Friday, March 30, 2012

End Of Day Report

Friday, March 30, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 221 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



Barack's Bad Week


Yesterday I received a message from a supporter who said she found reading this daily report depressing and discouraging. I understand her frustration. The past three years have been a nightmare for everyone who cherishes faith, family and freedom -- and I'm here in the belly of the beast!


So I want to offer a bit of encouragement to our supporters by pointing out that, by any reasonable standard, Barack Obama had a pretty bad week. For example:


  • The United States Supreme Court took up his signature initiative -- ObamaCare. And from the oral arguments it seems likely that four, if not a majority, of the justices are inclined to strike down ObamaCare as unconstitutional.
  • Obama was caught on an open mic appearing to tell one of America's adversaries: We can do a deal next year after my election. I remember when Ronald Reagan was caught on an open microphone joking about bombing the Soviet Union. Here Obama got caught perhaps offering to compromise our security. Check out this ad. While it is somewhat humorous, America's national security is no laughing matter.
  • Obama's budget was humiliated in the House of Representatives on a 0-to-414 vote. Not one Democrat was willing to support his call for higher taxes and more spending. The same thing happened last year in the Senate, where Obama's budget went down 0-to-97.

If we had an unbiased, objective media, more Americans would be aware of these facts and would likely be questioning whether he deserves a second term. But rather than getting frustrated and discouraged, fight back!

Sure folks can stop reading these daily reports if they find them discouraging. But blaming the messenger does nothing to stop Obama and his radical allies from "fundamentally transforming" the country we love.


I don't write this report just to blow off steam. At the end of the day, I am trying to rally men and women of faith to get involved, to take action in defense of our values!


Let me remind folks what we are all about: Campaign for Working Families is a political action committee that exists to elect pro-family, pro-life, pro-free enterprise conservatives to public office. This daily report -- consider it voter education -- is just one aspect of our work.


Keep sharing these reports with friends and family members. Pick one relative who voted for Obama in 2008 but who may be on the fence now. (Don't waste your time on die-hard liberals.) If every conservative converted just one voter, we would win in a landslide. Then I would have more encouraging news to report!



Obama: The Abortion President


It's not hyperbole to say that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in America's history. And Obama's
two-minute White House video address promising to continue supporting Planned Parenthood with your hard-earned tax dollars as long as he remains president is just more proof of his pro-abortion extremism.

Remember: Obama's commitment to the abortion industry is so strong that
he threatened to shut down the government and to stop sending Social Security checks to our senior citizens and veterans' benefit checks to our heroes in order to guarantee Planned Parenthood's place at the federal trough.


Another Reason To Oppose ObamaCare


The
Washington Examiner reported Wednesday that the IRS is asking for $300 million and 4,000 more agents to enforce ObamaCare. I guess that is what Democrats meant when they said ObamaCare would create thousands of new jobs!


Undermining Israel Again


Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a lot of flak for his lack of faith in Barack Obama when he declared that Israel would not inform the U.S. if it planned to attack Iran. U.S. officials felt Netanyahu was snubbing Obama. But many Israelis fear they can no longer count on America's support, even if Obama claims to have Israel's "back." The fears of many Israelis and millions of pro-Israel Americans may well be justified.


Foreign Policy
magazine has just run a lengthy story quoting "senior U.S. diplomats and military intelligence officials" discussing a "secret Israeli staging ground" for strikes against Iran. According to the report, Israel is planning to use former Soviet airbases in Azerbaijan for strikes against Iran's nuclear program. One U.S. official told the magazine, "We're now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it."

Why on earth are these senior officials -- likely political appointees -- talking at all? Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton thinks he knows why:

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack. Clearly this is an administration-orchestrated leak. It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies."

Pop Quiz


Okay, class, time for a pop quiz: What is the capital of Israel? If you said "Jerusalem," go to the head of the class. But don't send a resume to the State Department any time soon.


If you need more evidence of why Israelis are having a hard time trusting this administration, consider this: A spokeswoman for the
State Department was asked nine times by a reporter this week what the capital of Israel was, and she refused to answer the question each time.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

End Of Day Report

Thursday, March 29, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 222 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



Robert Zimmerman Speaks


Robert Zimmerman, the father of George Zimmerman, is speaking out against the circus-like atmosphere in Sanford, Florida, that is being driven by the left-wing media, liberal politicians and an assortment of race-baiters. Fearing for his own safety, Robert Zimmerman spoke with a local
Fox News station on the condition that his face not be shown. Here's part of what he said:

"I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP. Every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety or profit from this in some way. But there is so much hate. I have never been involved in hate. George hasn't. It is really unbelievable."
What is Robert Zimmerman referring to? He's talking about the New Black Panthers, which offered a $10,000 bounty for his son -- dead or alive. He's talking about this Twitter account, advocating his son's death. [WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE.] He's referring to members of Congress suggesting that Zimmerman be arrested for his own safety. He's referring to the president of the United States stoking the fires.

After the Fort Hood shooting, President Obama gave Nidal Hasan the benefit of the doubt, telling the country, "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." But when it came to George Zimmerman, Obama assumes Zimmerman is guilty, a racist and virtually adopted the slain boy, saying, "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. …If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."


By the way, the media's behavior has been completely reckless and irresponsible. Unbelievably,
ABC News published the name of one of the witnesses who corroborated Zimmerman's account of the events that led to the shooting. This particular witness, whose identity and safety has been compromised by ABC News, is a 13 year-old boy. In the same story, ABC would not publish the name of Martin's 16 year-old girlfriend.


Obama's Lawyer Begs Justices For Restraint


I had to laugh reading the
Washington Post's summary of yesterday's ObamaCare arguments before the Supreme Court. According to the Post, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Obama Administration's top attorney, begged the justices in an "emotional plea" to show restraint and uphold ObamaCare. Here's what Verrilli said:
"The Congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years, and it made a judgment. Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't, but this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it."
What irony! Obama and his Democrat allies showed no restraint at all when they took over Washington in January 2009. They shoved ObamaCare down our throats, using every means possible from parliamentary maneuvers to bribes like the "Cornhusker kickback." After "deliberating" about it, the American people fired Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and sent scores of new conservatives to Congress in the 2010 elections.

What do the American people think about ObamaCare now? A large majority (56%) wants it
repealed, and an overwhelming majority (72%) believes ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional. And that is the issue before the justices now: Is Obama's signature initiative legal or not?

But there is even more irony in Verrilli's statement. Here's a man who is part of the most liberal administration in history. He's part of the left-wing movement that routinely goes before the courts and urges liberal judicial activists to ignore the will of the people, regardless of how they have voted.


The people of 30 states have voted to define marriage as the union of one man one woman. But this administration is right now trying to get the federal courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. The people of Arizona wanted to crack down on illegal immigration. But this administration sued to overturn its popular law. The people of South Carolina and Texas wanted to ensure the integrity of elections in their states. This administration is blocking enforcement of their voter ID laws.


