News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, January 09, 2009
Democrat Senators Grumbling Today in Washington D. C. - Jan 8, 2008
As expected and detailed yesterday, "senility reigns" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that an omnibus public lands bill that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has objected to for spending and other reasons is apparently the first priority this year. So Reid has scheduled a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bill at 2 PM on Sunday. Reid has also said that after the lands bill is completed, he wants the Senate to take up a retread from last year, the Lilly Ledbetter bill, which is designed to eliminate statutes of limitations on suing employers over discrimination.
Meanwhile, the Senate Democrats’ week of chaos continues today as the news is filled with stories of Democrat senators grumbling about President-elect Obama’s proposed economic stimulus bill including tax cuts. The headlines tell the tale. Politico's The Huddlethis morning, is titled “Democrats vs. themselves” and presents a sampler of headlines: "Politico: ‘Dems quarrel over stimulus plan’; AP: ‘Democrats criticize Obama’s proposed tax cuts’; N.Y. Times: ‘Senate allies fault Obama on stimulus’; The Hill: ‘Dems and Obama split on taxes’; Dow Jones: ‘Senate Finance Panel Democrats Scornful of Obama Tax Cut plan.’” There is a Reuters story headlined “U.S. Democrats skeptical on stimulus tax breaks.”
The criticism wasn’t just coming from rank-and-file members. Most of those questioning the tax cuts are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s committee chairmen. Among the complaints was that of who told The New York Times reports: a) Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) said, “I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle-down, if we just put it in at the top, it’s going to trickle down.” and b) “[Foreign Relations Committee chair] Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA), and others also criticized a proposal to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire, saying it was unlikely to influence business decisions.” The AP identies that “Democrats such as Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad complained openly that many of the incoming administration’s proposed tax cuts wouldn’t work.” And The Hill reports, “[Armed Services Committee chair] Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he was dissatisfied with the plan’s tax cuts and lack of initiatives for the manufacturing sector.”
Golly Gee, it appears that the Democrat leadership is more concerned over the prospect of giving money back to the taxpayers than about proposals for more government largess that would balloon the already $1.2 trillion deficit. Also interesting was Read telling The Hill newspaper "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... if Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him... I do not work for Barrack Obama. I work with him." Do you really believe that Harry Reid will "butt heads" with Barrack Obama? [double entendre intended] Tags:Democrats, Harry Reid, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion Advocates Have Different Takes on Teen Birth Increase
by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews: Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate have different takes on the latest news from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New CDC statistics show a slight increase in teen births and the figures are making headlines across the country. For the pro-life side, a rise in teen births leads to the obvious conclusion that fewer teenagers are having abortions when confronted with a teen pregnancy.
But for pro-abortion syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe, that's not good news. She complains in a new column that the state of Mississippi saw the highest increase in the teen birthrate only because pro-life advocates have enacted more abortion limits than any other states and closed down abortion businesses. . . . Erbe said she was disappointed that only one abortion center remains in Mississippi.
On the other hand, Janice Shaw Crouse, the head of Concerned Women for America, says the real culprit in rising teen birth rates is the pushing of teen sex in the mainstream media. "When the data showed a decline in teen pregnancies, teen abortions, and teen sexual activity, the mainstream media barely noticed," she said. "Almost nobody heralded that landmark accomplishment which coincided with more widespread abstinence programs in schools and community programs."
"Is the rising popularity of teen pregnancy any wonder? The media is trumpeting the notion that out-of-wedlock births are all the rage these days," she said. "The stories and images targeted to impressionable teens that are being broadcast through various mass media are shaped in ways that glorify the idea and simplify the issues surrounding the pregnancy of a young teenaged girl." Crouse explained that the increase was primarily in the 18- to 19- year-old group. To her, that means the pressure to have sex in college -- where most teens are in environments dominated by sex, drugs and alcohol -- is significantly high. "It brings me no satisfaction to make that point; these 18- to 19-year-old young women are still teens, and their well-being is just as threatened by pregnancy and STDs from promiscuous, too-early sexual activity as it is with the younger teens," she said. Though Crouse is happy that abortions are on the decline, she hopes teen birthrates will decline, too.
-------------------- Bill Smith: ARRA Editor:David Kincade at The Arkansas Projectidentified that the Centers for Disease Control shows that Arkansas is #4 in the nation when it comes to teen pregnancies. While Teenage pregnancies are up, one should never equate the solution to this situation to be abortion (killing) of the child. The CDC report provides data but it does not reflect on the resulting psychological problems and guilt that pregnant teens experience when they have an abortions. Our Nation's media and entertainment industry has failed out teenagers by promoting promiscuity. I commend all the women (including teens) who have opted for life rather than having someone destroying their child. My sister and I are very thankful that our young unmarried "birth" mother choose life verses abortion. So were our parents that raised us. So are our spouses, children and grandchildren. We have not forgotten the gift from the one who allowed us to be born. If you are pregnant and need advise, please visit OptionOnline.org. Tags:Arkansas, CDC, pregnancy, pro-abortion, pro-life, teensTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Kissinger: World Conflict Setting for 'New World Order'
by Drew Zahn: Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of "a New World Order," according to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon. Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration's foreign policy. . . . [Read more] Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy and Chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission. Tags:Barack Obama, