You are here: Home / Archives for Policy Issues Institute

Video: Woman Says “Avowed Muslim” Obama Not Prez; Santorum Doesn’t Correct Her

January 27, 2012 by 11 Comments

At a town hall meeting in Lady Lake, Florida, a woman said Barack Obama is a Muslim, ineligible to be president, violates the Constitution, and should be kicked out of office — and Rick Santorum did not correct her. The woman began:

I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not. He constantly says that our Constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases.He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president

Santorum responded that Obama’s “recess” appointments would cause him to “draw the line.” He said he may name that woman his first czar.

That’s much different than John McCain, who called Obama “a family man” on the campaign trail in 2008. For some reason, the compliment did not get McCain elected president.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Expert: Obama’s “Job Training” Boondoggle Won’t Put People Back To Work

January 27, 2012 by 1 Comment

barack obama 3537 Expert: Obamas Job Training Boondoggle Wont Put People Back To Work

In his State of the Union Address, Obama proposed job training programs to end unemployment. There’s just one problem It’s been tried and failed miserably. Here’s what one of the scholars at the Heritage Foundation had to say about the matter:

More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs –David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.

Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.

Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.

When federal job training programs have been evaluated using random assignment to job training and control groups, these scientifically rigorous evaluations overwhelmingly find that these programs are ineffective. For example, Job Corps, the federal government’s flagship program for hard-to-employ youth, has been found to be ineffective on several measures:

  • Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);
  • Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;
  • Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was only $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and
  • Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

Instead of adding new programs to an already bloated job training system, the President and Congress should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by terminating these programs.

You can read all the reactions of Heritage Foundation scholars to the 2012 State of the Union speech here.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Does Obama Want To Run America Like The Military?

January 26, 2012 by 1 Comment

us military full 4264 Does Obama Want To Run America Like The Military?

Presidents often use State of the Union Addresses to articulate a more comprehensive ideology of government or society. In the 2012 SOTU, what did President Barack Obama hold up as his ideal? Military life.

Obama took the name of the armed forces in vain, twice, simultaneously claiming undeserved credit for killing Osama bin Laden and forecasting the way his opponents should fall in line, salute, sit down, shut up, and follow his commands. Soldiers, he said, trust each other. “They don’t obsess over their differences,” Obama enthused. “They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.”

“Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example,” he said.

At the end of his speech, he returned to his theme, making special mention of the way he degraded the U.S. armed forces for social engineering purposes:

Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

Exactly who is the commander-in-chief in Obama’s model? Whose orders are unquestioningly executed without regard for personal reservations about their wisdom or likelihood for success? Obama noted in the Situation Room where he quivered in fear after finally ordering the troops to take out Osama, he “sat next to Bob Gates, a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.”

America’s decision makers in this fantasy are Barack Obama, a radical anti-American socialist; Hillary Clinton, a European welfare state socialist; and a Republican willing to go along with their plans.

Do we want to live the military life? The dehumanizing basic training, designed to break the individual and mold him into an element of a larger collective and hierarchical force? The rigid regimental conformity imposed from above upon all? The rationing and lack of individual choice over one’s own fate? The harsh punishment meted out to those who disobey?

Obama has stoked the idea of a civilian defense corps and turned shoppers into snitches with his “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign. Collectivism made its greatest strides in the United States during the Great Depression and World War II. A military mindset reinforces Obama’s regal pretensions and siege mentality. Americans interested in maintaining constitutional liberties should want nothing to do with his plans or ideology.

As the late folk troubadour Phil Ochs once sang, “Before the end even treason might be worth a try. This country is too young to die.”

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , ,

The 2012 State Of Illusion Address

January 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

212 The 2012 State of Illusion Address

Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address joined his other public remarks as an exercise in virtual reality. In addition to its jaundiced view of the free market and overly rosy view of the present economic crisis, his speech contained a number of factual errors, misleading statements, and outright lies.

1. “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

Barack Obama took pains to present himself as a foreign policy success, the president who “got” bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, and is winding down the conflict in Afghanistan. Far from gaining momentum, though, the Obama administration is negotiating with elements of the Taliban now – the moderate, “secular” Taliban, no doubt – even offering to release Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay, to extricate ourselves from eleven years of nation-building in the Muslim world, the fruits of which will crumble into dust the moment we are no longer present to enforce compliance. A recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) states, after the U.S. pullout, the Taliban will control large areas of the Afghan countryside, where the U.S.-sponsored government has never made headway.

2. In his brief reference to ObamaCare, he said: “our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

ObamaCare requires all Americans to be covered by health insurance by August 2014, whether through private insurers or the government. (The individual mandate fines those who opt not to pursue either option.) Half of the 34 million uninsured to be added to the rolls will be enrolled in Medicaid, at taxpayer expense and under government control.

3. “Women should earn equal pay for equal work.”

A 2010 survey of 2,000 communities found young, unmarried women earn an average of eight percent more than young men – in some cities 20 percent more than their male counterparts. The remaining “disparities” largely derive from comparing apples to oranges. Women, who often take maternity leave and otherwise tend to the home, regularly put in fewer hours and hence receive less pay and fewer promotions than more dedicated employees. Even these disparities will likely disappear as women continue to outpace men in higher education.

4. “Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion.”

Obama’s policies have increased the national deficit more than nearly all his predecessors combined, and there is no indication his spending habits will change. Earlier this month, he asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion; the House shot him down. Increasing the deficit differs substantially from increasing the deficit.

5. “We lost four million jobs before I came into office, and four million more before our policies took full effect.”

In fact, the nation shed four million jobs — actually, more than four million — over the first nine months of the Obama administration, long after the official “end” of the recession. That is eight months after his $1 trillion stimulus bill passed. Obama later claimed job losses proved his stimulus plan worked.

That’s four million jobs lost on Obama’s watch and three million created.

6. “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen….Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.”

Ford has indeed produced a success story. It also refused to receive any bailout money. Thanks to the government-arranged restructuring of which Obama boasts, Fiat, an Italian company, will own a majority share of General Motors. Ford’s American success story has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, while his plans for GM assure it is no longer an American auto manufacturer.

7. “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs.”

Former New Mexico governor and jilted Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson wrote, “Only in the twilight zone that is Washington could a president who has bailed out and stimulated our economy to death stand in the Capitol and declare there should be ‘no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs’. Can anyone spell GM or TARP or Solyndra?”

8. Obama said politicians need to “lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction.”

So said the man who promised “hand-to-hand combat” against Republicans.

9. “A world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one.”

This would come as news to China and, in some respects, Russia. Instead of a tight embargo, the United States and Israel are apparently engaged in a low-level war with Iran, arranging or tacitly approving the assassination of its nuclear scientists.

Given the numerous factual inaccuracies, members of Congress showed remarkable restraint. None shouted, “You lie!” this year. Out loud.

It seems the smartest person was Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-CO, who chose not to attend.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s DOJ Discriminates Against White Voters In Guam

January 26, 2012 by 3 Comments

Department Of Justice6308 Obamas DOJ Discriminates Against White Voters in Guam

The U.S. Justice Department is ever-vigilant against signs of “voter suppression” these days, most recently blocking – on the grounds that it would hurt blacks – a South Carolina law that would require voter identification. But the voting rights of some minorities, it appears, are more worth protecting than others.

The territory of Guam, for instance, has called for a plebiscite on the territory’s relationship with the United States that could provide momentum for an independence movement. But the only people allowed to vote will be citizens who were native inhabitants in the year 1950 and their descendants. The provision limits the franchise to a group made up overwhelmingly of indigenous Chamorro people and excludes nearly all whites, Filipinos and other racial and ethnic groups who have moved to the island in the past six decades.

When presented with a complaint in 2009 by a white resident, retired Air ForceMaj. Arnold Davis, the Justice Department declined to intervene. In response late last year, the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) and former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams filed suit in Guam federal district court to block enforcement of the voter restriction.

“The Obama administration shows hypersensitivity to race in South Carolina,” Terence J. Pell, president of the CIR, told me last week. But in Guam, where a racial agenda permeates the politics of the island and government action points to intentional race discrimination, he says, “the Obama administration can’t be bothered to look into it”….

Read more from James A. Bacon, The Washington Times.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With:

Obama: I’ll Keep Pushing…

January 26, 2012 by 1 Comment

18 Obama: Ill Keep Pushing...

One of the less-explored realities of his State of the Union Address last night is that Barack Obama doubled-down on the most controversial, unconstitutional, and blatantly illegal aspects of his presidency.

Addressing his million-strong job deficit and the need for energy, Obama promised to continue funding Green energy ventures in the full knowledge that many will turn out ot be failures. “Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.” The Solyndra debacle cost taxpayers half-a-billion dollars when the company went bankrupt, and an additional $14.3 million to provide special assistance for the 1,100 workers who lost their jobs. It was but one of at least 11 similar programs. Nonetheless, the firm is considering paying plush bonuses to those who took the firm under.

Paraphrased, last night Obama said, “I draw the line in the sand, and I saw Solyndra now, Solyndra tomorrow, and Solyndra forever!”

He made a similarly unequivocal statement about executive force. After making a half-hearted plea for Congress to rubber-stamp his agenda in the style of Nancy Pelosi’s zombies, he vowed: “I intend to fight obstruction with action.” He went on to name-check Richard Cordray, the “recess” appointment Obama said would “look out for” American consumers. The president has made “We Can’t Wait!” his slogan as he rules by executive order and regulations. Apparently the royal treatment will continue in 2012.

He promised to grant his regal favor to “talented, hardworking students” who, it just so happens, “aren’t yet American citizens.”

“I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration,” he said truthfully. He pretended, “That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.” In fact, border crossings are down because the economy has precipitously declined under his watch, decimating Mexican hopes for advancement as much as Americans’.

Obama then pushed Congress to work on “comprehensive immigration reform,” one of the Open Borders Lobby’s euphemisms for providing amnesty to 13-20 million illegal immigrants. The plan has been hailed by Democrats and union socialists alike as a way to create a new “progressive” voting majority in the United States and assure the perpetual election of liberal Democrats.

Obama continued, “If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country.” That is a call to pass the DREAM Act, which Congress has rejected for years and which most Americans oppose. It makes stunningly little sense to grant preferential treatment to millions of illegals at a time when so many of our fellow countrymen — who are traditionally the president’s constituency and prime concern — are out of work. Nonetheless, he promises to keep the amnesty moving forward.

Of course, two – and arguably three – of these are impeachable offenses. The Republicans’ lack of spine has encouraged the president, not only to persist in lawless behavior, but to boast that he will carry out another year of outrages in the most-watched political speech of the year.

Way to go, guys.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , ,

More Taxpayer Money Wasted…

January 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

100 dollars7427 More Taxpayer Money Wasted...

n its push to help the increasingly powerful La Raza movement the Obama Administration is dedicating over a million and a half dollars to restore Chicano murals—some featuring renowned communists—in one state and cancelling more than 1,600 deportations in two others.

It’s part of the administration’s ongoing effort to cater to the influential open borders lobby, which has benefitted handsomely since one of its top officials (National Council of La Raza Vice President Cecilia Muñoz) got a job in the Obama White House. Earlier this month the president elevated Muñoz from White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs to the more powerful and prestigious post of Domestic Policy Director.

A Judicial Watch investigation revealed last year that federal funding for the NCLR, which promotes itself as the nation’s largest Latino civil rights group, skyrocketed—from $4.1 million to $11 million—since Muñoz got her White House job in 2009. A big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement.

The administration is catering to the movement in other ways, according to a pair of recently published news reports. The first tells of a $1.6 million federal government allocation to restore more than a dozen anti-American, Chicano murals in San Diego. Among them are images of communists Fidel Castro and Che Guevara and a map of Aztlan, a delusional Mexican nation that Chicano folklore says is made up of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Pictures were recently posted by an Arizona group dedicated to fighting illegal immigration.

A separate news report reveals that the administration has….

