four million American senior citizens, today blasted comments by President Obama indicating that he would entertain the idea of cutting Social Security benefits in order to pay for his domestic spending priorities and bring down the federal budget deficit. The President's comments were made to BusinessWeek magazine.
"The President's willingness to pay for his spending spree by slashing Social Security benefits is yet
another direct attack on America's senior citizens and the Seniors Coalition will oppose it using every
resource we can muster," says Phil Theodosiou, The Seniors Coalition's Executive Director. "The Obama Administration has thrown fiscal responsibility completely out the window and now that the President needs more money to continue with his reckless policies he is looking to the elderly to bail him out. Mr. President, seniors citizens cannot and will not bail you out."
"In order to bring down the deficit the Administration needs to start at the top and begin cutting. No more
taxpayer cars for members of Congress. Cut back on the number of aides following the First Lady around. Then, use all repaid TARP money to pay down the deficit and simply not spend the hundreds of billions dollars in wasteful stimulus money that has not been spent. The fact that the administration will not even take these simple steps shows that President Obama is not serious about deficit reduction and is simply looking to use Social Security as another source of cash for his domestic spending spree," Theodosiou says. "And perhaps most importantly, the government must pay back the iou's to the social security trust fund now. That will be a great start in helping main street."
The Seniors Coalition is the nation's leading free- market senior education and advocacy organization
representing more than 4 million seniors. The mission of The Seniors Coalition (TSC) is to protect
the quality of life and economic well-being that older Americans have earned while supporting common
sense solutions to the challenges of the future. To that end, TSC lobbies government at both the federal and state levels.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The President's willingness to pay for his spending spree by slashing Social Security benefits is yet
another direct attack on America's senior citizens and the Seniors Coalition will oppose it using every
resource we can muster," says Phil Theodosiou, The Seniors Coalition's Executive Director. "The Obama Administration has thrown fiscal responsibility completely out the window and now that the President needs more money to continue with his reckless policies he is looking to the elderly to bail him out. Mr. President, seniors citizens cannot and will not bail you out."
"In order to bring down the deficit the Administration needs to start at the top and begin cutting. No more
taxpayer cars for members of Congress. Cut back on the number of aides following the First Lady around. Then, use all repaid TARP money to pay down the deficit and simply not spend the hundreds of billions dollars in wasteful stimulus money that has not been spent. The fact that the administration will not even take these simple steps shows that President Obama is not serious about deficit reduction and is simply looking to use Social Security as another source of cash for his domestic spending spree," Theodosiou says. "And perhaps most importantly, the government must pay back the iou's to the social security trust fund now. That will be a great start in helping main street."
The Seniors Coalition is the nation's leading free- market senior education and advocacy organization
representing more than 4 million seniors. The mission of The Seniors Coalition (TSC) is to protect
the quality of life and economic well-being that older Americans have earned while supporting common
sense solutions to the challenges of the future. To that end, TSC lobbies government at both the federal and state levels.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, January 29, 2010
The State of The Obama Presidency
/EIN News/ -- A year ago the nation's economic system was far more desperate than it is today. But the people were more hopeful. Turn that thought around. Today the economic situation is vastly improved, but the people are more despairing.
What happened to hope and trust? Can it be recovered?
Mixed signals tonight from the House and Senate members gathered to hear the President. Inside the House chamber, not evident to the TV audience, clucks and catcalls bubble up from the Republican side of the aisle with some frequency during the speech. Not "you lie," but audible and churlish. These folks don't appear to be buying the bi-partisanship the President is trying to sell.
More evidence. Republicans largely sit on their hands and cans during most of the President's applause lines. Even when he celebrates tax cuts. Even when he urges an increase in taxes on big banks to pay for the bailouts---which you'd think would be popular given the public's pitchfork level anger at the big banks. Even when the President proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small business---a long cherished GOP goal.
But..the Republicans are on their feet when the President exhorts Congress not to give up on health reform. Since congressional Republicans so far have been locked in a death grip to derail health reform, how do you explain that? A promising omen?
Other thoughts:
The President's words were direct and powerful, his delivery masterful. But you don't talk a stuck truck out of the muck and mire, and a good speech is not likely to move his agenda. It's frustrating and embarrassing that Democrats haven't been able to enact the big stuff with their big Senate and House majorities. What will change this year? More direct presidential involvement in negotiations? Harry Reid stepping down as Senate leader to focus on his reelection campaign and yielding the post to Dick Durbin, a much tougher cookie?
In 2009 the President and the Democrats managed to get stem cell research back on track, strike a blow for equal pay for women, place a strong new advocate on the Supreme Court, kick start some major initiatives in education and green energy, restore America's leadership role in the world, vastly improve openness and transparency of government operations and government records, all while staving off a second great economic depression.
Not a bad year's work, but hardly any of it has generated thank you notes from the public. Instead, public trust and confidence continued to ooze from what should have been a winning team. And this team wasn't playing the Yankees. The Republican answer to most everything was "no." When it wasn't "no" the Republican alternative was an evil twin to the Bush policies of tax cuts and rampant deregulation that resulted in huge deficits and economic collapse.
