ACRU

Ken Blackwell: Congress Goes For Rationing

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:41:00 -0500

ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell wrote this column appearing September 9, 2010, on The Daily Caller website. "Democrats choose Death Panels..." announces Comedy Central's Jon Stewart with mock horror, "...for themselves!" It's a very funny bit. The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty plays it straight as she reports: "Ultimately, some candidates, including incumbents, will have to be left for dead so that the parties can spend where it might still make a difference." Then, there's Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner. Mr. Barone has probably forgotten more about American politics than most political commentators will ever know. The editor for 40 years of the Almanac of American Politics knows political panic when he sees it. He nails the word "triage," saying that leaders of the House majority party are prepared to effect "a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority." The current liberal majority in Congress assured its members that the 2,000-page health care legislation they were demanding would become more popular with voters after it was passed. That has not proven to be the case. The president's health care legislation has become more unpopular the more voters focus on it. Barone reports that no member of the majority who voted for the president's signature legislation is running ads touting that fact. A significant number of majority party members who voted against Obama's bill are running campaign ads stressing that opposition. This is a clear indication that the votes they cast for nationalizing health care are not campaign pluses, and are in fact anchors around their necks. And the waters are rising. I'm struck by the fine irony here. This is the group that pooh-poohed Sarah Palin's talk of "death panels." Ridiculous. It'll never happen. This is America, after all. Yet look what they resort to when some of their political bodies are on life support. What is this "triage" except a form of rationing? They are taking scarce resources, in this instance campaign cash, and they are giving it only to those who are showing signs of political health. It is any wonder that town hall meetings last summer erupted into grassroots anger? Is it any surprise that Congress as an institution is saddled with a 71% disapproval rating? (Well, that's better than it was in August. Last month, 72% of Americans disapproved of their lawmakers.) Voters are taking a dim view of incumbents who try to convince them that they are now "anti-Washington." These are the members who just months ago voted for the biggest power grabs by the federal government in our history. They did not just vote to take over health care, they gobbled up college student loans. They rubber stamped the Obama administration's takeover of banks, insurance companies, and auto makers. Many in the majority in the House of Representatives voted for so-called cap-and-trade legislation that will have the effect of letting the federal government run every industry in the country. If businesses have to clear every decision on energy consumption with federal bureaucrats, it's the end of anything resembling free enterprise. It isn't just a socialist bill; it establishes a socialist system for the first time in this country. The Senate in this case performed its constitutional role well. George Washington once showed how the Senate would function by pouring some hot tea from his cup into his saucer. The Senate is the saucer and the Senate allowed this hot socialist measure to cool. It is as a result of all these unwise and very likely unconstitutional measures that the congressional liberal majority finds itself in such trouble. The polls have never shown such lopsided numbers of disapproval and voters ready to vote the ins out. Still, political rationing only mimics health care rationing. The members whose campaigns are flat lining will not suffer anything more than the loss of political office. As one who has held public office and who has suffered political defeat, I can assure the worried incumbents there are great days ahead of them. It is better for them to lose office than to continue pushing America toward real health care rationing. The losers in that game are not just "left for dead" politically. I personally would rather be voted out than participate in such a public disservice.

Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter: How ObamaCare Guts Medicare

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:15:47 -0500

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara and Dr. Larry Hunter wrote this column appearing September 9, 2010 on The Wall Street Journal website. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has attacked Senate Republican candidates for wanting "to end Medicare as we know it." And in Nevada's hotly contested Senate race, Majority Leader Harry Reid is attacking Republican Sharron Angle, saying she wants to "gut" Medicare. But Mr. Reid has already gutted it. He and his colleagues did so by passing ObamaCare. In his analysis accompanying the recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees, Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, noted that Medicare payment rates for doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next three years. Under the policies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 Medicare payment rates will be lower than under Medicaid. Mr. Foster notes that by the end of the 75-year projection period in the Annual Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare payment rates will be one-third of what will be paid by private insurance, and only half of what is paid by Medicaid. Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years. These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"--repeatedly cited by the president--that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved. There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama's pledge that "If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it" clearly does not apply to America's seniors. Senior Editorial Writer Joseph Rago explains the increase in insurance premiums. Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady critiques the President's plan. Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that "The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board's recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation." The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly--such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease--will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect. Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients. The president's concept of spreading the wealth includes sacking the Medicare system, on which America's seniors have come to rely for medical care, in favor of others the president's progressive vision deems more worthy. Everyone should know by now that Medicare suffers dramatic long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities, and is in need of fundamental, structural reforms. But effectively refusing to pay the doctors and hospitals that provide the medical care the program promises to seniors is no way to solve that problem.

Peter Ferrara: Fire Obama

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:51:51 -0500

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara wrote this column appearing September 8, 2010 on The American Spectator. House GOP Leader John Boehner created a stir last month when he called on President Obama to fire his top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Larry Summers, because of the Administration's disastrous economic performance. But while Summers is, indeed, a clueless Keynesian, and Geithner is a career bureaucrat, they are not the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the Godfather of the Administration's economic policies, President Obama himself. Consequently, what is needed is not to fire Geithner or Summers, but to fire Obama. While President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, the American people will nevertheless have the opportunity in November to do precisely that, by effectively removing him from power, as explained further below. Reality will continue to punish the American people harder and harder until they do. President Obama's Malaise The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) officially scored the recession as starting in December, 2007. NBER also reports that since World War II, 65 years ago, the average duration of recessions has been 10 months, with the longest previously being 16 months. In April of this year, NBER issued a statement saying it could not yet determine an end to the recession, 28 months after it began. What we do know is that in August, 2010, 32 months after the recession started, double the previous longest recession in the 65 year postwar era, the economy was still losing jobs, and unemployment was still rising. The Labor Department reported another 54,000 jobs lost in August, with unemployment rising to 9.6%. Major Obama voting blocks are being punished by Obamanomics, with African Americans suffering a sustained depression reflected by 16.3% unemployment, even worse for teenagers with unemployment at 26.3%, and Hispanics not far behind at 12% unemployment. The total army of the unemployed remains stuck at nearly 15 million, with 42% of those classified as long-term unemployed, jobless for over 6 months, the highest since the Great Depression. The number of additional workers employed part-time for economic reasons was still rising in August, up by another 331,000 to nearly 9 million. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines these workers as those who "were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full time job." Another 2.4 million were defined as marginally attached to the labor force, stuck at that total for a year. The BLS explains that these individual "wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job in the prior 12 months," but were not counted among the unemployed because they had not looked for work in the prior 4 weeks. These included 1.1 million discouraged workers, up 352,000 over the past year, who were not currently searching for work, and therefore not counted as unemployed, because they believe that in the economy of hope and change no jobs are available for them. The army of the unemployed and underemployed consequently stands at 26.2 million Americans. That would add up to an unemployed and underemployed rate of 16.7%, almost 3 years after the recession started. The full picture of hopelessness is measured by the precipitous drop in the civilian-employment population ratio from 63% in 2007 to 58% today, fully reflecting the millions who have simply given up even trying to look for work. Moreover, the economic growth we have experienced recently has been less than half the growth we experienced after similarly severe downturns. The economy grew by almost 7% in real terms in Reagan's recovery in 1983 and 1984. Even under President Ford, real GDP grew by 6.2% in the year after the 1974-75 recession. But under President Obama, economic growth is again in a tailspin already, falling from 5% in the fourth quarter of 2009, to 3.7% in the first quarter this year, to 1.6% in the second quarter. Moreover, the stock market is stalled, mired 30% below its record highs over 14000 in the Dow. This deteriorating economy couldn't be a worse time to raise top federal tax rates across the board for every major federal tax, as will begin on Jan. 1 under President Obama's economic policies. If those tax increases go through, the probability will be over 100% for a double dip recession, if not Art Laffer's Coming Crash of 2011. President Obama's Fallacies In his Labor Day speech before a cheering AFL-CIO crowd excited about their prospects of taking over the economy, President Obama revealed the root of the problem. He has no clue as to how the economy works, or what policies would produce economic growth. Indeed, while he may have physically been in America over the last 30 years, his mind may as well still have been in the Indonesia of his youth, for all he understands about what has happened in this country over that time. After last year's "stimulus" costing nearly a trillion dollars that was supposed to be focused on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, President Obama on Monday announced his "new" economic recovery plan: another $50 billion in increased federal spending for infrastructure. He said, "I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America's roads and rails and runways for the long term." But even this simple statement of his own plan is false. For there is nothing new about it. That is what his stimulus of over a year ago was supposed to be about. But the American people are learning from hard experience that President Obama does not learn from experience. He is all theory and ideology, neo-Marxist ideology. President Obama has made it clear over and over, including in Monday's speech, that what he thinks drives economic growth is increased government spending, deficits, and debt. That is the sum and substance of his entire Keynesian economic theory. And he persists in that even though experience under his own Administration has proven once again that Keynesian economics doesn't work. Indeed, that was proven so thoroughly in America in the 1970s, and again in Japan since the 1990s, that Keynesian economics today is frankly silly, and advocating still more of it now can only be accurately characterized as braindead. Japan suffered its own financial crisis at the start of the 1990s. It responded with Keynesian government spending, deficits and debt, focused on infrastructure spending. The result has been what has been accurately called two lost decades of economic stagnation, very similar to what America is experiencing now. Economic growth is not driven by soaring government spending, deficits and debt. It is driven by incentives to work, save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, and take on the risks of entrepreneurship. Keynesian economics does not work because borrowing or taxing another $50 billion out of the private economy to spend another $50 billion into the economy does not add anything to the economy on net. Nor does it do anything to change the fundamental incentives that do drive the economy, except maybe make them worse. As to those who focus on these fundamental incentives, Obama said on Monday, "These guys, they just don't want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy -- you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires...and then you just cut working folks loose -- you cut them loose to fend for themselves." Those poor working folks. Without the wise and all powerful government to take care of them, they are hopeless, like little lambs lost in the wood. President Obama has now accused Republicans of failing to control runaway federal spending and deficits, and of "cutting working folks loose to fend for themselves." In regard to those millionaires and billionaires, even before President Obama was elected, official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income. Yet, for the working folks, the IRS reports that in 2007 the bottom 50% of income earners paid only 2.9% of all federal income taxes. Indeed, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%! That was under the "economic philosophy of the last decade." It is all fully and accurately explained in a study on the website of the Tax Foundation. IRS data also shows that those on whom President Obama wants to increase taxes, earning more than $200,000 a year, constitute just 3% of taxpayers. Yet, that 3% already pays more in income taxes than the bottom 97% combined. Moreover, in regard to the working folks, in 2007, again before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes. In other words, they paid negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. The middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of all federal income taxes. This is the result of Reagan Republican supply side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, continued through Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, and further played out with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the poor and working class. Moreover, they almost abolished federal income taxes on the actual middle class (the middle 20%). It was, in fact, Ronald Reagan who first proposed in the 1970s the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), his alternative to welfare, which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people. As President, he cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets. In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he reduced the federal income tax rate for "folks who make less" all the way down to 15%. That Act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody, exempting from taxation a bigger percentage of the income of lower income workers. Newt Gingrich's Contract With America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. Again, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%. Many conservatives do not think it was a good idea to exempt so many from paying any income taxes at all. Nevertheless, the charge that the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich is factually groundless. Under Reagan Republican tax policies, the share of income taxes paid by the rich has soared to arguably excessive, even abusive, levels, while income taxes were, again, abolished for the poor and working class, and almost abolished for the middle class. In other words, in regard to the economy and taxes, President Obama has no idea what he is talking about. All he is doing is peddling that neo-Marxism he learned in that limousine liberal prep school he went to, still after all these years. But as Churchill said, if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, and if you are not a capitalist when you are 40, you have no brains. Carpet Bombing Jobs and the Economy The result today of President Obama's prep school Marxist fallacies are comprehensive, across the board policies that are effectively carpet bombing jobs and the economy. That includes job killing policies such as the top tax rate increases for every major federal tax starting next year, runaway federal spending, deficits, and debt, Obamacare, EPA global warming regulation, the cap and trade tax, financial regulatory reform squelching credit, the Gulf drilling moratorium and other energy production shutdowns, the Card Check specter, the minimum wage increase, the California San Joaquin Valley agriculture shutdown, and others. The only way to stop the killing is through regime change. And even though President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, that can be accomplished by administering a brutal enough spanking to the Democrats this fall that the Washington Establishment will be shaken to its knees. That will require a gain of 60 to 80 seats in the House, and 10-12 in the Senate. With that beat down, enough surviving Democrats will join with the new Republican majorities to effectively remove Obama from power, and implement alternative policies. I am not saying they will remove him from office, though with a double dip recession and a major foreign policy reversal, it is quite possible that the Democrats will demand that he step down. I am saying that enough Democrats will then turn to pass legislation Obama opposes, and even overturn key Obama vetoes. What the polls are showing is that and more is possible. But that requires not accepting any phony baloney Blue Dog Democrat excuses, including from such supposed conservatives as Gene Taylor from Mississippi, Walt Minnick from Idaho, and Bobby Bright from Alabama. If they are running as Democrats, then voting for them is a vote for San Francisco uberliberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. If they really are good conservatives, they can run for something else next time, or they can run as Republicans next time, or as Independents who will not vote Democrat for Speaker. Meanwhile, those who really want to make a difference will go into their Rolodex, or Facebook friends, or email contact list now and begin organizing to get out volunteers, fundraising, and the vote in November.

Ken Klukowski: ACLU Files Lawsuit to Stop President From Killing Terrorist Cleric

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:40:47 -0500

ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing September 7, 2010, on Townhall.com. The ACLU is at it again. On August 30, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in D.C. President Obama has authorized U.S. forces to kill on sight Anwar Al-Aulaqi. He's the U.S.-born radical imam who supposedly lives in Yemen right now, calling for terrorist attacks on American citizens and who's implicated in the Fort Hood massacre and other terrorist attacks. The ACLU argues that Al-Aulaqi is an American citizen, and as such the government cannot kill him without arrest, trial, and a conviction by a jury, unless Al-Aulaqi is personally involved at the very moment of U.S. attack in using deadly force against other Americans. In other words, the ACLU says that we can't stop this wartime enemy (and traitor, for that matter) unless we arrest him, cuff him, bring him back here, and give him a lawyer paid for by you the taxpayer. (Doubtless the ACLU will provide a few lawyers to defend him.) Ironically, the ACLU complaint states, "The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights." While I agree wholehardedly, it's amazing that they can say that with a straight face, given that the ACLU is a hardcore supporter of abortion-on-demand. So let me get this straight: A terrorist leader overseas cannot be killed by the U.S. government without a full-blown trial, but we must fight for the right to allow the destruction of over a million innocent babies every year in this country. Am I missing something? This case has been assigned to Judge John D. Bates, a Bush 43 appointee who seems to get a lot of these cases. (Cases are usually assigned by random lottery, and there aren't many judges on the D.C. District.) So Judge Bates is getting a lot of experience in studying federal power in the context of overseas operations in the War on Terror, and will preside over this latest ACLU outrage. Will update as this case moves forward.

Ken Blackwell: What Is President Obama Thinking?

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:55:28 -0500

ACRU Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell wrote this column appearing September 2, 2010, on The Huffington Post website. Americans might soon have another reason to ask themselves: "What is the president thinking?" With the flourish of a veto pen, President Obama is likely to disappoint and confuse both friends and some foes this fall; an interesting choice given his approval-rating challenges. How will President Obama manage to infuriate some conservatives and many liberals all at once? By vetoing a defense spending bill -- a bill that would please some national defense conservatives by supporting our troops and please liberals by foolishly ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. So why would he miss what some political observers call a win-win opportunity? The provision the Obama administration opposes (so strongly that they will choose a veto) is actually one many Democrats and Republicans support. If enacted as-is, the bill would anger social conservatives (we are group he never counts on) and one interested party: a large defense contractor. As passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the defense bill funds development of two engines for the Joint Strike Fighter -- a plane that will be the fighter jet of the future for both the U.S. and our allies around the world. Development of two engines means pitting two manufacturers against one another. The competition will breed innovation and cost savings over the life of the fighter jet's program. The two-engine approach also means having a backup if for some reason there is a problem with the engine that ultimately makes it into the fuselage of the plane. For reasons from efficiency to safety, the development of two engines is the chosen approach of the U.S. House of Representatives. It also has a cost-benefit stamp of approval from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO). The competition that is encouraged by the two-engine approach is, however, not an ideal scenario for manufacturer Pratt and Whitney, who otherwise would fully own the Joint Strike Fighter's engine development and production for as long as the plane is in the sky. That's big money billions over decades -- so it's not surprising Pratt and Whitney has pulled out all the stops in its lobbying campaign. The U.S. Senate will act on the defense-spending bill after they return from recess. If they agree with their colleagues in the House and the experts at the GAO that the two-engine approach is the best way to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, then the President has promised to uncap his veto pen. This will be big news, and it will be a bad story for the president. While homosexual rights groups will be disappointed over the missed opportunity to repeal the conservative supported "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," most Americans will be stunned by the willingness of the president to put off funding for our troops. Why has the Obama administration dug in its heels on this issue? Is it an example of successful lobbying? Could a single defense contractor really have that much influence over the Obama administration? I doubt it. Or could the Joint Strike Fighter engine veto threat simply be a straw man that will enable the president to strangle needed support for our troops in the Middle East, thereby hobbling their effectiveness and laying the groundwork for an early withdrawal? Perhaps. Has his support for so-called progressive social policy in the armed forces been simply lip service to an influential left-wing constituency? I don't think so. No one knows the answers to these questions. But they will surely be asked. Many will once again ask "What is he thinking?" And his poll numbers will continue to fall.

