ACRU http://theacru.org/ en Copyright 2012 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:10:00 -0500 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Ken Klukowski on the Al Gainey Show Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_al_gainey_show_2/ http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_al_gainey_show_2/ On The Air Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:10:00 -0500 Ken Klukowski on Christian Worldview Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_christian_worldview/ http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_christian_worldview/ On The Air Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:10:00 -0500 Ken Klukowski on The Source Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_source/ http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_source/ On The Air Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:00:00 -0500 ACLU Fights Sunshine in Wisconsin Recall This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight was published February 3, 2012 on The American Thinker website. When should names on public rolls be kept secret? Judging by the ACLU's double standard, secrecy is warranted if exposure might reveal voter fraud. On the other hand, if exposure puts marriage supporters at risk for harassment by radical activists...well, then, that's okay. Unlike its apparent indifference to abuses of pro-marriage donors exposed in California in 2008, the ACLU pressured a Wisconsin agency not to create an online database to verify two million signatures for recalling Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and four Republican state senators. The ACLU cites possible threats to victims of domestic violence. This might wash, except that the ACLU is also suing Wisconsin over its photo ID law that curbs voter fraud. "The GAB [Government Accountability Board] is under no obligation to make it easier for stalkers to find their victims by having a searchable database online," ACLU of Wisconsin spokesman Chris Ahmuty said, according to ABC news affiliate WISN. On Tuesday, the GAB posted the petitions online without a searchable database and not in alphabetical order, so someone looking for a particular name would have to read through hundreds of thousands of entries. The state GOP, which has until Feb. 26 to challenge the signatures, says it has more than 2,000 volunteers to comb through them looking for fraud. The ACLU was not always so solicitous of the privacy of petition-signers. In 2008, the names and addresses of people who gave $100 or more to California's Proposition 8 constitutional marriage amendment campaign were posted by Prop. 8 opponents on websites, complete with marked Google maps, as an invitation to harass them. In a California lawsuit asking the state to shield the names, James Bopp, attorney for the groups Protect Marriage and the National Organization for Marriage, along with the Alliance Defense Fund, cited "death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts." "In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer," the New York Times reported. "In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8." A Google search and a search of the websites of the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of Southern California found no ACLU objections to the public publishing of the names. In October 2011, a federal judge dismissed the marriage proponents' suit over the names. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a Maine law requiring making public the names of people who donated to the successful "people's veto" campaign to overturn a same-sex "marriage" law in 2009. It's fair to say that the goal of the activists who filed the suit is to open these people to harassment similar to that endured by Prop 8 donors in California. The ACLU, which donated $10,000 in 2009 to the campaign against the "people's veto," did not object to making the list public. In Wisconsin, GAB spokesman Kevin Kennedy said that publishing the recall petition names was a matter of public record. "When you're petitioning, there's a strong public interest in allowing the public to see who's on those petitions because it gives them confidence that the petitions meet the thresholds," Kennedy said, noting the difference between petitions and ballots. "It's a part of democracy, where instead of casting your vote in secret so you won't be intimidated, it's really saying if you care passionately about something, whether it's nominating someone to run for office or getting some issue on the ballot or trying to recall someone, you're putting your name out there and saying you want this to happen," Kennedy said. The recall campaign against Gov. Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and four GOP senators began in November 2011 over the Republicans' enactment of legislation that curbed public employee union power. An initial recall election unseated two Republican state senators but failed to turn over the Senate to Democrats, leaving Republicans with a one-seat majority. For the Walker recall, about 1.1 million signatures were collected, with another 845,000 for Kleefisch. To make the ballot, at least 540,208 signatures must be verified, and the recall elections could take place this summer. Petitions with about 20,000 to 24,000 signatures were turned in for four more GOP senators, with between 14,958 and 16,742 valid signatures needed for each district. In Wisconsin recall elections, challengers run at the same time. The Democrats do not yet have a candidate and say they will hold a primary. A Jan. 25 Marquette University poll showed Walker leading several possible challengers. On Jan. 5, Waukesha County Circuit Judge J. Mac Davis ruled that the GAB needed to take more aggressive action in verifying signatures following a lawsuit by Gov. Walker's campaign committee and the state GOP. Steven M. Biskupic, attorney for the Republicans, cited a media report that a man claimed to have signed recall petitions 80 times "and submitted a petition from last summer's attempt to recall Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover), in which the accountability board allowed a 'Bugs Bunny' signature to be counted," the Wall Street Journal reported. "Kennedy said the signature was counted because Holperin didn't follow the proper procedures for challenging it. "In his ruling, Davis said, 'Counting the signature of Bugs Bunny is something only lawyers could try to make seem OK.'"]]> http://theacru.org/acru/aclu_fights_sunshine_in_wisconsin_recall/ http://theacru.org/acru/aclu_fights_sunshine_in_wisconsin_recall/ ACLU Outrage OpEd ACLU outrage Robert Knight Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:51:32 -0500 Ken Klukowski on the Lars Larson Show Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_lars_larson_show_1/ http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_the_lars_larson_show_1/ On The Air Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:30:00 -0500 Ken Klukowski on Upfront Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_upfront/ http://theacru.org/acru/ken_klukowski_on_upfront/ On The Air Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:35:00 -0500 Keeping Marriage Real This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight was published February 2, 2012 in The Washington Times. Maryland's Civil Marriage Protection Act is profoundly misnamed. In fact, it should more accurately be called the Attack on Religious Freedom Enabling Act. That's because this is about more than the feelings of any two people. When you declare a couple "married," with the force of the law behind it, you bring everyone into it. A brideless or groomless couple is not merely an addition to the marriage definition; it violates the very essence of marriage by excluding one or the other complementary sex. We hear a lot of people falsely comparing this to the fight for racial equality. But one's skin color or ethnicity have no intrinsic moral content, so discriminating upon that basis was wrong then, and it's wrong now. But sexual behavior always has moral and social implications because it is volitional. Just because we have temptations to do something, that does not make it right. Marriage is honored and protected in secular law only because it is indispensable to civilization. It gives us the best chance to continue the human race by producing well-adjusted children who can take up the responsibilities of the next generation. Marriage over the millenniums on all continents has meant the uniting of male and female. Customs have varied, but sex is universally channeled into marriage to protect children and families - the lifeblood of communities. Where marriage is weak, devalued or redefined, communities fail. Whatever the expressed good intentions behind the same-sex "marriage" legislation, creating a counterfeit and then forcing it down people's throats is straight out of George Orwell's Newspeak in 1984. Compassionate motives cannot mask the inevitable bad outcomes of a bad law. To enforce this direct assault on common sense and God's main building block of civilization requires all sorts of tyranny:
  • Institutions are denied funds.
  • People are denied jobs.
  • Firings occur.
  • Academics face star chambers (that is, additional star chambers).
  • Governments at all levels turn against pastors, churchgoers, observant Jews, Muslims and others who value truth above political correctness.
  • Dissent is crushed, often by omission or outright censorship.
Just recently, we have seen the federal Department of Health and Human Services trample the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals by ordering them to dispense contraceptives despite the church's moral opposition. If they think this is a bridge too far, wait until same-sex "marriage" is imposed and bureaucrats begin to flex their enforcement muscles. Georgetown University law professor Chai R. Feldblum, whom President Obama appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is one of the more honest homosexual activists. Ms. Feldblum writes that when it comes to civil rights, "we are in a zero-sum game: A gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side." I once asked Ms. Feldblum at a seminar if it bothered her that a Christian club would be thrown off a college campus for not having homosexual leaders or others who reject basic Christian doctrine. She shrugged, smiled and said, "Gays win, Christians lose." I did admire her candor. As an example of the legal vise about to close around Christian businesses, Ms. Feldblum has warned that bed-and-breakfast owners would not be free to deny rooms to homosexual couples (or to unmarried couples) regardless of the owners' belief that they would be aiding and abetting what their faith teaches is sin. Although Gov. Martin O'Malley and other proponents of the same-sex "marriage" law tout exemptions for religious institutions, the bill offers no defense for devout employees or those who run businesses, and exemptions can always be overturned later. Besides, if something is so immoral that it should not be forced on churches or church-run businesses, why is it OK to force it on everyone else? This is not like tax policy, in which the state (Caesar) realizes the limits of its earthly authority and church property is simply off limits. There is nothing immoral per se in levying a general tax; there is something profoundly immoral, however, in forcing people to violate their consciences, which the creation of same-sex "marriage" does in many ways. In Boston and the District of Columbia, homosexual "marriage" drove Catholic Charities, the largest provider of homes for orphans, out of the adoption business. Massachusetts schools now teach kindergartners through picture books that two men can constitute a marriage. A father who objected and refused to leave his child's school unless he was assured that the child would not be propagandized without parental notification was jailed. He sued but lost in the Massachusetts court system. Orphans, kindergartners and protective fathers, it seems, are just collateral damage to social engineers. Last year, when this bill came up, Maryland lawmakers got an earful from many church leaders and members who grasped the dangers of something so fundamentally immoral being imposed by law. What was billed as a harmless extension of tolerance, they realized, would become a battering ram against faith-based morality. The dangers are just as severe now. I urge legislators to consider that the drive to legally impose same-sex "marriage" is neither inevitable nor irreversible despite the media's blatantly biased treatment of this issue. However, should Maryland take this step, the damage to freedom - particularly religious freedom - could be incalculable.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/keeping_marriage_real/ http://theacru.org/acru/keeping_marriage_real/ OpEd first amendment Robert Knight Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:54:44 -0500 Delta Force Hero Can't Speak at West Point Because of His Christian Beliefs This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell and ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published February 1, 2012 on The Huffington Post website. A three-star Army general and war hero cannot speak at West Point because he's an outspoken Christian. So the Obama administration's hostility toward religion -- and especially Christians -- continues even to the detriment of our men and women in uniform. Lieutenant General William G. ("Jerry") Boykin is like an action-movie hero. When the super-elite Delta Force was formed in late 1970s -- our top counter-insurgent military unit that the Pentagon still does not officially discuss -- this ranger in the 101st Airborne unit was tapped to be part of it. In 1983 he was in Grenada, where Boykin survived being hit by a round from a .50-caliber gun. (Many anti-aircraft guns are ".50-cal," and a single round can split a human body in two.) In 1992 and 93, he was part of the Delta Force team hunting (and unofficially killing) drug lord Pablo Escobar. Then in 1993, Boykin was the commanding officer of the mission in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia forever memorialized in the movie "Black Hawk Down." After these heroics, General Boykin served as the commanding general of U.S. Army Special Forces Command, then commanding general of U.S. Army Special Warfare Center. He also served at the CIA and as Deputy Undersecretary of Intelligence at the Department of Defense. Jerry Boykin has done it all. He's been in battle as part of America's most elite fighting force, then rose to command those troops as a general, and also served in the CIA and Pentagon on the strategic planning and management side of this equation. He is also a Christian evangelist who speaks at churches nationwide. As a private citizen retired from the