As the President correctly pointed out, he inherited a $10 trillion deficit before he walked through the door of the White House, the legacy of two wars, two tax cuts, a big new Medicare drug program and an economic meltdown.
It shouldn't have been all that hard for the Democrats to get things done and to get some serious credit for it. But last year's strategies didn't connect with the public. Beyond making speeches, what does the President do now? Fire a few of his political coaches and bring in new management? Will we see a new strategy from the old team----or a whole new team?
The media's been focusing on those "is the nation on the right track" numbers which are hovering around the mid 30% range. Not great, to be sure. But during Bush's second term those numbers bounced between the teens and the twenties. In October 2008, only 7% thought the country was on the right track.
It's way too early for anyone to be relegating this President and this Congress to the political scrapheap. What we are seeing is deep disappointment. Many saw a modern political savior when they voted for Obama. That's a view he didn't do a lot to discourage. Tonight, having failed to deliver instant salvation, the President essentially abdicated the savior role and admitted that to accomplish great goals it takes a village: a lot of other public officials, a lot of engaged citizens and a media that doesn't spend most of its time diddling with the trivial.
While the halo may be gone, the President tonight reminded those who elected him that he remains Obama the Good Guy. Obama the Articulate. Obama the Embodiment of America's Highest Shared Values And Instincts. He certainly didn't look, sound or feel like a danger to the republic.
Most Americans still like Barack Obama. The question for 2010 is whether, despite the setbacks of 2009, he has it in him to still be the nation's positive change agent.
What happened to hope and trust? Can it be recovered?
Mixed signals tonight from the House and Senate members gathered to hear the President. Inside the House chamber, not evident to the TV audience, clucks and catcalls bubble up from the Republican side of the aisle with some frequency during the speech. Not "you lie," but audible and churlish. These folks don't appear to be buying the bi-partisanship the President is trying to sell.
More evidence. Republicans largely sit on their hands and cans during most of the President's applause lines. Even when he celebrates tax cuts. Even when he urges an increase in taxes on big banks to pay for the bailouts---which you'd think would be popular given the public's pitchfork level anger at the big banks. Even when the President proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small business---a long cherished GOP goal.
But..the Republicans are on their feet when the President exhorts Congress not to give up on health reform. Since congressional Republicans so far have been locked in a death grip to derail health reform, how do you explain that? A promising omen?
Other thoughts:
The President's words were direct and powerful, his delivery masterful. But you don't talk a stuck truck out of the muck and mire, and a good speech is not likely to move his agenda. It's frustrating and embarrassing that Democrats haven't been able to enact the big stuff with their big Senate and House majorities. What will change this year? More direct presidential involvement in negotiations? Harry Reid stepping down as Senate leader to focus on his reelection campaign and yielding the post to Dick Durbin, a much tougher cookie?
In 2009 the President and the Democrats managed to get stem cell research back on track, strike a blow for equal pay for women, place a strong new advocate on the Supreme Court, kick start some major initiatives in education and green energy, restore America's leadership role in the world, vastly improve openness and transparency of government operations and government records, all while staving off a second great economic depression.
Not a bad year's work, but hardly any of it has generated thank you notes from the public. Instead, public trust and confidence continued to ooze from what should have been a winning team. And this team wasn't playing the Yankees. The Republican answer to most everything was "no." When it wasn't "no" the Republican alternative was an evil twin to the Bush policies of tax cuts and rampant deregulation that resulted in huge deficits and economic collapse.
As the President correctly pointed out, he inherited a $10 trillion deficit before he walked through the door of the White House, the legacy of two wars, two tax cuts, a big new Medicare drug program and an economic meltdown.
It shouldn't have been all that hard for the Democrats to get things done and to get some serious credit for it. But last year's strategies didn't connect with the public. Beyond making speeches, what does the President do now? Fire a few of his political coaches and bring in new management? Will we see a new strategy from the old team----or a whole new team?
The media's been focusing on those "is the nation on the right track" numbers which are hovering around the mid 30% range. Not great, to be sure. But during Bush's second term those numbers bounced between the teens and the twenties. In October 2008, only 7% thought the country was on the right track.
It's way too early for anyone to be relegating this President and this Congress to the political scrapheap. What we are seeing is deep disappointment. Many saw a modern political savior when they voted for Obama. That's a view he didn't do a lot to discourage. Tonight, having failed to deliver instant salvation, the President essentially abdicated the savior role and admitted that to accomplish great goals it takes a village: a lot of other public officials, a lot of engaged citizens and a media that doesn't spend most of its time diddling with the trivial.
While the halo may be gone, the President tonight reminded those who elected him that he remains Obama the Good Guy. Obama the Articulate. Obama the Embodiment of America's Highest Shared Values And Instincts. He certainly didn't look, sound or feel like a danger to the republic.
Most Americans still like Barack Obama. The question for 2010 is whether, despite the setbacks of 2009, he has it in him to still be the nation's positive change agent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)