Ken Blackwell on Deace In The Afternoon

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:00 -0500

Topic: Gay Marriage Click here to listen online.

Peter Ferrara on the Say Anything Show

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:10:00 -0500

Topic: Recall of North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad Click here to listen online.

Ken Blackwell on Lakes Live with Jake Judd

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:10:00 -0500

Topic: Israel Security Click here to listen online.

ACLU Outrage: Hey! Terrorists Are People, Too, Even If Unborn Babies Aren't!

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:43:15 -0500

The American Civil Liberties Union has discovered the right to life. Seriously. The ardently pro-abortion organization declares in its Aug. 30 lawsuit against the Obama Administration that the CIA's plan for targeted killings of terrorists violates the terrorists' rights. "The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights," says ACLU lawyer Arthur Spitzer in the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. While this tack might annoy the folks in the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, it's got to be music to the ears of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born, al-Qaeda-linked Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen. Awlaki has been tied to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers and to the Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, before Hasan slaughtered 13 of his fellow soldiers and an unborn baby on Nov. 5, 2009. After the incident, al-Awlaki pronounced Hasan a "hero." The CIA put out a "kill" order on al-Awlaki in early 2010, according to the suit, which was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU. It asks U.S. District Judge John Bates to order the government to stop any plot to kill al-Awlaki. Which is a shame, since one of the captured e-mails that Hasan sent to al-Awlaki said, "I can't wait to join you in the afterlife." Of course, Hasan himself is still in this life, too, facing murder charges. "U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government," Mr. Spitzer wrote. "Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.... Both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats." Given al-Awlaki's colorful past, one would think he would qualify under "concrete, specific, and imminent." Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement, "The U.S. is careful to ensure that all its operations used to prosecute the armed conflict against those forces, including lethal operations, comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war." By the way, the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project page, which celebrates Roe v. Wade, excoriates abstinence-based sex education, and hails Obama's expansion of taxpayer-funded complicity in abortions, does not display the "right to life" phrase. But, it does have a "Tweet to close Gitmo!" button. Perhaps the ACLU would look more kindly on taking out terrorists if the CIA renamed the operation the "Selective Retroactive Abortion Project." --- Robert Knight Source: "Anwar al-Awlaki: ACLU wants militant cleric taken off US 'kill list'," Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 30, 2010, at: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0831/Anwar-al-Awlaki-ACLU-wants-militant-cleric-taken-off-US-kill-list

Peter Ferrara: The New American Supermajority

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:28:31 -0500

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara wrote this column appearing September 1, 2010 on The American Spectator. The aerial photograph does not lie. Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally drew just about as many people as any other rally ever held at the Lincoln Memorial. I took the train into town from home in Northern Virginia, packed in like in those Tokyo subway video clips, even though I was late. I marched down to the Memorial from the nearest subway stop at Foggy Bottom, where the D.C. bureaucrats had helpfully disabled the steep escalators from the underground tubes to greet the half a million or more celebrants of liberty on the way in. From my perspective on the ground, arriving late at about 11:15 (the rally started at 10), I could never get close enough to the podium even to see. But I could hear. And that was all I needed. On his radio and TV shows, Beck has emphasized economics, political history, and near libertarian political philosophy. He has previously indicated his personal belief in God. But in this speech, he revealed a vision that encompasses the whole Reagan coalition from 1980. Beck tutored me once again with his insight that the founders grew up in an America where the evangelist George Whitefield crisscrossed the colonies inspiring a national religious revival, that they probably personally heard or read Whitefield sermons, and that this foundation informed their work in later founding America. Of course, Whitefield himself suffered some moral blindness and shortcomings, as has Beck in his past, as we all have. That is why we all need God. As Beck said in explaining the message of the event:

Saturday's message -- shhh! It's a big secret. I've only talked about it for six months on one of the biggest cable news shows in history and the third largest radio show in America...so...just between us. Don't anyone tell the media: The secret is God...We're running low on personal responsibility. We've got a loss of integrity, a loss of shame in this country, a loss of principles and values. We've lost our way because we have lost God.... And hopefully, we will mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor [as the signers of the Declaration of Independence did]. At least we will begin to look at those things, start to maybe challenge that we haven't valued those things high enough --honesty, integrity, merit, personal responsibility, family, and God. That is why we call it the "Restoring Honor" event.