Army, General Boykin was invited to speak at a prayer breakfast at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He seems like an ideal choice, as someone who has served as the tip of the spear at the highest ranks, who is also a man of profoundly deep faith. But the Far Left exploded. Boykin has cast America's war against radical Islamic terrorists as fighting Satan. So his religious language has made strange bedfellows of various Islamic groups joining with atheists to call on West Point to disinvite this American hero who risked and achieved so much for this country. Evidently it's not politically correct to suggest that blowing up children is the devil's work. After heavy pressure, General Boykin chose to withdraw. This soldier fears no foe, but the situation evolved in a direction where his message of faith and courage would be overshadowed by controversy to the possible detriment of the West Point cadets. This sad episode is yet another example of the Obama administration's ongoing hostility to people of faith, especially Christians. President Obama's pick to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a lesbian activist who says that homosexual rights should always trump religious liberty. This is the same EEOC that argued it had the power to order a church to reinstate as a minister a person the church had fired for violating church teaching, a position the Supreme Court unanimously rejected. And the administration has enacted regulations under Obamacare forcing evangelical and Catholic universities and hospitals to provide contraceptives against the religious beliefs of those church-affiliated institutions. Now this hostility is doing a disservice to our military. People of deep faith are opposed and marginalized by the Obama administration's civilian political appointees. Weeks ago, they were caught banning Bible reading at Walter Reed hospital, a policy they immediately reversed when the media picked it up and House Republicans demanded answers. All this paints a picture of radical secularism. Many of the greatest heroes our military has ever seen were people of fervent prayer and deep faith. Many find their battlefield courage in their unshakeable belief that their sins are forgiven, their lives are in God's hands, and that when they die they would go to an eternal reward. Sounds like the kind of people you want at a prayer breakfast for those who may soon land on one of those battlefields. ]]> http://theacru.org/acru/delta_force_hero_cant_speak_at_west_point_because_of_his_christian_beliefs/ http://theacru.org/acru/delta_force_hero_cant_speak_at_west_point_because_of_his_christian_beliefs/ OpEd first amendment Ken Blackwell Ken Klukowski Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:37:16 -0500 Obama's Calculated Deception This column by ACRU General Counsel and Senior Fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP) Peter Ferrara was published February 1, 2012 on The American Spectator website. Calculated deception as a central public manipulation strategy practiced by President Obama involves the President taking advantage of what he thinks the average person doesn't know and won't be told by a compliant media. Such calculated deception was central to last week's State of the Union Address. That address is useful only as an outline of the President's reelection strategy. A powerful practical answer will come at the end of March in the form of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's 2013 budget proposal, which will be passed by the Republican-controlled House. That budget, which all the Republicans will run on, and the President's State of the Union Address will frame the 2012 election debate. He Thinks You're Stupid The Obama SOTU exhibited again Obama's core "progressive" conviction that the average American is hopelessly stupid. Obama bemoans America as "a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by." You may identify with that statement, as it correctly applies to Obama's America today. But not to Reagan's America, or my America. As Henry R. Nau explained in the January 26 Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. grew by more than 3% per year [in real terms] from 1980 to 2007, and created more than 50 million new jobs, massively expanding a middle class of working women, African-Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants. Per capita income increased by 65%, and household income went up substantially in all income categories." But Obama continued last week, "Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores." Mr. Obama, let me introduce you to Mr. Nau, who, unlike you, is a real professor. The 25-year Reagan boom from 1982 to 2007 added 50 million jobs. The recession began in December, 2007, and it is your policies that have prevented America from recovering from it. Obama recalled, "[T]he basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement." He said, "The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important." Actually, that debate is over, Barack. Reagan already showed us how to do it. As Professor Nau also explained:
Yes, "the middle class has shrunk," as Mr. Obama said while campaigning last month. But not because it's getting poorer, but because it's getting richer. According to Stephen Rose of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, fewer people live today in middle-class households with incomes between $35,000 and $105,000, while the percentage of households making less than $35,000 has remained the same. Where did the missing households go? They became richer. In the past three decades [1980 to 2007], the percentage of households making more than $105,000 in inflation adjusted dollars doubled to 24% from 11%.