Read more from Judicial Watch.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , ,

Video: SOPA Is A “Crippling Danger To The Internet”

January 26, 2012 by 1 Comment

Congressman McClintock delivered the following speech on the House floor on Monday, January 23, 2012. It shows the Congressman’s dedication to freedom and his perceptive understanding of the dangers creeping government infringements pose to our First Amendment liberties. — Ed.

Madam Speaker:

Long ago, Jefferson warned, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” The exceptions to that rule have been few and far between recently, and ought to be celebrated when they occur.

One did this past week with the announcement that supporters of the so-called “Stop On-Line Privacy Act” and the “Protect Intellectual Property Act” have indefinitely postponed their measures after an unprecedented protest across the Internet.

SOPA and PIPA pose a crippling danger to the Internet because they use the legitimate concern over copy-right infringement as an excuse for government to intrude upon and regulate the very essence of the Internet – the unrestricted and absolutely free association that links site to site, providing infinite pathways for commerce, discourse and learning.

It is not the Internet per se that has set the stage for the next quantum leap in human knowledge and advancement – but rather the free association at the core of the Internet. And this is precisely what SOPA and PIPA directly threaten.

But as dangerous as this concept is to the Internet, it pales in comparison to the danger it poses to our fundamental freedoms as Americans.

It is true that rogue web sites operating from off-shore havens, are stealing intellectual property and then selling it.

We already have very good laws against that, as evidenced by the arrest yesterday of Mr. Kim Schmitz and his associates in New Zealand, who now stand accused of operating one of the biggest of these rogue sites.

Theft of intellectual property is fundamentally no different than the theft of any other kind of property. It should be taken no less seriously than the thefts perpetrated by the likes of Bernie Madoff, John Dellinger or Willie Sutton.

It is no different and it should be treated no differently. In every such case, it is the individual who commits the theft and the individual who is culpable and accountable to the law. And it is the individual who is accorded the right of due process, including the presumption of innocence, while he stands accused.

This is what SOPA and PIPA destroy. Upon mere accusation, these measures would allow the government to shut down web sites, ruin honest businesses, impound property, disrupt legitimate speech and dragoon innocent third parties into enforcing laws that may or may not have been broken.

When property is stolen, we hold accountable the individuals who knowingly commit the act, and place the burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser must demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant stole property or that he received property that he knew was stolen.

Yes, it is a ponderous system. Yes, it means you actually have to provide evidence. Yes, it means you have to convince a jury. Yes, it means we can’t catch and successfully prosecute every criminal. But the experience of mankind over the centuries has proven that this is the best possible way to protect the innocent and to protect our freedom while also punishing the guilty. In part, we punish the guilty to discourage others we might not be able to punish.

And as the arrests yesterday in New Zealand prove, it works. Let Mr. Schmitz and his confederates be extradited and let them have their day in court. Let evidence be presented. Let a jury be convinced of that evidence. And if convicted of one of the greatest thefts in human history, let us mete out the full measure of punishment provided by the law to stand as a fearsome example to others.

That doesn’t and won’t stop all theft and it isn’t perfect. But to replace it with one where mere accusation can bring punishment or inflict ruinous costs upon innocent third parties, would introduce a despotic and destructive concept that is antithetical to the ancient rights that our government was formed to protect.

The developments of the last few weeks have saved the Internet and saved these fundamental principles – at least for now. But Jefferson was right that the natural order is for government to grow at the expense of liberty. That is why we have our Constitution.

And to the protection of that Constitution, the Internet has now empowered its rightful owners, “We, the People,” to defend it more effectively than ever before.

Which leads me, Madam Speaker, to conclude that because of the events of this past week, we will see many more victories for freedom in the days and years ahead.

– Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA

Filed Under: Commentary, Videos Tagged With:

Iowa Voting Irregularities Kept Santorum From Becoming The Anti-Romney Candidate

January 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Romney Santorum Split Iowa Iowa Voting Irregularities Kept Santorum from Becoming the Anti Romney Candidate
Vote irregularities in the Iowa caucuses led to Mitt Romney erroneously being declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses earlier this month, artificially giving his presidential campaign weeks of momentum and depriving Rick Santorum the opportunity to become the conservatives’ alternative candidate.