But now that the Obama Administration is trying to save its deeply unpopular and constitutionally flawed health care scheme, it has suddenly found a use for judicial restraint.



Spinning The Numbers


The Labor Department reported today that new claims for jobless benefits fell by 5,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 359,000. That's good news right? Maybe not. After all, the previous week the figure was 348,000 new claims. What happened?


Buried in today's report is the fact that last week's figures are revised up to 364,000. But that's not likely to be the headline in any reporting on the latest figures.


Last week,
CNN reported, "The number of first-time filers for unemployment benefits fell to a four-year low last week, hinting that solid job growth likely continued in March." Today, CNN reports, "In another sign of improvement in the labor market, the number of people filing for unemployment benefits once again fell to a four-year low last week."

So for the past two weeks, the Obama Administration has gotten glowing headlines for an improving jobs picture when in fact the number of people claiming unemployment benefits increased from 348,000 to 364,000.



Unanimous Agreement In Washington


With partisanship at an all-time high, the House of Representatives finally agreed on something. In fact, the vote was unanimous -- 414-to-0. What could garner that kind of bi-partisan support? Motherhood and apple pie? No, that would be unanimous opposition
Barack Obama's budget.

Noting that no House Democrat had introduced a budget based on Obama's proposals, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) did it for them. Not one House Democrat supported it. Who could blame them? After all, Obama has added more to the
national debt in three years than George W. Bush did in eight!


Wednesday, March 28, 2012

End Of Day Report

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 223 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



ObamaCare On Trial: Day Three


Can ObamaCare survive without the individual mandate? That was the main point of today's debate before the Supreme Court. Yesterday, a majority of justices appeared highly skeptical of the government's claim that it has the authority to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.


The mandate is the heart of ObamaCare. Without it, much of the law becomes untenable. Interestingly, some reporters noted with concern the degree to which the court's liberal members aggressively defended the notion that parts of the law could survive without the mandate.


Justice Kagan argued that "half a loaf is better than no loaf," while Justice Ginsburg said, "It's a question between a wrecking operation and a salvage job, and it seems to me the more conservative option is the salvage job."


One reporter observed, "The fact that the liberals were very engaged, particularly Justice Kagan, may show that they are very worried that the mandate is going to be held unconstitutional."


Why is that relevant? As is frequently the case, the court's majority is likely to hinge on the decision of one man -- Justice Anthony Kennedy.


For most of yesterday's arguments, Justice Kennedy appeared hostile to the Obama Administration's defense of the individual mandate. But toward the end of the hearing, just as folks might have concluded he had slammed the door shut on the mandate, Kennedy stuck his foot in the door, saying:


"In the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case."
Again, making predications based on oral arguments is difficult, and there is conflicting reporting on the issue. But today a majority of the justices appeared to believe that the law should either stand or fall in its entirety.

As Justice Scalia declared, "My approach would be, if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone." Appearing to agree with Scalia, Justice Kennedy said it would be a "more extreme exercise of judicial power" to uphold parts of ObamaCare after striking down the heart of the statute -- the individual mandate.


That being the case, it seems we will have to wait until the summer to find out where Kennedy stands on the mandate and to learn the fate of ObamaCare.



Calm The Waters


Barack Obama is never at a loss for words and he needs to speak up now.


The shooting death of Trayvon Martin continues to be exploited by a variety of black nationalists, Black Panther demagogues and race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Students protesting in Florida yesterday ransacked a store. On websites discussing the issue the rhetoric is red hot, and there are frequent calls for revenge and violence.


An elderly couple -- a 70 year-old school cafeteria worker with a heart condition and her 72 year-old husband -- have temporarily fled their home after their address was mistakenly made public by Spike Lee as the home of George Zimmerman. Obama and Spike Lee are close. In January Lee held a fundraiser for Obama that raised $1.6 million.


On Capitol Hill yesterday, House Democrats held a hearing with the parents of Trayvon Martin. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) declared, "Mr. Zimmerman should be arrested immediately for his own safety." Was that a threat? Why should he be afraid, Rep. Wilson, and who should he be afraid of?


This morning Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), and a former Black Panther, was escorted off the floor of the House of Representatives for wearing a hoodie and sunglasses in violation of House rules on decorum. I checked the congressman's website and saw no statement about the 49 people who were shot, 10 fatally, in Chicago this month. I don't recall any theatrics by the congressman to draw attention to those deaths. But the congressman is willing to violate House rules in order to exploit a tragedy that didn't even occur in his own state.


After the assassination attempt on Congresswoman "Gabby" Giffords, President Obama delivered a passionate plea for civil discourse. As the first man of color to be elected president, he has a special obligation now to "call out" black radicals who are trying to stoke street violence or worse.


What about it, Mr. President?


Do you want your daughters growing up in a country where the rule of law is replaced by mob violence and "high-tech lynchings"? Where is your legendary eloquence? What would Martin Luther King say?



Employment Prevention Agency Strikes Again


Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency took a major step toward implementing his cap and trade scheme by regulation yesterday when it announced new regulations purportedly aimed at limiting emissions from new coal plants. Obama's cap and trade scheme was so radical it could not pass the Democrat-dominated Senate in 2009 and 2010 when Harry Reid controlled a super-majority.


But as one
Bloomberg report noted: "The rules will permit emissions from new power plants at 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour… The limit would effectively preclude construction of new coal-fired plants."

Why? Because the only way a new coal plant could possibly meet that limit is through the use of "carbon capture and sequestration" techniques that trap the emissions and pump them underground. But according to industry experts such techniques are "neither economically viable nor commercially available."


Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant administrator of the EPA during the Bush Administration, told the
Wall Street Journal, "This really is a ban on new coal-fired [electricity] generation. The EPA knows that." Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said, "They are threatening to destroy coal-based generation."

America gets approximately half of its electricity from coal. We are the "Saudi Arabia of coal." There are tens of thousands of jobs involved in coal mining, transportation and electricity generation. But, once again, the EPA is living up to nickname as the "Employment Prevention Agency."


Is destroying the coal industry part of Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy? Of course not. Because Obama doesn't have an "all of the above" energy strategy!


As I have reported many times, Obama's energy strategy relies on making traditional sources of energy more expensive. This is part of Obama's stated goal to
bankrupt the coal industry, causing electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket," as he put it.

And for what? To fight global warming that isn't
happening or climate change that we can't control.

Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It is too important to be held hostage by radical ideologues. It is high time that the American people get control of the EPA and elect politicians who will implement a serious energy strategy. We can do that by voting Obama and his liberal socialist allies out of office on November 6th!


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

End Of Day Report

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters


From: Gary L. Bauer



COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 224 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



ObamaCare On Trial: Day Two


Today the justices of the United States Supreme Court took on the centerpiece of ObamaCare: the individual mandate. When Judge Roger Vinson struck down ObamaCare in February 2011, he wrote that in defending the law the administration had "asserted again and again that the individual mandate is absolutely 'necessary' and 'essential' for the Act to operate as it was intended by Congress."