Where were you from 1980 to 2007, Mr. Obama? Sleeping? In Indonesia? In an ideologically induced stupor? But Obama continued to drone on with his fairy tale bedtime stories in the SOTU. He proclaimed, "But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on the economic crisis in the first place." One of Obama's top fairy tales is the calculated deception that he has been trying so hard to get the economy to recover, but he has been "obstructed" by the "Republican Congress." But there is no "Republican Congress." Obama is certain that you are too stupid to know that while the House of Representatives is firmly in Republican control, the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate. Moreover, that Republican House has been busily passing good legislation that would help to restore the economy, from the repeal of Obamacare on day one, to the Ryan 2012 budget, that would cut $6.2 trillion in federal spending in the first 10 years alone, balancing the budget, and ultimately actually paying off the national debt, if continued long enough. Moreover, the Ryan 2012 budget would do that while slashing income tax rates to 10% for those making less than $100,000 per year, and 25% for those making above, with the federal corporate tax rate slashed to 25% as well, which along with Reagan monetary and regulatory policies would restore the Reagan economic boom. But the Democrat Senate has refused to even take up any of this legislation passed by the Republican House. Indeed, the Democrat Senate has refused to even pass any budget for 2 years, in violation of federal law. Which raises the question, if Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats don't have to obey the law, why should the rest of us have to? Moreover, Obama is also certain that you, or at least your friends and neighbors, are too stupid to know that during the first two of his three years in office, the Congress was completely controlled by Democrat supermajorities that were able to give Obama anything he wanted. Congressional Republicans during those years were reduced to hapless bystanders, which is how Obamacare was passed. Fairy Tale Bedtime Stories But let us not pass over Obama's staunch opposition "to the very same policies that brought on the economic crisis in the first place." Obama's second biggest tall tale is that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by the Reaganomics policies of deregulation and tax rate cuts begun 30 years ago. But as readers of this column know, the real causes of the financial crisis were government policies of overregulation and cheap dollar monetary policy, as thoroughly documented in such books as Paul Sperry's The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About What Really Caused the Financial Crisis (Thomas Nelson, 2011), Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner's Reckless Endangerment (Times Books, 2011), John B. Taylor's Getting Off Track (Hoover Institution Press, 2009), and my own book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (HarperCollins, 2011). The minimal interest rate, cheap dollar monetary policy of the Fed pumped up the housing bubble. Overregulation mandated the looting of the banks, forcing them to trash traditional lending standards because they were "discriminatory" to the poor who couldn't afford their own home, which further pumped up the housing bubble and ensured that the banks were maximally vulnerable to the bubble. Government backing for the securitization of these toxic mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ensured this vulnerability was spread throughout the financial community of the U.S., and the entire world. These policies of overregulation and cheap dollar monetary expansion were the opposite of Reaganomics. For years, the ultra-leftist Obama himself had been promoting precisely these very policies at the root of the crisis. The opposite policies of Reaganomics, opposed in detail by Obama, were the causes of the Reagan boom discussed above. As Professor Nau explains,
What were the policy trends that produced this Great Expansion? Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and lower marginal income-tax rates that Mr. Obama decries. President Reagan's decision to reverse the high tax, loose-money, and interventionist government policies of the 1970s brought an end to the painful "stagflation of that decade....Sadly, [Obama's] policies resemble those that brought on the stagflation of the 1970s, not those that ignited the Great Expansion.
But the all time whopper of calculated deception that Obama tells is the fable of the Great Hustler Warren Buffett. As Obama regaled us in the SOTU, "Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary....Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes." The picture of America's tax policy that Obama paints is the opposite of reality, and the American people will suffer the loss of the American Dream if they fall for it. In 2007, before President Obama was even elected, the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, about twice their share of income. In fact, the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined! This is all as reported in official IRS data. This was after nearly 40 years of the policies of Reaganomics! Moreover, this does not count the burdens of the corporate income tax, which is how not only Obama but dishonest liberal Democrats across the board create the phony statistic about Buffett and his secretary. They just ignore the existence of the federal corporate income tax entirely, with its 35% rate. The Wall Street Journal reported the actual facts on January 26, saying, "In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle class families." The capital gains tax is paid on top of the corporate income tax, not instead of it. Investment income is taxed once by the corporate income tax, and then by the capital gains or dividends tax when it is passed through to the individual. That makes for a total effective rate on investment income of 45%. Bringing it down to the 30% of Obama's Buffett Rule would require further tax rate cuts. But what Obama is proposing would actually double the capital gains tax rate to 30%, leaving America with the third highest capital gains rate in the developed world. That would be on top of the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. And it would be on top of all the tax rate increases already scheduled to go into effect next year under current law, with the Obamacare taxes becoming effective, and the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire. Obama calculates that the average American doesn't know anything about that. Obama and the Democrats play-acting as if they don't understand the corporate income tax leaves America uncompetitive and falling behind in the world. It means fewer jobs and declining income for you and your friends and neighbors. But they don't care as long as their calculated deception can trick enough voters to get them past the next election. As for Mr. Buffett, a higher capital gains rate will not affect the tax shelter fund that has made him a billionaire. It would only make it more attractive as a tax shelter alternative. So he prospers by calling for higher taxes and a reduced standard of living for the rest of us. In fact, he is lionized in the leftist media and by President Obama as a result. The wily, 82-year old coot will be hustling America until his dying day. Is This Fair? Obama proclaimed in his SOTU that his goal is "to restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." Everyone