The original results showed Mitt Romney had won in Iowa by a margin of eight votes. But yesterday, Iowa GOP officials announced a “final” vote total shows Santorum won at least 34 votes more votes than Mitt. The new results will record 29,839 votes for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney.

“Many people were skeptical” on election night, said Gretchen Carlson on “Fox and Friends” Thursday morning. But as I noted, absolutely nobody was skeptical about the election night shenanigans. No anchor expressed concern about the series of dubious-sounding voting snafus — including a story about someone absconding with ballots and driving the results around Iowa’s backroads in his pickup truck. Instead, slap-happy Fox News’ analysts played the stories off as a joke and eagerly reported Karl Rove’s scoop that Mitt Romney’s vote had been “undercounted.”

A few days later, a Ron Paul supporter came forward with information that his private record of his precinct’s vote totals did not match the numbers party officials reported. These alone, Edward True said, would have shifted the race from Romney to Santorum.

Even now, eight precincts cannot certify their vote — precincts, as I note, that did not support Romney in 2008. Matt Strawn, chairman of the Iowa GOP, said he had no idea how these votes were lost.

But the problem is worse than that. The Washington Post points out, deep in an piece in yesterday’s issue, that the numbers reported to the party on each voting precinct’s “Form E” did not match the actual vote totals in 131 precincts. That’s seven percent of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts. What’s more, 100 precincts’ Form E returns did not comply with state instructions:

The precinct chair and precinct secretary were both to sign the results verified by witnesses on caucus night. But results for some precincts came in on pieces of paper other than the official forms. Many more had only one signature, or the wrong signature (say, from a county chair). Another 18 documents had no signatures at all.

All were accepted, party officials said.

This article details the caucuses’ problems on a county-by-county basis this year, and at a marco level going back to 1976.

“Does anyone have a problem with that this morning?” Carlson asked. “Maybe we should look into the process.”

Maybe, indeed. Romney’s loss to Mike Huckabee in 2008 derailed his campaign. The news that Romney prevailed, even by eight votes, gave Mitt an aura of inevitability, a sense buoyed by Romney’s long-expected victory in the New Hampshire primaries. Santorum’s “tie,” though endearing in an underdog sense, left him looking like an unsuccessful flavor-of-the-week, Michele Bachmann in a sweater vest.

By the time the news broke, Santorum was mired in fourth place in South Carolina.

Yesterday’s announcement should have breathed life into his campaign. Instead, Rick Perry’s abrupt exit and endorsement of Newt Gingrich kept Santorum out of the spotlight. (Perry, who made a compelling candidate on paper, stepped on viable conservative challengers twice. His announcement deflated Michele Bachmann’s victory in the Iowa Straw Poll, and now his exit buries Santorum’s victory in the caucuses.)

John Stineman, an Iowa Republican operative, said the results reversal “will be a story and Santorum will seize upon it, but it won’t change the current political narrative.”

Gretchen Carlson agreed, “Does it make any difference to the race going forward? Probably not.”

The momentum of a second socially conservative candidate defeating Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses and the mass endorsement of evangelical leaders in South Carolina would have solidified Rick Santorum as the Christian Right’s anti-Romney, especially in South Carolina. Instead, the brilliant but less reliably conservative Newt Gingrich is surging based on outstanding debate performances, and Santorum is hanging on for dear life.

More importantly, a second rejection of Romney in Iowa would have raised questions about his appeal to the GOP base and spelled a much different narrative for the former governor. Conservatives would have rallied earlier. Santorum may not have gained enough support to win, but Romney have been placed on the defensive — where, as his debate performances stretching back to 2008 prove, ul ar particularly ineffective.

The Republican Party’s conservative base has been betrayed twice — once by the media, and once by indefensible behavior from within.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , , , ,

Congressman: “Countries Have Been Formed In Less Time” Than Report On Fast And Furious

January 20, 2012 by 1 Comment


Filed Under: Videos Tagged With: