… the other day for his performance during his first year in office, but neither he (nor Congress) scored anywhere near that high with the American people.
Earlier this week, Judicial Watch released the shocking results of a new nationwide survey conducted in partnership with SurveyUSA concerning the American people's attitudes on a variety of subjects, including President Obama's job performance, healthcare, political corruption, transparency, ACORN, illegal immigration, and climate change. (The poll was conducted December 11-14, 2009.)
A majority of likely voters (58%) believe decisions by the Obama administration are "Bad for America." (37% say these decisions have been "Good for America.") And most Americans (56%) believe Obama's administration is too secretive.
A majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). The vast majority of likely voters (72%) believe political corruption played a "major role" in the financial crisis. (President Obama recently suggested "fat cat bankers" were the chief cause of the crisis.)
A majority of likely voters (56%) say the government is operating in a manner "Out Of Line" with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a majority think shrinking the size of government by 25% would be good for America (and not many think increasing government by 25% would be good for America!)
Sure enough, most Americans (62%) believe increasing government's role in healthcare will lead to more corruption in the healthcare system.
A majority of likely voters (59%) disapprove of the way the Obama administration is handling illegal immigration. An even greater majority (69%) disapprove of the way Congress is handling illegal immigration.
The vast majority (77%) of likely voters are opposed to local governments providing sanctuary to illegal aliens, and a majority (61%) want local law enforcement to be more involved in enforcing immigration laws. Also a majority (59%) oppose local governments using tax dollars to support sites for day laborers who are seeking work.
Among likely voters, 56% have a negative view of ACORN, only 8% have a favorable opinion, giving ACORN a net favorability rating of minus 48. More likely voters believe global warming scientific data is "mostly falsified" (49%) than believe this data to be "mostly genuine" (41%).
On virtually every single issue polled the Obama administration appears to be completely out of step with the majority view of the American people. President Obama's advisors ought to take note when nearly 6 out 10 voters say that the administration's policies are bad for America! Frankly, these poll results suggest that President Obama and many other politicians ought to rethink their approach to government.
But I'm glad to see this agenda is not finding favor with the American people.
And given the American people's expressed concern about corruption, your Judicial Watch's anti-corruption mission is right on point and essential—as leaders in neither political party take government corruption seriously. To that end, our special matching-gift challenge continues—any gift you make to Judicial Watch will be effectively doubled as it will be matched by a generous Judicial Watch benefactor who is matching all donations in response to this challenge, up to $67,500!
(For you "numbers" fans, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,450 adults nationwide. 1,264 respondents identified themselves as being registered voters. Of the registered voters, 1,020 identified themselves as likely to vote in the 2010 elections for United States Congress. The margin of error for the Judicial Watch-SurveyUSA poll ranged from 2.6% to 3.1%, depending on the question asked.)
Be sure to check out the full results, including the demographic data. This is very educational material.
Liberals Push Amnesty in New Illegal Immigration Legislation
Here's one reason why 69% of likely voters are dissatisfied with how Congress is handling illegal immigration. According to The Chicago Tribune:
Raising the curtain on what promises to be a new round of debate over Immigration reform, a group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a comprehensive bill Tuesday in Washington that, among other provisions, offers a path to legalization for the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
The bill, championed by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., was decidedly more pro-immigration than previous bipartisan legislation that he and others drafted in search of compromise with Republicans wanting more restrictions and enforcement, only to be defeated in Congress two years ago.
The latest version, introduced in the House in hopes of creating a groundswell that would push the Obama administration to act fast, drew immediate fire from the left as well as the right.
(Gutierrez, like his legislation, is quite the radical. Check out this Freedom of Information Act FBI document that highlights his activities [page 39].) So for about $500 and some English lessons, an illegal alien gets on the track to citizenship—even those who are currently in the process of being deported. And that's just one lowlight. Here are a few of the 700-page bill's other objectionable components:
The elimination of a federal provision allowing local law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration laws.
100,000 extra visas for immigrants from countries that frequently violate our nation's immigration laws.
A fast-track program to bring family members of "new citizens" into the country.
Increased medical care for apprehended illegal aliens.
As you might expect, this is a bill illegal aliens (and their activist partners) love, which is why it has sparked illegal immigrant rallies across the country. With respect to congressional support, the bill currently has 87 co-sponsors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for her part, says she supports this legislation, but is deferring to the U.S. Senate to act first. But she will act.
We're facing a weak economy, massive job losses, and unprecedented drug violence on our southern border. Do we really want an immigration reform bill that rewards lawbreakers and entices greater numbers of illegal aliens to flood across the border for citizenship (and jobs)? We already know that is exactly what will happen even if there is talk of amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens.
It is not too early to make your voices heard regarding this legislation. Contact your member of Congress today and tell them you want our immigration laws enforced, not decimated. Here's the number to the Capitol Hill switchboard: 202-224-3121. (Feel free to ask for your Senators while you're on the line and tell them what you think about any government takeover of your healthcare.)
Stay tuned and stay active!
Judicial Watch Files New Brief in "Joe the Plumber" Lawsuit
This week Judicial Watch filed a new brief on behalf of "Joe the Plumber," Joe Wurzelbacher. You may recall Judicial Watch represents Mr. Wurzelbacher in a lawsuit filed against three Ohio state officials who violated his rights by going on a dirt-digging mission.
Here's a quick review of the facts.
On October 18, 2008, Wurzelbacher was throwing a football with his son in the front yard of his home when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and his campaign entourage appeared on his street.
Wurzelbacher, an employee of a small plumbing business, was given the opportunity to ask then-candidate-Obama about the impact of his tax proposals on small businesses. Obama responded by saying, "It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too…I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (emphasis added).
The fallout was swift and severe. The exchange between Obama and Mr. Wurzelbacher was splattered all over the press. And just a few days later, during the third presidential debate, there were numerous references to "Joe the Plumber." Clearly, Mr. Wurzelbacher had become a very big problem for the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign's dismissive and disrespectful attitude toward an American citizen who did nothing more than ask a simple question was bad enough. (Joe Biden went so far as to take a cheap shot at Mr. Wurzelbacher during an interview on NBC's "Today Show.")
But what happened behind the scenes, far away from the glare of the presidential election spotlight, was truly shocking. Shortly after the Obama-Wurzelbacher exchange, high-ranking officials of the State of Ohio (Obama supporters) began rummaging through confidential state databases looking for sensitive information on "Joe the Plumber." A subsequent report by the Ohio Office of Inspector General confirmed that this investigation of Mr. Wurzelbacher had "no legitimate agency function or purpose" and constituted a "wrongful act."
These state employees were on a dirt-digging mission to try to discredit Mr. Wurzelbacher and help protect the Obama campaign! It's that simple. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on March 5, 2009, on behalf of Mr. Wurzelbacher and just this week we filed a new court motion in the lawsuit (Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.) Here's an excerpt (the brief is worth reading in its entirety, by the way):
As clearly set forth in the Complaint, these state officials—and active supporters of then presidential candidate Barack Obama—targeted Mr. Wurzelbacher for investigation merely because of his exercise of a fundamental right—asking a question of a political candidate. Defendants' actions…contrary to Mr. Wurzelbacher's rights under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
This action seeks to hold these state officials accountable for this abuse of their power, not just because of the significant harm inflicted on Mr. Wurzelbacher, but because it is important that private citizens do not have to worry whether their letter, phone call, or simple question to a political candidate will cause them to be targeted for investigation by their government. Mr. Wurzelbacher and all Ohioans should have the freedom to openly participate in their government without fearing reprisal from partisan government officials.
The State of Ohio seems to think that its government employees can rifle through citizen's confidential files with impunity to help a presidential candidate. As I've said in numerous press interviews surrounding this lawsuit, no American citizen should be subjected to such reprisals for simply asking a question of a candidate for office. Joe's lawsuit goes to the heart of the First Amendment and our right to petition our government.
Tom Fitton – President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, and to access the embedded links please go to: www.JudicialWatch.org