would play under the same set of rules under a flat tax, where Warren Buffett would precisely pay the same tax rate as his secretary. But that is not what Obama is for. He is for the nation's small businesses, job creators, and investors paying almost all of the federal income taxes, and his supporters in his political machine paying nothing. That would be the result of adding still further tax increases on disfavored taxpayers. But are the results of Obama's policies really fair? The recession started in December 2007. Since the Great Depression recessions in America have previously lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months. When President Obama entered office in January 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month. His responsibility was to manage a timely robust recovery to get America back on track again. Supposedly a forward-looking progressive, Obama proved to be America's first backward-looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal spending, borrowing, deficits, and the national debt by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed "stimulus" package, based on the proven failed Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits, and debt are what promotes economic growth and recovery. As should have been long expected, Obama's trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it. That is because borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion back into it does nothing to promote the economy on net. Indeed, it is a net drag on the economy, because the private sector spends the money more productively and efficiently than the public sector. After the stimulus, Obama veered steadily left. Through Obamacare, he increased future federal taxes and spending by trillions more, adopting or wildly expanding three entitlement programs, on top of the entitlement crisis America already suffers. Through the EPA, Dodd-Frank, and other regulatory expansions, he wildly rocketed up regulatory costs, burdens, and barriers. He has already enacted in current law increases in the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax for next year. And as in the SOTU, every time he speaks he calls for and threatens still more tax increases, especially on the nation's job creators and investors. The National Bureau of Economic Research scored the recession as ending in June 2009, the longest on record. Yet, today, in the 49th month since the recession started, there has still been no real recovery, not like recoveries from previous recessions in America. Unemployment actually rose after June 2009 and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December 2010. Instead of a recovery, America suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression. Even today, 49 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers is still 15.2%. And that doesn't include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama's economic oppression. The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at www.shadowstats.com as a depression level 23%. Is this fair, Mr. Obama? Today, more than four years since the recession started, there are still almost 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than six months. Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression. Is this fair? Indeed, African Americans have already long been suffering another depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 49 months after the recession started, still at 15.8%. Black unemployment has been over 15% for two and a half years under Obama. Black teenage unemployment today is over 40%, where it has persisted for over two years as well. Hispanics have also been suffering a depression under Obama, with unemployment today still in double digits at 11%. Hispanic unemployment has been in double digits for three years under President Obama. Over one-fourth of Hispanic youths remain unemployed today, which also has persisted for years. Is this fair? The Census Bureau reported in September that more Americans are in poverty today than at any time in the entire history of Census tracking poverty. Americans dependent on food stamps are at an all-time high as well. Real wages and incomes have been falling so steadily under Obama and his confused, throwback, Keynesian/neo-Marxist Obamanomics, that the Census Bureau also reported that real median family income in America has fallen all the way back to 1996 levels. Is this fair, Mr. Obama? Obama apologists cannot argue that this is because the recession was so bad, because the historical record in America is that the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on historical precedent, we should at worst be finishing the second year of a booming recovery by now. Ryan's Salvation In March, Paul Ryan will again propose to restore traditional, American, world-leading prosperity and growth, with a budget that will cut federal spending by trillions over the next 10 years, leading to a balanced budget, and sharply reduced national debt. Like last year, that budget will again include tax reform, reducing rates to restore prosperity, and long-term entitlement reform. With restored Reagan regulatory and monetary policies, this would reignite the Reagan boom. And that is what the election this year will be all about. Do we want the traditional, real America, with world leading economic growth and prosperity? Or do we want to trash all that for Obama's neo-Marxist vision of robbing from job creators and investors to buy votes through still more government dependency, resulting in the fairness of the equal sharing of misery, and the decline of America to become just another country?]]> http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_calculated_deception/ http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_calculated_deception/ OpEd economic liberty Peter Ferrara Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:35:11 -0500 Obama's Racial Politics This column by ACRU Policy Board Member and Professor of Economics Dr. Walter E. Williams was published February 1, 2012 on Townhall.com. There's been a heap of criticism placed upon President Barack Obama's domestic policies that have promoted government intrusion and prolonged our fiscal crisis and his foreign policies that have emboldened our enemies. Any criticism of Obama pales in comparison with what might be said about the American people who voted him in to the nation's highest office. Obama's presidency represents the first time in our history that a person could have been elected to that office who had long-standing close associations with people who hate our nation. I'm speaking of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, who preached that blacks should sing not "God Bless America," but "God damn America." Then there's William Ayers, retired professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago but formerly a member of the Weather Underground, an anti-U.S. group that bombed the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and other government buildings. Although Ayers was never convicted of any crime, he told a New York Times reporter, in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attack, "I don't regret setting bombs. ... I feel we didn't do enough." Obama has served on a foundation board, appeared on panels, and even held campaign events in Ayers' home, joined by Ayers' former-fugitive wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Bill Ayers' close association with Obama is reflected by his admission that he helped write Obama's memoirs, Dreams from My Father. Many Americans thought that with Obama's presidency, we were moving to a "post-racial society." Little can be further from the truth. Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, in a National Review (1/18/2012) article titled "Obama's Racial Politics," says that Obama's message about race and his charges of racial bigotry are "usually coded and subtle." Criticizing Republicans, before a Mexican-American audience, Obama said that he ran for office because "America should be a place where you can always make it if you try -- a place where every child, no matter what they look like (or) where they come from, should have a chance to succeed." If you don't get it, "no matter what they look like" is code for nonwhite. Hanson says that Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, has "found race a convenient refuge from criticism -- most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen." Obama's racial politics are aided and abetted by a dishonest news media. When Republican candidate Texas Gov. Rick Perry referred to "a big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous," he was dishonestly accused of racism by MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who said, "That black cloud Perry is talking about is President Barack Obama." Schultz omitted the second half of Perry's quote. Chris Matthews referred to Perry's vision of federalism as "Bull Connor with a smile." The media have help from black congressmen in stirring up racial dissent. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said white presidents must be "pushed a great deal more" to address black unemployment than would a black president. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said that argument over the debt ceiling is proof of racial animosity toward Obama. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said that Republicans are trying to deny blacks the vote. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., said the tea party wishes to lynch blacks and hang them from trees. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Perry's job creation in Texas is "one stage away from slavery." All of this places a heavy burden on people who care about our nation. We must ensure that the 2012 elections are the most open and honest elections in U.S. history. Should Obama lose, I wouldn't put it past leftists, progressives, the news media and their race-hustling allies, as well as the president, to fan the fires of hate and dissension by charging that racists somehow stole the election, thereby giving support and excuses for the kind of violence and lawlessness that we've witnessed in flash mobs and Occupy Wall Street riots.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_racial_politics/ http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_racial_politics/ OpEd Walter E. Williams Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:53:35 -0500 Robert Knight on Battleline with Alan Nathan Click here to listen online.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/robert_knight_on_battleline_with_alan_nathan_25/ http://theacru.org/acru/robert_knight_on_battleline_with_alan_nathan_25/ On The Air Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:21:00 -0500 Obama's Recess Appointments Unwarranted, Unnecessary and Unconstitutional As a member of the Conservative Action Project, CEO Susan Carleson and leaders of 32 other organizations, representing a broad cross section of the conservative movement, are united in objecting to Obama's "Recess" appointments as unwarranted, unnecessary and unconstitutional. MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT: Obama "Recess" Appointments Unwarranted, Unnecessary and Unconstitutional. RE: On January 4, President Obama purported to appoint three individuals to be members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (two of whom were only nominated two weeks before and had not even completed the necessary questionnaire required by Senate) and one person to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). All of these positions require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: The Constitution allows the President to make "recess Appointments" — bypassing the Senate under only one circumstance: "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate." But the Senate did not adjourn its session and still had officers to receive nominations from the President. Again, the Constitution is very clear on this point: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days." In December the House did not consent to the Senate taking a recess. There are three objections to what are basically illegal appointments by President Obama:
  1. The Senate was not in "recess" as required by the Constitution and therefore the President lacked the authority to make "recess" appointments. The President cannot require Congress to act on his priorities — the Constitution established the principle of separation of powers as an important check and balance on the federal government.
  2. This contempt for the Constitution by the President demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the Constitutional responsibility that accompanies the oath of office. Earlier in his administration the President decided he would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act — even though it was passed by bi-partisan majorities and signed by President Clinton in 1996. The endless use of appointing "Czars" to direct cabinet departments and thusly also circumventing the Senate confirmation process has been questioned by members of both political parties.
  3. If President Obama would disregard the Constitution's "advise and consent" clause as he sees fit prior to an election imagine what he would do if he happened to be re-elected and would not face the voters again. By making these illegal "recess" appointments the President is saying he can appoint any person, at any time, to any position he chooses without the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President's ends do not justify the means. Legal challenges as well as Congressional Review of these illegal "recess" appointments are proceeding in the courts and on Capitol Hill and should continue. For additional Information on the President Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments please click on the links below: http://www.nrtw.org/en/print/4064 http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2012/jan12/12-01-25.html http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/barone-obamas-1-man-rule-thumbs-nose-founders/313961 http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/a-constitutional-crisis/ http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/12/whitewash-on-illegal-appointments-wont-work/ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/282490/20120116/obama-recess-appointments-first-legal-challenge-health.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/main_street.html http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/manhattan-moment-expressly-illegal-appointment-violates-obamas-oath/20813 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cdw-presidents-nlrb-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-137315993.html http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/obamas-nlrb-guy-was-corrupt-unions-lawyer/2086391 http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-recess-appointments-martin/2012/01/09/id/423534 http://netrightdaily.com/2012/01/former-senator-ted-kennedy-opposed-recess-appointments http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/Recess-Appointments-01-06-12-SJC-members-letter-on-OJC-input-on-recess-appointments-signed-letter.pdf http://www.northeastteaparty.org/tea-party-web/grassley-not-buying-doj%E2%80%99s-non-recess-appointment-apologia http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/dem-nlrb-recess-appointments-rushed-dont-appear-on-white-house-nominee-list http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142540864703780.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1457 http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/05/the-white-house-is-wrong-the-senate-conducted-business-during-its-recess http://www.franchise.org/Franchise-News-Detail.aspx?id=55701 http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/white-house-wont-say-if-justice-department-blessed-109639.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html http://workplacechoice.org/2012/01/09/obama-recess-appointments-the-worst-kind-of-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Workplacechoiceorg+%28WorkPlaceChoice.org%29 http://workplacechoice.org/2012/01/06/obama%E2%80%99s-nlrb-%E2%80%98recess%E2%80%99-appointees-circumvent-background-checks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Workplacechoiceorg+%28WorkPlaceChoice.org%29 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/06/obamas-nlrb-recess-appointments-circumvent-background-checks http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48593 http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=273759 http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/1/hatch-on-president-circumventing-senate-on-national-labor-relations-board FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM VISIT: WWW.THEMOUNTVERNONSTATEMENT.COM CONSERVATIVE ACTION PROJECT Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government Gary Bauer, President, American Values Thomas Fitton, President, Judicial Watch Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring Duane Parde, President, National Taxpayers Union Kay R. Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary Brent Bozell. President, ForAmerica Phillip Jauregui, President, Judicial Action Group Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum David Williams, President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance C. Preston Noel, President, Tradition, Family, Property Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness Mario H. Lopez, President, Hispanic Leadership Fund Lewis Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition Dr. Herb London, President Emeritus, Hudson Institute Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com Mathew D. Staver, Chairman, Liberty Council Action J. Kenneth Blackwell, Chairman, Coalition for a Conservative Majority James Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition Susan Carleson, Chairman & CEO, American Civil Rights Union T. Kenneth Cribb, former Counselor to the U.S. Attorney General Tom Winter, Editor-in-Chief, Human Events Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator Bob McEwen, former Member of Congress, Ohio Bill Pascoe, Executive Vice President, Citizens for the Republic Gary Marx, Executive Director, Faith & Freedom Coalition Mandi D. Campbell, Legal Director, Liberty Center for Law & Policy Chris Littleton, Co-Founder, Ohio Liberty Council (All organizations listed for identification purposes only) ]]> http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_recess_appointments_unwarranted_unnecessary_and_unconstitutional/ http://theacru.org/acru/obamas_recess_appointments_unwarranted_unnecessary_and_unconstitutional/ OpEd Conservative Action Project executive authority Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:51:38 -0500 Welfare Wars: Anatomy of a Smear This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight was published January 30, 2012 in The Washington Times. When I was a copy editor at the Los Angeles Times, a young reporter submitted an article about a single mother having trouble obtaining government checks. The story was designed to elicit outrage at callous bureaucrats who should have been showering the poor woman with subsidies. I asked the reporter if she knew anything about the father. Was he providing any assistance? Was he a deadbeat dad? The reporter, who probably has gone on to MSNBC, responded: "How dare you ask that question? How dare you be so judgmental? It's nobody's business." Well, given that the unfortunate woman was asking taxpayers to take the place of the man who fathered her children, it was everybody's business. It's no secret that the decline of marriage has contributed mightily to poverty, crime, abortion, drug and child abuse, alcoholism, school dropout rates, sexually transmitted diseases and virtually every known social ill while exponentially bloating state and federal budgets. Every liberal attack on marriage ensures more government jobs for liberals to pick up the pieces. As the federal government lurches toward a $16 trillion national debt and states face bankruptcy, the welfare state is strangling freedom and the economy while keeping millions in wretched dependency. Every attempt to rein in the behemoth is met with threats by public-employee unions, fusillades from left-wing think tanks, and media smears. Exhibit A is unfolding in the City of Brotherly Love, where the welfare state works so well that Philadelphia is a perennial contender for murder capital of the United States. There's something to be said for Philly, home of Ben Franklin, Bill Cosby, Independence Hall and hoagies. But Philadelphia is also awash in liberal bureaucracy and social pathologies unleashed by the collapse of minority families, thanks to the Great Society's vision of the good life. Here's the gist of the current drama: At issue: Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) Secretary Gary D. Alexander's attempts to reduce waste and fraud. The real target: Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. The goat: Robert W. Patterson, a DPW official. I worked with Mr. Patterson a few years back at the Family Research Council. He's a good guy and a careful writer. Mr. Patterson, who was appointed policy adviser in October, came under fire in mid-January from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which "began asking about Patterson's side job as editor of the Family in America, published by an Illinois-based research center that advocates for the 'natural human family ... established by the Creator.' " You know, the Creator that America's Founding Fathers cited in the Declaration of Independence, which the Continental Congress adopted in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. The Family in America is not a faith-based journal but a scholarly compilation of articles and research summaries published by the Howard Center, whose president is Allan C. Carlson, arguably the nation's leading social historian. To the Philly hit team, the journal is immediately suspect because it isn't aggressively secular. Here's a snippet from a Philadelphia Daily News editorial:
"Religion is at the center of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, where Patterson works as an editor. It's fair to wonder how right it is for his extreme views to help shape a policy - in Patterson's case, welfare policy - that will affect so many in need. And we can't help but be disturbed by the contempt Patterson must have held, given his beliefs, for many of the clients served by the department."