And that is why the event involved spotlighting those in the military who have earned honor by demonstrating merit, something many in the media also couldn't understand. Beck explained that this is the road to the revival of America: "We have lost our honor. We must restore our honor first, our principles." But Beck's point about Whitefield made clear to me that the Reagan coalition, which Beck embodies quite well, goes all the way back to 1740, and was the foundation of the American Revolution itself. Indeed, it goes all the way back to the Mayflower Compact. The 70% Supermajority Beck kept emphasizing to the crowd, "You are not alone." That is fully documented in Arthur Brooks' brilliant new book, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future. Indeed, Brooks goes on to make much the same argument as Beck and his Restore Honor rally, but in purely secular, academic, carefully logical terms. Brooks writes: Whether we look at capitalism, taxes, business, or government, the data show a clear consistent pattern: 70 percent of Americans support the free enterprise system and are unsupportive of big government. By contrast, somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the adult population opposes free enterprise and prefers government solutions to our problems. Here's a wow moment from the book. An April 2009 survey of registered voters asked which of the following statements about the role of government comes closer to your view: (a) Government should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are equal. (b) Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Only 31 percent chose (a), which is the foundational view of the liberal/left. Over twice as many, 63 percent, chose (b), which is a classic formulation of the conservative, libertarian, free market philosophy. And this was at the height of the reign and popularity of Obama's liberal/left regime. Brooks also recounts that in March 2009 the Pew Research Center asked Americans: "Generally, do you think people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don't you think so?" Brooks reports that 70 percent agreed they were better off in a free market economy. Only 20 percent disagreed. And this was at the depths of the financial crisis, when the American people lost trillions in financial wealth, in their homes and in the stock and bond markets. Brooks adds: Free enterprise is even more popular than [the terms] capitalism and free markets. In the same Gallup poll mentioned above [January 2010], a stunning 86 percent have a positive image of free enterprise. Only 10 percent have a negative image. Similarly, 84 percent have a positive image of entrepreneurs, while just 10 percent see them negatively. On taxes, Brooks reports a spring 2009 poll finding that "69 percent of Americans think the top federal tax rate should be 20 percent or lower. Even 62 percent of Democrats think this." A 2009 Pew Values Survey found that "76 percent of Americans believe the strength of this country is mostly based on the strength of American business.... In 2010, Gallup found that 66 percent of American believe that when big business earns a profit it helps the economy, while just 18 percent think it hurts the economy." Also, "51 percent of Americans believe unions hurt rather than help the nation's economy." On government, Brooks reports a survey which asked, "Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes." An overwhelming majority of 69 percent of Americans preferred smaller government, while only 21 percent favored larger government. Moreover, emerging Republican Congressional majorities take note, 63 percent of Americans favor cuts in government spending, with only 14 percent against. The Moral Foundations of Liberty But the more fundamental point that Brooks makes is that to win the battle for the future of America, advocates for the 70% majority need to do a better job of advancing their cause. They cannot concede that the left best represents fairness and the true interests of the poor, while focusing only on economic growth and materialistic concerns. They need to go back to the moral foundations for liberty and free enterprise, and explain that free markets best promote true fairness, equality, and human happiness, and the true interests of the poor and working people. Brooks explains, "The main issue in the new American culture war between free enterprise and statism is not material riches -- it is human flourishing. This is a battle about nothing less than our ability to pursue happiness," which means freedom. But, Brooks adds, "Rarely do we use the aspirational themes necessary to make the moral case for free people and free markets that we know in our hearts is right." Brooks argues that it is the 30 percent coalition that advances the cold, mechanistic, crassly materialistic view. Just give the poor money, and they will be happy, as will everybody else that matters when we give them money too taken from the rich to attain greater income equality. He explains the moral foundations of the 70% view, saying: By contrast, the 70 percent majority are New Age radicals. They have simple faith that ingenuity and hard work can and should be rewarded....They know that no amount of unearned money can ever heal the human heart. Money is fine, but it is something else entirely -- something less tangible and more transcendental -- that really brings satisfaction. The 70 percent majority understands that the secret to human flourishing is not money but earned success in life. People flourish when they earn their own success. It's not the money per se, which is merely a