Attempting to predict the outcome of a case based upon oral arguments can be dangerous. But if today's questions are any indication of how the justices will decide, the individual mandate appears to be on life support. According to various reports, the court's four liberals predictably defended the law, while the mandate came under intense fire from the court's conservative wing.


But what must have the Obama White House nervous was the line of questioning from Justice Anthony Kennedy. A moderate with no definable ideology, Kennedy is often the deciding vote on the deeply divided court.


The
New York Times reports that Kennedy did not wait to criticize the mandate and began questioning the government's attorney, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., "only minutes into the argument." At one point, Justice Kennedy said the government had a "heavy burden of justification." He later added, "Here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act … and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

Kennedy's line of questioning led one well-known observer of the high court to write, "It is essentially clear that the four more liberal members … will vote in favor of the mandate. But there is no fifth vote yet." Liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, appearing on
CNN after today's hearing, was in panic mode. Toobin said:

"This was a train wreck for the Obama Administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."
No one should be celebrating yet. A decision isn't expected until the summer, and Kennedy later in today's session seemed to be bending. Nonetheless, today's hearing was encouraging.


What Is Obama's January 2013 Surprise?


It's no secret that Barack Obama is not a fan of Ronald Reagan's defense build-up. In 2008 he
pledged to a left-wing group, "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. …I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Ever since he took office he has been working to fulfill that pledge. In September 2009, Obama unilaterally scrapped a missile defense system deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.


In 2010, Obama overruled his own Secretary of Defense and declared that the United States would not develop new nuclear weapons. This February, it was reported that Obama was considering massive cuts -- up to 80% -- in America's nuclear arsenal.


Evidently, Obama wants to do even more. While meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in South Korea yesterday, Obama was caught on an open mic asking for "space." Here's the "private" exchange between the two leaders:

"President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for [Vladimir Putin] to give me space.

"
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

"
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

"
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

The media went nuts over the Romney campaign's "Etch A Sketch" gaffe. But this is a far more serious issue. Flexibility for what exactly? What does Obama want to concede to Russia that is so controversial he is afraid to do it before the November election? What is his January 2013 surprise?

Ronald Reagan too believed in a world where nuclear weapons would be obsolete. But he never meant to leave us vulnerable. That is what his Strategic Defense Initiative was all about -- defending America from a nuclear attack. But Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he rejects the idea of missile defense.


As Iran works feverishly to develop nuclear weapons, while nuclear North Korea remains governed by Stalinist dictators, I think the American people deserve to know exactly what Obama is promising the Russians he will do if he is reelected.


Perhaps a better "strategic defense initiative" for 2012 would be to make sure Obama is defeated in 224 days!



Environmentalists Demand "Effective World Government"


Two weeks ago, I wrote about a journalist who admitted that many radical environmentalists are really Marxists at heart. In a recent interview, Naomi Klein said, "…if you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, …then you need to be intervening strongly in the economy… If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook." Some want to go further.


Writing in the
Scientific American this month, Gary Stix declared that the fight against climate change requires "effective world government." In other words, the end of American sovereignty. Stix wrote:

Al Gore and the left may think the science is settled, but it is not. It was
"To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. …How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? …If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus."
reported this week that the earth experienced global warming 1,000 years ago -- long before the use of fossil fuels. And, of course, that was followed by a cooling period, suggesting that climate change is not something we cause or can control.

In today's
Wall Street Journal, Princeton physics professor William Happer debunks many claims of the climate change alarmists, who have a long history of being wrong. But they are always seeking the same thing: More government control of your life.

Monday, March 26, 2012

End Of Day Report



Monday, March 26, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 225 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS


Boiling The Racial Pot

Seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin and neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman had a confrontation on a dark street in Sanford, Florida, last month. There was a fight and Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, fatally shot Martin, who was black.

Martin's parents received the news that every parent dreads when the phone rings late at night -- their son was dead. Zimmerman's friends and family say he was distraught and wept for days over the fact that he had taken a life in what he says was self-defense.

Sadly, the political left, big media and an assortment of race baiters like Al Sharpton have rushed to judgment, attempting to exploit the pain of this tragic confrontation for their own ideological agendas. This unholy alliance didn't say a word about the 49 people who were shot -- 10 fatally -- in Chicago during one weekend this month. Virtually all of the victims were black, as were the shooters. Where was the outrage?

In the Sanford shooting, the media immediately adopted the narrative that it was further evidence of the rampant racism in America, even though both men were racial minorities and Zimmerman comes from a biracial family and has numerous black friends. The New Black Panther Party saw its chance to add to the hate by calling on black men to volunteer to track Zimmerman down. It even offered a $10,000 reward for him -- dead or alive.

Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department announced that it would investigate the Sanford Police Department. But it was silent on the Panther's call for vigilante justice.

Predictably, Barack Obama jumped in too, even though he has no more information than anyone else. His comments followed to the letter the left-wing script -- pointing out that we had to get justice in the case because if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. And his point was what? Absent evidence that the shooting was racially motivated, the fact that Trayvon Martin was black is irrelevant.

Sadly, President Obama, who millions of Americans had hoped would bring racial reconciliation, has a well-established pattern of stoking the fires of racial antagonism. Remember in July 2009 when Obama, with no facts to speak of, accused Cambridge, Massachusetts, police of acting "stupidly" when they arrested his friend Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? Then he cited the "long history" of police mistreatment of minorities. The facts of that case ultimately supported the cops Obama called "stupid."

When Arizona passed a law in 2010 to stop the influx of illegal immigrants into the state, Obama once again stoked fears. He said that under the law, if you are Hispanic and don't "have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." Once again facts didn't bear out the president's accusation.

I couldn't help but notice that Obama's accusation that the Arizona police would harass Hispanics without sufficient evidence is exactly what Mr. Obama is doing to the Hispanic Mr. Zimmerman when he assumes the shooting was racially motivated.

The legacy of racial discrimination haunts America. The overwhelming majority of Americans of all races want reconciliation. They also want good schools, safe streets, strong families and national healing. It is sad and infuriating that so many left-wing ideologues are willing to fan the flames of racial discord, incite vigilante justice and exploit racial division for political gain.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman deserve justice delivered in a fair trial with an unbiased jury, something the left has made far more difficult. America deserves political leadership that tries to heal our national wounds instead of rubbing them raw.


ObamaCare On Trial: Day One

The United States Supreme Court kicked off day one of its marathon, three-day hearing into the constitutionality of ObamaCare by first debating whether they could even rule on the issue this year. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, had declared that it could not rule on ObamaCare because of an obscure 1867 law prohibiting lawsuits against taxes until such time as the taxes are collected. But the first tax penalties under ObamaCare are not collected until 2015.

As the New York Times notes, the Obama Administration is in a bit of a bind here. It wants a decision sooner rather than later. But it has had its own difficulty at times in trying to determine whether the individual mandate was a penalty or a tax.

You may recall that President Obama once got into a heated exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over the issue and vehemently denied that the mandate constituted a tax. Yet the administration is defending ObamaCare based on Congress' authority to levy taxes.

Neither the administration nor the states suing to overturn ObamaCare want the high court to punt the case until 2015. No one wants to waste time implementing the law at the state or federal level only to have it declared null and void three years from now. And reports this afternoon suggest the justices were skeptical that the 1867 law would preclude a ruling this year. We will keep you posted.


Hands Off My Health Care!

Tomorrow thousands of Americans are coming to Washington, D.C., to demand respect for the Constitution and our freedoms, and to tell the politicians to keep their hands off our health care! I am proud to co-sponsor this rally along with groups like Americans for Prosperity, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, 60 Plus, FRC Action and the Tea Party Express.

If you live within driving distance of the nation's capital Washington and would like join this rally, visit HandsOffMyHealthCare.com for more information.


The Etch A Sketch Presidency

Some political observers have called Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's "Etch A Sketch" remark one of the worst gaffes in political history. But regardless of Romney's general election strategy, the Etch A Sketch metaphor more aptly applies to Barack Obama's presidency. Read more in my latest Human Events column.

Friday, March 23, 2012

End Of Day Report

Friday, March 23, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 228 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS


ObamaCare Turns Two

Today is ObamaCare's second birthday. You might think that President Obama would be celebrating the legislative achievement that bears his name. But he's not. He spent the last few days on the campaign trail talking about gas prices, not health care. In fact, it seems like Obama is trying to get as far away from ObamaCare as possible -- he's headed to South Korea today!

It's not hard to understand why. Two years after Obama signed the Democrats' socialized medicine scheme into law, ObamaCare remains deeply unpopular. Consider the polling data:


  • 56% of likely voters want ObamaCare repealed.

  • 57% of Americans oppose forcing religious institutions to pay for services that violate their core values. (By the way, if the government can force churches and religious institutions to pay for services they find morally objectionable, how much longer until the government tries to force churches and religious institutions to perform services they find morally objectionable -- whether it's same-sex marriages or abortions in Catholic hospitals? This unprecedented assault on religious liberty must be defeated!)

  • 62% of likely voters fear ObamaCare will cause companies to drop health coverage for their employees. That fear is justified given the law's perverse incentives.

  • 72% of Americans, including 56% of Democrats, believe ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office reported that by 2022, ObamaCare is estimated to cost $1.76 trillion. That is nearly twice the $900 billion price tag that President Obama proposed in a 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

Americans know we can't afford ObamaCare. They don't like the way ObamaCare is being used to attack religious liberty. They fear ObamaCare will take away their current health insurance. They don't like ObamaCare's big government mandates telling them what they must buy. And they want ObamaCare repealed.

No wonder Barack Obama is leaving the country today! Come November 6th, we need to make sure he leaves the White House.


House Repeals ObamaCare Rationing Board

Dr. Donald Palmisano, the former president of the American Medical Association, recently wrote an op-ed calling for the repeal of ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The former AMA chief referred to the IPAB as "one of the most egregious aspects of the law."

The IPAB board consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats with the power to decide which services get paid for and which ones are denied. Here's how Dr. Palmisano described the board:

"IPAB will essentially mean rationed care for our nation's seniors. The 15 officials who will make up the board will not only be empowered to make what is expected to be billions of dollars' worth of cuts to Medicare every year, but will be required to do so when spending exceeds targeted rates. IPAB's recommended cuts will become law unless a supermajority in Congress vetoes the board's proposal and creates its own cost-cutting proposal of equal size -- an unlikely scenario even in the most harmonious of political times. … Now, years later, more seniors are beginning to understand that IPAB's creation and the $500 billion in cuts to the Medicare program meant to help pay for the law were anything but helpful to them."
The IPAB was a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for creating entitlements we can't afford. Rather than making tough choices, why not just pass the buck to some unelected board and let them cut off grandma's medicine?

Thankfully, the House of Representatives yesterday voted 223-to-181 to repeal the IPAB. Seven Democrats voted with the overwhelming majority of House Republicans to kill Obama's rationing board, proving once again that the only bi-partisan aspect of ObamaCare is the opposition to it!


Hands Off My Health Care!

The fight to repeal ObamaCare kicks into high gear next week when the Supreme Court begins its historic marathon hearing. Whatever the court does, the debate doesn't end there. The most important decision regarding the fate of ObamaCare will be made by the American people at the polls on November 6th. In the meantime, it is important that politicians on both sides of the aisle know just how strongly we feel about it.

That is why I am proud to co-sponsor the "Hands Off My Health Care" rally in Washington, D.C., on March 27th. Thousands of Americans are coming to the nation's capital next Tuesday to remind our lawmakers that ObamaCare is contrary to the Constitution and the will of the people. If you would like to join this rally, visit http://americansforprosperity.org/handsoff/#s3


Children At Risk

That was the title of a book I co-authored years ago with my good friend Dr. James Dobson about how liberal cultural influences were undermining the values parents taught their children at home. I was reminded of that title this week reading about an outrageous assignment given to a class of middle school students in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax County, Virginia.

According to the Daily Caller 8th grade students at Liberty Middle School were instructed to research the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the Republican presidential candidates and then identify the appropriate person or department of the Obama campaign to receive this information. Just think of the mindset of the teacher who thought this was a legitimate assignment!

Having done battle with the NEA over the years, including during my time in Ronald Reagan's Education Department, I know just how left-wing the teachers' unions are. Some of the parents were shocked that this teacher was trying to brainwash their kids, but I'm not.

Moreover, this isn't the first questionable partisan incident involving a Virginia school. Last month, Obama campaign workers were discovered registering voting-age high school students in the Norfolk area.

And once again, the media's double standard is on full display. If the GOP were going onto school campuses in swing states, or if a teacher in Florida or Ohio had asked students to do a similar assignment on Barack Obama weaknesses, that would be national news. But I bet a classroom of 8th grade kids could do a more thorough job of vetting Mr. Obama than did our national media elites!

Thursday, March 22, 2012

End Of Day Report

Thursday, March 22, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 229 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



The "Etch a Sketch" Candidate


When Governor Romney gets some momentum, something happens that ends it. Yesterday's latest example was breathtaking -- especially for a campaign that is supposed to be the best "well-oiled" operation we have to take on Barack Obama.


If that's true, then why on earth did Romney's top spokesman, Eric Fernstrom, use language that only reinforced voters' greatest doubt about Romney -- that he is a flip-flopper? The conservative base has been slow to warm to Romney for a reason -- they are not sure that the former governor of Massachusetts genuinely shares their conservative values.


That being the case, Governor Romney was ill-served when his top spokesman went on
CNN and compared the GOP front-runner's campaign to an Etch a Sketch.

"CNN: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

"
Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."

I know a lot of conservatives are upset that the GOP candidates keep attacking one another, rather than focusing on Obama. Senator Santorum has been on the receiving end of roughly $10 million in negative ads. I too would have preferred that money be spent on ads exposing Obama's radical agenda.

However, Democrats won't have to use anything said by Santorum or Gingrich. They will use the Romney campaign's own words. In fact,
they already have! And I can see Barack Obama turning to Mitt Romney in a debate and saying, "When you're in the Oval Office, you have to make tough calls. You can't be an Etch a Sketch and get a do-over."

Of course the great irony in all this is that we are being governed by the first Etch a Sketch president. For many Americans Barack Obama was a blank slate in 2008. He ran ads talking about cutting taxes. Yet his whole presidency has been one big effort to raise taxes.


He talked about racial reconciliation, but then accused white police officers of acting stupidly and refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers. He says he's against gay marriage, but he opposes every policy designed to stop it. He says he's pro-Israel, but condemns homes for Jews in Jerusalem. He says he wants to lower gas prices, but appoints an Energy Secretary who supports European gas prices. I could go on, but the point is clear.


Barack Obama is a weak incumbent. He can be defeated. But to do that, the American people need an alternative who is sincere in what he believes, inspires trust and projects strength. That is why they chose Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. And I believe the American people would enthusiastically embrace a Reaganesque candidate over Barack Obama.



Obama's Energy Farce Continues


Barack Obama spoke today in the major oil town of Cushing, Oklahoma, and made a big deal about his support for the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. His speech made it clear just how stupid he thinks we are.


To begin with, the southern portion of the pipeline does not require presidential approval. Only the northern part, which crosses an international border, requires special approval. That just happens to be the part of the pipeline that would actually bring in more oil from Canada, and that is the part of the pipeline that Obama and his radical environmental allies are blocking. So what Obama did today won't result in one more drop of oil coming into the country.


Obama also tried to take credit today for recent increases in oil production, claiming that he has opened up more land to drilling and exploration. He even said, "We are drilling all over the place." Don't be fooled. There is a big difference between Obama's rhetoric and reality.


When Barack Obama took office, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. It's now $3.88 a gallon and you're pain at the pump is translating into Obama's pain in the polls. Suddenly he wants to "drill all over the place." Give it a few more weeks, and even Obama might be saying, "Drill, baby, drill!"


This is perhaps the most anti-energy administration we have ever had. And as Obama runs around the country making misleading and hypocritical speeches like the one in Cushing, it is important to remind folks about his record.

  • The first thing Obama's Interior Secretary did when he took office was to cancel scores of drilling leases.
  • The number of operational rigs in the Gulf of Mexico was cut in half after the 2010 BP spill. Why? Because of an Obama drilling ban that held up scores of permits.
  • So what about Obama's claim that oil production is up? It's not -- not on land controlled by the federal government. A March 14th report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted, "Total sales of all fossil fuels produced on Federal and Indian lands … rose by about 1 percent between fiscal year 2009 and FY 2010 and dropped by about 6 percent between FY 2010 and FY 2011." [Emphasis added.]
  • Obama's Energy Secretary once advocated $8.00-a-gallon gasoline.
  • A Harvard study estimated that Obama's cap and trade scheme could have resulted in $7.00-a-gallon gasoline.
  • In his speech today, Obama said, "We don't want to be vulnerable to something that's happening on the other side of the world." No we don't. But it was Barack Obama who blocked the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring in more oil from friendly Canada.
  • According to Gallup, 57% of Americans want the Keystone XL pipeline built. Just 29% oppose it. Obama sided with the 29%.
  • He wants to bankrupt the coal industry, which he admits will cause electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket."

It's clear Obama thinks the American people are stupid and won't connect the dots. He's wrong. He also assumes the media are in the tank for him, so they won't point out the hypocrisy of this event or his extreme positions. He's right about that.

That is why your continued
support for our work is so important! Please keep reaching out to friends and family members. Keep sharing these reports and encouraging folks to sign up!


Obama Opposes North Carolina Amendment


Here's another example of Obama's hypocrisy and just how extreme his agenda really is. Last week, Obama announced his opposition to an amendment that will be on North Carolina's May primary ballot. Presidents rarely get involved in state ballot issues, so what's the urgent issue that got the White House's attention?


On May 8th North Carolinians will be asked to vote on an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And Barack Obama felt it was really important to be against this. Obama won't yet publicly endorse the radical idea of men "marrying" other men. His views on gay marriage are still "evolving."


But in the meantime, he's opposed to every policy that upholds traditional marriage. He ordered the Justice Department to stop supporting the Defense of Marriage Act in court and now he is even intervening against efforts to preserve marriage at the state level.


Republicans who think we need a truce on values issues are mistaken. As Obama demonstrated once again, the left isn't about to stop fighting the culture war. Yet Obama's extremism is most obvious when it comes to cultural and values issues.


I hope the people of North Carolina, and Americans everywhere who care about traditional marriage, remember this on November 6th. We will do everything we can to remind them!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

End Of Day Report

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 230 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



Romney Wins Illinois


As was widely expected, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the Illinois primary yesterday. Many commentators do not see the results as a "game changer" because the pattern we have seen all year long prevailed again last night.


For example, Romney once again massively outspent his opponents -- perhaps by as much as 7-to-1. That is a luxury he will not have in the general election, and it could be masking other weaknesses. In fact, Obama will likely have a major funding advantage.


Romney won big in Chicago but lost every county south of Springfield. Come November, Obama will crush Romney in America's urban centers, as happens in every presidential election.


George W. Bush won reelection because he carried Ohio in 2004. He carried Ohio in part because of massive turnout by evangelical voters in rural areas who went to the polls to vote for the marriage amendment on the ballot that year.


But as one
Washington Post reporter noted, "Romney has won all 10 primaries where evangelicals make up less than half the vote. And he's lost all 7 where they have been [greater than] 50%." The media are quick to dismiss Santorum's support in rural counties. But unless the GOP nominee can motivate these voters and win big in these areas in November, victory could be elusive.

With last night's win, Mitt Romney strengthened his position as the clear front-runner. The next contest is Saturday in Louisiana, where Senator Santorum enjoys a commanding lead according to the latest poll.



Obama's Energy "Tour de Farce"


If you haven't heard yet, Barack Obama is stumping the country on an "energy tour." I'd like to take credit for the title of this item, but the credit goes to Speaker John Boehner, who so aptly named Obama's trip.


Obama is stopping at a Nevada solar plant today to "tout investments in 'renewable' energy." Of course, the president can't visit California-based Solyndra again. That solar plant went belly-up after getting $500 million of your hard-earned tax money.


What about the plant Obama is visiting today? According to the
Nevada Journal, it got $42 million from Washington and $12 million from the state of Nevada, "but currently only five full-time employees operate the plant… That comes out to $10.8 million in tax-dollar subsidies per employee." Does that sound like a wise investment of your tax dollars?

Sunshine is great -- when you're at the beach. But it doesn't get me to work and back each day. What is Obama doing about gas prices? Gas now averages $3.87 a gallon -- a new
record high for this time of year.

Obama may want us to put
algae in our tanks, but so far there are no algae fueling stations for him to visit. (How much algae are they putting in Air Force One?) So, for once he's bowing to reality -- and stretching the truth in the process. Here's the really unbelievable part about Obama's energy "tour de farce."

Tomorrow Barack Obama is going to Cushing, Oklahoma, to announce his support for the Keystone pipeline. No, not
THAT pipeline. The White House announced today that Obama is going to fast-track construction of the southern portion of the pipeline that will run from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. But that part of the pipeline does not require presidential approval. Meanwhile, Obama is "slow-tracking" the most important part of the pipeline, which would bring in more oil from Canada.

Oklahomans are not amused by the president's "publicity stunt," and oil workers are planning to
protest Obama's hypocrisy. As one energy analyst said, "He calls our industry an industry of the past and they'd like us to go away. …The president is using this, frankly, as a publicity stunt to say he's doing something against high gas prices."


Obama's Tax Farce


Yesterday House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan released a new plan to tackle America's growing debt crisis by slashing spending, reforming the tax code and preserving entitlement programs for future generations. Democrats howled with rage. In their view, Washington doesn't have a spending problem. Their solution is always to raise taxes.


Barack Obama's solution, which he talks about frequently, is the so-called "Buffett rule" to make the rich "pay their fair share." In his State of the Union address, President Obama devoted more than 500 words to his desire to raise taxes on the rich. His campaign for reelection and the entire Occupy movement are built on class warfare and "spreading the wealth around."


So, what about the Buffett rule? The
Associated Press reported yesterday that Obama's budget "cure-all" would raise $47 billion over 11 years. That's less than $5 billion a year when he's running deficits well in excess of $1 trillion a year!

This is not a serious proposal. Obama is not serious about fiscal responsibility. Remember all his harping about tax deductions for corporate jets last year? That would have saved us a whopping $300 million a year!


Please share this report with friends and family members. They need to understand, as we have argued repeatedly, that there are not enough rich people and they are not rich enough to pay for all the government that Obama and the Democrats want.


Eventually, they will come after the middle class too. They already did with several hidden taxes in ObamaCare, but they want more. As one liberal
Washington Post blogger wrote, "Democrats cannot simply raise taxes on the rich and call it a day."


In Good Company


I'm pleased to report that my name was included on a list of pro-family, Christian leaders. Others on the list include Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, Jim Daly, Don Wildmon and Robert George. That's pretty good company!


So, what is this list? It is a media
"black list" drawn up by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) as part of its so-called "Commentator Accountability Project." GLAAD is working hard to silence conservative, pro-family, Christian voices in the media.

My friends, the culture war is real. This is just the latest example of the radical left's intolerance and its assault on free speech. That is why
Fox is under attack and why advertisers on the Rush Limbaugh Show are being threatened. It is more evidence of its efforts to force faith and conservatism out of public arena and into the closet.


Toulouse Suspect A Radical Islamist


French police have cornered the main suspect in a rash of shootings that have left three French soldiers, three Jewish school children and one rabbi dead in the past eight days. You won't be shocked to learn that the suspect is 24 years-old, of Algerian origin and a follower of the "religion of peace."


Mohammed Merah reportedly spent time with militant Islamic groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Merah told police he wanted to "avenge Palestinian children" and France's support for the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He has been on a terrorist watch list for years. Apparently they weren't watching him closely enough.


Tuesday, March 20, 2012

End Of Day Report



Tuesday, March 20, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer



COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 231 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



Obama Beats Bush


CBS News
reported yesterday evening that Barack Obama's out-of-control deficit spending has broken a new record. After just three years and two months in office, Obama has added more to the national debt than George W. Bush did in eight years. That means Obama is spending money twice as fast as Bush did.

Consider these excerpts:

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office. The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

"The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services. …If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."

America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama!


Ryan To The Rescue


Thanks to Obama's out-of-control spending, America is in a fiscal crisis. The numbers above are mind-numbing, but a day of reckoning is fast approaching. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is once again proposing a very different approach than business as usual in Washington -- one that cuts spending, cuts taxes and preserves entitlement programs by reforming them in future years.


Here are some key elements of Rep. Ryan's proposed budget:

  • Ryan's budget repeals ObamaCare, saving trillions.
  • It would reduce spending by $100 billion in 2013 and freeze it for two years. Over time, Ryan's budget cuts $5.3 trillion in spending.
  • By 2015, the deficit would fall from the current estimate of $1.2 trillion to $300 billion.
  • It dramatically simplifies the tax code from six brackets to two -- 10% and 25% -- eliminates the alternative minimum tax and reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
  • It preserves Medicare by reforming it for future retirees. Current beneficiaries and those near retirement would experience no changes.

This is a very bold budget that stands in stark contrast to Obama's trillion-dollar deficits and crushing tax hikes. It also stands in stark contrast to Harry Reid's "do-nothing" Senate, which has not passed a budget in more than 1,000 days.

Predictably, Democrats are already savaging Ryan's latest budget. But as the co-chairmen of Barack Obama's own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility warned last year, America is facing "the most predictable economic crisis in history." And as noted above, Obama's policies have pushed us to the brink. Clearly, something has to change. I suggest we start by changing the leadership in the White House and Senate on November 6th!



Is ObamaCare Key To Victory?


ObamaCare turns two this Friday. You would think the White House would be celebrating. There is no denying that it's Barack Obama's signature accomplishment. Healthcare "reform" was the Democrats' "holy grail," a goal decades in the making. But it has cost them.


After HillaryCare failed to pass, Democrats lost the House of Representatives in the historic 1994 election. When ObamaCare passed, Democrats again lost the House in the historic 2010 election. And the law's continued unpopularity may well cost them the White House in 2012.


For example, according to the latest
Rasmussen poll, 56% of likely voters favor repealing ObamaCare. Last month, a Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans, including 56% of Democrats, believe ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional. With numbers like that, ObamaCare will be an albatross around Barack Obama's neck as he seeks reelection.

Or will it?


One of the reasons why I support and endorsed Senator Rick Santorum is because I believe the GOP needs a nominee who can credibly and authentically stand against ObamaCare and its big government mandates.


I know Governor Mitt Romney says he wants to repeal ObamaCare. But as my good friend Bill Kristol argues, Mitt Romney could have trouble making the case against mandates because he once defended them, saying,
"I like mandates. The mandates work." But as we know from Gallup and other polls, the American people don't like mandates.


Bristol Blasts Barack


Kudos to Bristol Palin! In a blog post Sunday, Bristol blasted Barack Obama's hypocrisy for calling and publicly defending Sandra Fluke while his super PAC accepted a $1 million check from Bill Maher. Palin writes:

"I'm not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money.  You're going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency.  I'm not even really expecting a call.  But would it be too much to expect a little consistency?  After all, you're President of all Americans, not just the liberals."
You can read Bristol's entire post here.


Obama's Anti-Israel Faith Advisor


Most Americans have never heard of Dalia Mogahed. She is Executive Director of and Senior Analyst for the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. In 2009 Barack Obama appointed her to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, previously known as the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Mogahed is making headlines not for her scholarly research, but for a Tweet she sent on March 10:

"To those siding w/Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy."
So just to be clear, Obama's faith advisor wants Bashar al-Assad gone in part because he is insufficiently anti-Israel. She wants the civil war in Syria to end so that a new government can get around to more important things like delivering more "resistance to Israel."

Of course, this raises questions about what kind of advice Mogahed gave on the president's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships council and why Obama appointed her in the first place.

Monday, March 19, 2012

End Of Day Report

Monday, March 19, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 232 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



Jewish Children Gunned Down


A gunman on a motorcycle opened fire on a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, this morning killing three children and a rabbi. It was the third such attack in Toulouse in recent days. The other two targeted French soldiers.


Whether the assailant ends up being a jihadist or a white neo-Nazi is beside the point. Increasingly, European Hitler admirers and Islamists are allies when it comes to hating Jews and Christians. A top Saudi cleric recently called for all churches in the Middle East to be removed. It's open season on "people of the Book."


Western intelligence agencies have been warning for months that "soft targets" -- synagogues, schools, community centers in Europe and the U.S. -- are vulnerable to attack from the death worshippers. The websites of European newspapers that reported the disgusting attack immediately received dozens of comments suggesting that if you don't like Israel's foreign policy, it is understandable that you would kill Jewish children in France. Hitler is no doubt in hell, but his spirit still haunts Europe.


Judeo-Christian civilization is under attack. President Obama met with British Prime Minister Cameron last week and had time to take in a basketball game. This week Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny is in town, and I am sure someone at the White House will find time to dance an Irish jig. Hours are spent by the leaders of Western nations discussing trade, pollution and energy -- all important issues to be sure. Why do I suspect that the war on our civilization and the two faiths that are its pillars aren't even on the agenda?



Obama Administration Expands Mandate


While the Obama Administration talks about compromises and accommodations, it upped the ante in its fight with the Catholic Church and other religious employers over its contraception mandate. The Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday that it was expanding the mandate to include sterilization surgeries. It will also require religious colleges and universities to provide surgical sterilizations in student and employee health plans.


The administration's anti-life attitude was on full display when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified on Capitol Hill recently. When asked to justify the cost of the contraception mandate, Sebelius replied, "The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception." In other words, human life is a burden on the bottom line. With that kind of logic, death panels can't be too far behind.



Obama's Latest Executive Order


The administration was busy Friday. While HHS was expanding its contraception mandate, the White House released the latest executive order signed by President Obama. Entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," the order has sparked a lot of debate in the blogosphere, spurred on by headlines like this one on the
Drudge Report: "Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order."

Reviews by two conservative opinion leaders --
here and here -- suggest that the order is mundane, merely updating previous executive orders issued by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which stem from legislation enacted in the 1950s. But let me comment on the obvious: People are so concerned now because we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for the Constitution.

Obama has complained about the Constitution being a charter of negative liberties that does not specify what the government should do for you. He has whined about the system the Founding Fathers designed because it "makes it more difficult to bring about change." He has made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. He has breached the "wall of separation" between church and state to the great detriment of religious liberty. And his Secretary of Defense recently argued that the administration didn't need congressional approval to use military force, but would act instead with international approval.


With such a record, it is not surprising that many Americans would be anxious and concerned about any executive order he issues.



Obama Can Be Defeated


Defeating an incumbent president is never an easy task, but Barack Obama is giving voters plenty of reasons to terminate his "contract." According to a recent poll of likely voters conducted for the Washington, D.C., newspaper
The Hill, voters have largely negative views of Obama's performance on major issues. Consider these findings:

  • 49% of likely voters expect the Supreme Court to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. Just 29% believe the court will uphold the law, while 22% are unsure. Asking voters to predict what the court will do was an odd way to phrase the question. For example, a recent Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans, including 56% of Democrats, felt that ObamaCare's individual mandate was unconstitutional.
  • By a 10-point margin, 46% to 36%, voters think Obama's energy policies are increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
  • By a whopping 38-point margin, 58% to 20%, they believe gas prices are increasing as a result of Obama's energy policies.
  • 48% of voters think Obama's economic policies will increase unemployment, while just 38% think his policies will create jobs.
  • Lastly, 62% of likely voters believe Obama's fiscal policies are increasing the national debt, while just 25% think Obama's fiscal policies are decreasing the debt.

A lot can change between now and November. But if voters think Obama's policies are responsible for increasing the debt, increasing unemployment and increasing their pain at the pump, they are likely to make Obama feel their pain when they go to the ballot box in 232 days!


Sasha, Malia and Cee Lo


When the Sandra Fluke fracas erupted, Barack Obama was quick to remind the country that he supported Fluke because he was concerned about the kind of country his daughters, Sasha and Malia, would grow up in. He did not want them to be subject to coarse rhetoric just for being good citizens and speaking their minds.


While I can appreciate the sentiment, it was of course all a charade. Obama never expressed any concern about the vulgarities routinely leveled at Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or any other conservative woman. His super PAC refuses to return Bill Maher's million-dollar donation. And I have yet to hear any official condemnation of Cee Lo Green's graphic
performance [WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT] of his song "F--k you" at a joint fundraiser for Obama's reelection and the Democrat National Party last week. That's right. The President of the United States spoke from a stage that just minutes before had been the site of Cee Lo's obscene lyrics.

Was Obama thinking about his daughters and the kind of country they will inherit during Green's obnoxious performance? Was he concerned about the coarsening of our culture then? Consider me skeptical.



Whose "War On Women"?


Whether it's the "war on science" or the "war on labor unions," the left never tires of painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers. Now liberals are revisiting another fictitious conservative war, against women.  The allusions to the Republican "war on women" will continue as a major Democratic campaign theme. But they're just the Democrats' way of diverting voters' attention from their own failures and injustices toward women. Read more in my weekly
Human Events column.

Friday, March 16, 2012

End Of Day Report

Friday, March 16, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 235 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS

Bishops Battle On

The nation's Catholic bishops have been under tremendous pressure to compromise with the Obama Administration on its mandate requiring religious institutions to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives in their health insurance plans. There have been mixed signals in recent days about whether a compromise is in the works.


Wednesday the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a five-page statement clarifying its position entitled "United for Religious Freedom." In short, the Catholic Church is not backing down and will fight on, united in its opposition to the mandate. Consider these excerpts:


"We wish to clarify what this debate is -- and is not -- about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive… This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block.

This is not about the Bishops' somehow 'banning contraception,' when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church … to act against Church teachings. …This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. …


"So what is it about? An unwarranted government definition of religion. …Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. …And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. …


"We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). …We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts…


"Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer … for the complete protection of our First Freedom… Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength -- for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible."

Radical Islam: The Focus Of Evil In The Modern World

Twenty-nine years ago this month, Ronald Reagan delivered a speech before the National Association of Evangelicals in which he described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and "the focus of evil in the modern world." Today, thanks to Ronald Reagan's belief in America and commitment to freedom, the Soviet Union no longer threatens us. But evil remains in the world. The focus of evil in the world 29 years later is radical Islam. Let me give you a few recent examples.


In a
speech several days ago, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again lashed out at Israel and the United States, saying, "You [the West] have made investments and are losing face for the sake of a bunch of criminals and are not aware that the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree that you have invested in, but you will lose face. …the Zionist regime is a dead entity which cannot be brought back to life."

Referring to the recent sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration, Ahmadinejad said, "They sat and plotted for several months, made coordination and conspiracies, schemed the way that from that side, the head of the Big Satan [President Barack Obama] could say that they imposed sanctions on Iran…"


The mullahs in Iran may see Israel as a "rotten tree," but they see America as the "Great Satan." They know America is the greatest force for freedom and liberty in the world. Their desire to destroy Israel is surpassed only by their wish to demolish America.


Underscoring that reality are the comments of Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran's Basij paramilitary force. In a
speech two weeks ago, Gen. Naqdi said that Iran's "independence and unhindered advance toward perfection is subject to removing the despotic powers [America] and the Zionists. …As long as America exists, we will not rest. In revealing the truth about America and the Zionists, we must raise public hate against the despotic powers and create the environment for the destruction of America."

The Basij is best known as the regime's "morality police." It was the Basij that brutally attacked pro-democracy protestors in 2009. Tens of thousands of Basij sought martyrdom during the Iran-Iraq War by clearing minefields in advance of the Iranian Army. They are loyal to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and no less fanatical than Hitler's SS.


Part and parcel of radical Islam's hatred of the West is its intolerance toward other faiths. Recently Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, was asked about the proposal of a Kuwaiti politician who wanted to prevent the construction of new churches in Kuwait. Sheikh Abdullah went further than a mere ban on new construction. According to various news reports, he "stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to
destroy all churches in it."

As
Raymond Ibrahim notes, the Grand Mufti is not some unknown, fringe cleric, but the highest authority on Islam in Saudi Arabia. He writes, "Imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt."

Many liberal politicians and commentators have been talking an awful lot lately about a so-called "war on women." They are trivializing the government's latest assault on religious liberty. Yet when it comes to radical Islam's very real war on women, these liberals are often silent.


This week a
Moroccan teenager committed suicide by ingesting rat poison in order to avoid being forced to marry her rapist. Some on the left vocally opposed the war in Afghanistan after 9/11. But they have little to say about honor killings in the Muslim world or the Taliban throwing acid in the faces of young girls going to school.

This is the reality of radical Islam. It is an ideology of hate. It is the focus of evil in the modern world, and Western Civilization must find the will to combat it and defeat it.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

End Of Day Report

Thursday, March 15, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 236 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS



NAACP Takes Voter ID To U.N.


A debate over voter ID laws has erupted in Geneva, Switzerland. It's not because of anything the Swiss have done. Unbelievably, the NAACP is taking its crusade against voter IDs to the United Nation's Human Rights Council. This is a bizarre move given that the Obama Justice Department is already blocking voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas.


Fox News
reports that eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, and legislation is pending in 32 other states. Yesterday, Pennsylvania became the latest state to enact a voter ID law. The American people overwhelmingly support voter ID laws, and the Supreme Court has upheld them. So why would the NAACP go halfway across the globe to bash the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Council?

The left doesn't like America very much. They want to "fundamentally transform" it into something more like a European-style socialist welfare state. Increasingly, whenever the left loses a debate in this country, it turns to the "international community" for support. Left-wing judges see no problem with using foreign law to support their radical rulings.


And what about the U.N. Human Rights Council? There are 47 nations that sit on the council, including some of the worst violators of human rights. The NAACP is taking its case against our voter ID laws before the likes of Burkina Faso, Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia, which does not even allow women to vote!


The Bush Administration refused to deal with the U.N. Human Rights Council due to its blatant anti-Israel bias. But Obama reversed that. And, for the first time ever, Obama's State Department submitted a report to the council in 2010 that was critical of America's human rights record. Acting on Obama's precedent, the NAACP feels justified taking its case against voter ID laws to the U.N.



Here We Go Again


Reuters
reports that following discussions yesterday between British Prime Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama, both nations are shortly expected to "to join forces in a release of oil from government-controlled reserves." This action is being taken, again quoting Reuters, because "Rising world oil prices have pushed U.S. gasoline prices up sharply this year and threaten to choke economic recovery ahead of Obama's bid for re-election in November." Here we go again.

Let me make a couple of points. Obama released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves last June. It didn't do much then, and I suspect it won't do much now.


My car, just like everyone else's, runs on gasoline. Just like you, I am happy when the price goes down. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was not meant for price manipulation but for emergencies.


I realize Barack Obama's falling approval rating might qualify as an emergency at the Democrat National Committee, but "political emergencies" don't count. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to address emergencies in supply disruption like the Arab oil embargo or a major natural disaster.


Oil prices are high in part because oil is a commodity and the market looks forward, not backwards. Major industries that rely on oil, looking at what the Obama Administration has done, are betting that prices are going to remain high in the future because there will be less supply on the market.


For example, the number of operational rigs in the Gulf of Mexico was cut in half after the 2010 BP spill. Why? Because of the Obama drilling ban that held up scores of
permits.

We don't have to guess about this. Obama's green agenda relies on making traditional energy more expensive. The first thing Obama's
Interior Secretary did when he took office was to cancel scores of drilling leases. His Energy Secretary once advocated $8.00-a-gallon gasoline. A Harvard study estimated that Obama's cap and trade scheme could have resulted in $7.00-a-gallon gasoline. Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline. And Obama himself promised to bankrupt the coal industry.

Here's something else to consider. Do you recall how dismissive the Democrats are whenever we talk about drilling in Alaska? They say we can't drill our way out of this problem; that more oil on the market isn't the solution. So why then is Obama once again releasing oil onto the global market?


When Barack Obama took office, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Oil and gas prices have been going up ever since. But now that he is in full campaign mode and his poll numbers are falling, the oil is flowing so long as it suits his interests.



FBI Issues Homeland Warning


ABC News
is reporting that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued an "awareness bulletin" to local law enforcement agencies warning them to be prepared for possible attacks from HVEs -- homegrown violent extremists. The FBI is concerned that the HVEs may launch reprisal attacks against Americans and U.S. military personnel in response to the killings of Afghan civilians last weekend by an American soldier. Here's an excerpt:

"The FBI and DHS [Department of Homeland Security] are concerned that this event could contribute to the radicalization or mobilization of homegrown violent extremists [HVEs] in the homeland, particularly against U.S.-based military targets… [the killings] will likely be incorporated into violent extremist propaganda and could contribute to an individual's radicalization to violence."
The FBI was wise to issue the warning. But it once again underscores the reality of the enemy we are confronting. The FBI is not worried about radicalized Lutherans or Mormon extremists. It is worried about radical Muslims.

Yet when Rep. Peter King (R-NY) holds hearings about the dangers of radicalization within the Muslim community, the left goes nuts. When the New York Police Department conducts surveillance of mosques, the ACLU threatens to sue. But it is impossible to fight and win a war if you refuse to acknowledge who the enemy is.