Add mind-reading to the amazing powers of the Philly scribes, along with shockingly casual religious bigotry. They know Mr. Patterson harbors bad motives because anyone who promotes marriage and respects religion must hate the poor. The Inquirer and its cousin Daily News zeroed in on an article in the new-research section of the Family in America that summarized a scientist's findings that semen had some positive effects on women. Here's how a Daily News blog describes Patterson's most colorful crime: "He wrote stories about semen as a mental elixir for women." An Inquirer article on Jan. 26 attacked Mr. Patterson again, giving a cartoonish version of his views and noting his "musings on how condom use could rob women of reported mood-enhancing benefits of chemicals." Unmentioned was that Mr. Patterson had digested a Sept. 22, 2010, blog article in Scientific American summarizing several scientists' research on the topic. If you want to provoke a liberal wolf pack, try introducing scientific evidence for male-female complementarities. At the same time the papers were hammering Mr. Patterson, the Inquirer ran stories about the Corbett administration's attempt to reform Medicaid. The Jan. 18 headline screams: "Since August, 88,000 Pennsylvania children have lost Medicaid benefits." The article includes unanswered volleys such as, "They have chosen to send a signal, and it is very callous," by a senior fellow from the hard-left Center for American Progress, identified as "a Washington think tank." Think of this as a microcosm of what the national press will do when House Republicans this year renew their common-sense plan to reform Medicaid in similar fashion to the 1996 welfare reform that replaced open-ended federal matching funds with finite block grants. Finally, there was this gem: "Sen. Vincent J. Hughes (D-Phil.) said he believed the reviews were part of a pattern ... of the Corbett administration's 'putting their foot on the neck of poor people.' " Is that all? From the tone of the articles and editorials, one would think Mr. Corbett had commissioned a traveling guillotine squad, perhaps with Mr. Patterson in a black hood. But only one head fell in the flurry of liberal righteous indignation, and that was Bob Patterson's. He resigned from the Department of Public Welfare and will continue to edit the Family in America. It's bad news for Pennsylvania but good news for the rest of the nation.]]> http://theacru.org/acru/welfare_wars_anatomy_of_a_smear/ http://theacru.org/acru/welfare_wars_anatomy_of_a_smear/ OpEd Robert Knight Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:47:28 -0500 A Missed Opportunity This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell and ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published January 28, 2012 on Townhall.com. The official Republican response to the President's State of the Union Address was fine--as far as it went. But Gov. Mitch Daniels missed a golden opportunity to put before the American people a better vision of family, faith, and freedom. Interestingly, the only mention of family in Gov. Daniels' response was his praise for President Obama's own family. Let me stipulate: The Obama family is a model family, apparently devoted to one another. The president even lives happily under the same roof with his mother-in-law. Now, that's devotion. But Gov. Daniels could have noted that the policies of the Obama administration are the most antagonistic to the family of any administration in history. This is a fact. With 42% of American children born out-of-wedlock, a tragedy of fatherlessness is being visited on millions of homes. Bill Bennett rightly calls this "the broken hearth." And broken hearths lead to broken hearts. Does the president address this in his budget? No. Instead, he gives hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, the world's leading trafficker in abortion. We know that the more sexual contacts young people have prior to marriage, the more likely they are never to marry, or to divorce after marriage. You cannot be pro-family and shovel money at this evil enterprise. This is one shovel-ready project we should reject. Yet, President Obama has told Speaker Boehner that any cut in federal funds for Planned Parenthood is "a non-starter." President Obama has relentlessly pushed abortion at home and abroad. Obamacare is the most massive expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. Under Obamacare, health care coverage will include abortion. Thus, we will all be forced to pay for the killing of unborn children. The president is concerned, he tells us, about education. We must all share that concern. But he has taken over college loans, an unprecedented power grab. He does this even as his administration is menacing the liberty of every private and religious college in America. If your college does not want to push condoms in the dorms or dispense abortion-producing drugs at Student Health, the Obama administration threatens you with action. Dr. Larry Arnn is president of Hillsdale College, a proud independent college founded by abolitionists in the 1850s. Hillsdale takes no federal funds. Dr. Arnn recently spoke of how the intact family undergirds limited government: The principles of our country stem from the laws of Nature and Nature's God. This word "Nature" is full of rich meaning. It comes from the Latin word for birth, so of course the nature of man, and natural rights must be understood to include the process of begetting and growth by which human beings come to be...If families do not raise children, then the government will. What then becomes of limited government? I offer Dr. Arnn's eloquent analysis to President Obama. That terrible figure of 42% out-of-wedlock births shows up the false promises of those who said that abortion-on-demand would end welfare and poverty. When they said that, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was less than half what it is today. Social scientist Charles Murray has written a new book, Coming Apart, in which he shows that the dream of upward mobility for millions is being lost. In this important work, he shows that marriage and religion are central to the economic well-being of millions of Americans. The Obama administration is actively hostile to marriage, refusing even to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. That law was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president. And Mr. Obama's administration is seeking to suppress the conscience rights of millions--including Catholics, Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Orthodox Jews. His radical demand that every federally-supported institution in the country dispense abortifacients is a grave threat to religious liberty. To the fires of social discord this administration is adding fuel. To those on the lower rungs of life's ladder, asserting their God-given right to rise, this administration is breaking the first rungs. These are the issues I'd like to see both of our major parties address in 2012. ]]> http://theacru.org/acru/a_missed_opportunity/ http://theacru.org/acru/a_missed_opportunity/ OpEd Ken Blackwell Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:11:42 -0500 Peter Ferrara on the Al Gainey Show Click here to listen online. ]]> http://theacru.org/acru/peter_ferrara_on_the_al_gainey_show_3/ http://theacru.org/acru/peter_ferrara_on_the_al_gainey_show_3/ On The Air Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:10:00 -0500