measure -- not a source -- of this earned success. More than any other system, free enterprise enables people to earn success and thereby achieve happiness. Brooks goes on to explain exactly what is meant by "earned success": Earned success means the ability to create value honestly -- not by winning the lottery, not by inheriting a fortune, not by picking up a welfare check. It doesn't even mean making money itself. Earned success is the creation of value in our lives or in the lives of others. Earned success is the stuff of entrepreneurs who seek explosive value through innovation, hard work, and passion. But it isn't just related to commerce. Earned success is also what parents experience when their children do wonderful things, what social innovators feel when they change lives, and what artists feel when they create something of beauty. The point, in other words, is "The big problem is not that unhappy people have less money than others. It is that they have less earned success. Your mother was right: Money can't buy happiness." But the crassly materialistic, redistributionist left misses this point. Brooks explains the implications of this for public policy: Knowing as we do that earning success is the key to happiness, rather than simply getting more money, the goal of our political system should be this: to give all Americans the greatest opportunities possible to succeed based on their hard work and merit [Beck's word again]. And that's exactly what the free enterprise system does -- makes earned success possible for the most people. This is the liberty our founders wrote about, the liberty that enables the true pursuit of happiness. The Equality of Liberty Included among the moral foundations of liberty is the principle of equality. "But for the large majority of us, this means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.... If this leads to income inequality -- above some acceptable floor -- so be it." In other words, the 70% supermajority accepts safety net programs for the truly needy, to ensure that no one suffers in deprivation. But they do not support going beyond this to income redistribution, taking from the successful to give to the less successful just to achieve more income equality. That is just stealing. This is a fundamental, rock bottom principle that we should all promote with more awareness and fervor. As Brooks explains: The majority believes government should protect the returns for hard work and merit. The 30 percent coalition effectively wants to penalize success.... [But] equality of income is not fair. It is distinctly unfair. If you work harder than a coworker but are paid the same, that is unfair. If you save your money but still retire with the same pension as your spendthrift neighbor, that is unfair. And if you stay in your house and make the mortgage payments even when its value drops but your neighbor walks away from his without recourse, that is unfair. What most helps the poor, moreover, is not government programs, but free market opportunity and prosperity. Brooks further explains: Only free enterprise truly addresses the root causes of poverty. Our solutions are not based on a reslicing of the existing economic pie by government officials and bureaucrats, effectively taking money from the well-off and giving it to the poor through punitive taxation and growing welfare. They are based on an expansion of the pie in ways that will increase everyone's share through policies and a culture that creates incentives for Americans, allows them to tap into the generative power of entrepreneurship, and ultimately lets them earn their own success. In contrast, "Because they do not strengthen culture and reinforce values, American welfare programs have spectacularly failed to end poverty." Consequently, let us not forget either the broad public appeal of economic growth and empowerment as a political and policy theme, and the common sense appeal of incentives in explaining how that works. Martin Luther King III told the Huffington Post on the day of the Beck rally that his father in 1967 and 1968 "was focused on economic empowerment....We have made great strides, but somehow we've got to create a climate so that everybody can do well, not just some." That is a tailor made theme for the 70 percent Supermajority as well, as the late Jack Kemp demonstrated during his political career. Moreover, blue collar labor union activists are really just after prosperity for their families as well. It's just that they don't recognize yet that general free market economic prosperity is the best way to achieve their goals. Better explaining how that works could vault the 70 percent Supermajority into the 85 percent Consensus. A broad explanation of the appeal of free market economics seems to be necessary to win the votes of the whole 70% coalition. Adding the economic growth theme to Reagan's traditional conservative themes seemed to be what promoted the Republicans from the mid-40s in their share of the vote to a long term governing majority. Because of the workings of the British political system at the time, Margaret Thatcher focusing on consistent conservative themes was able to dominate British politics for a record time with only that same mid-40s share of the vote. This is not a prediction. But with perceptive leaders like Glenn Beck and Arthur Brooks lighting the way, I am expecting to see an authentic American political giant who truly understands the 70 percent Supermajority liberate America in 2012 with their record setting votes. I just note that authoring the introduction to Brooks' book was Newt Gingrich.

Peter Ferrara on The Sid Salter Show

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:05:00 -0500

Topic: Recall of North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad Click here to listen online.

Robert Knight: Uprooting Crosses, One by One

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:27:53 -0500

ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight wrote this article appearing August 27, 2010 on WashingtonTimes.com.

While the furor over the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has New York Gov. David Paterson offering public land as a peace offering, a more familiar symbol - the cross - is systematically being uprooted around the country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled Aug. 18 that placing crosses where Utah state troopers died violates the Establishment Clause.

The 14 crosses, 12 feet tall and bearing a trooper's name, have been erected by the privately funded Utah Highway Patrol Association since 1968. Robert Kirby, a Salt Lake Tribune columnist and former cop, initiated it. He told Newsweek, "We wanted something instantly recognizable at 75 miles per hour, something that would say, 'This is hallowed ground.' "

Not to a mirror-worshipping group, which sued in 2005. It lost in U.S. district court, which ruled in American Atheists Inc. v. Duncan that the cross is a symbol of "death and burial." The atheists appealed and persuaded the 10th Circuit to reverse. But a further appeal to the Supreme Court would bode well, given that swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Salazar v. Buono (2009) wrote:

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."

Did the 10th's judges not read this majority opinion? Anyway, let's move on to the Buono case. In California's Mojave National Preserve, the site of a 7-foot, metal-pipe cross first erected 75 years ago by World War I veterans is bare.

In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of Frank Buono, an ACLU member, atheist and former National Park Service employee living in Oregon. Mr. Buono said the cross offended him when he returned for visits. Congress authorized a transfer of the property to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The case reached the Supreme Court, which reversed an appellate court's order and kicked it back to the lower court on April 28. Writing for the court majority (and the vast majority of Americans), Justice Kennedy said: "Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

Ten days later, someone cut down the cross, which had been covered by a plywood box lest Mr. Buono see it and start melting.

When another cross appeared a few days later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department ordered the Park Service to remove it.

Over in Monterey, Calif., someone in September 2009 tore down a 40-year-old cross on Del Monte Beach that commemorated the city's 200th birthday where Spanish explorer Don Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi landed. City officials voted to allow private funders to replace it, but the ACLU objected. After a year of legal threats, the cross will be rebuilt instead at the Diocese of Monterey's San Carlos Cemetery.

"In truth, it is no defeat for Christianity," the Monterey Herald smirked in a March 2 editorial. "It is a victory for those twin freedoms - freedom of religion and freedom from religion." Right. Dispatching a historic cross to a cemetery is nobody's defeat. Someone should tell the ACLU folks before they pop more champagne. The paper did admit that the vandal who cut down the cross won "a minor victory." What would a major victory look like? A torched church?

"It is frustrating to realize that some Christians will truly feel that their faith is under attack even though that simply is not the case," the Herald insisted. "It is a defeat for no one and a victory for people who want to be allowed to believe as they wish."

If that editorial writer were to have a colleague of similar ilk reporting on, say, a 16-1 pounding the Dodgers delivered to the San Francisco Giants, we might read: "It is frustrating to realize that some Giants fans will truly feel that their team lost. It is a defeat for no one. They should believe they were all winners."

Recalling Senator Kent Conrad: Tea Party Activists in North Dakota Fight Denial of Recall Effort

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:16:22 -0500

On August 30, the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) filed an amicus brief in support of Tea Party activists arguing that North Dakota law does provide for recall of U.S. Senators. Tea Party activists had previously filed with the Secretary of State for approval of petitions for the recall of Senator Kent Conrad. They were denied by the Secretary of State citing an opinion from the state Attorney General that the North Dakota Constitution did not provide for the recall of U.S. Senators. However, the state Constitution expressly states that recall applies to "all elected officials of the state." The Recall Committee sued the Secretary of State seeking enforcement of the law, filing in the state Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction as provided in the state Constitution. The Supreme Court issued an Order providing for a briefing schedule and oral argument in October. The legality of recall of U.S. Senators is now before 2 state Supreme Courts, New Jersey, where a ruling is still awaited on briefs and oral argument submitted in May, and now North Dakota. A New Jersey state appellate court has ruled that the recall of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez can go forward. Download the brief here. Download the press release here.

Recalling Senator Kent Conrad: Tea Party Activists in North Dakota Fight Denial of Recall Effort

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:50:10 -0500

Robert Knight on the Greg Corombos Show

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:15:00 -0500

Topic: Beck rally and the backlash Click here to listen online.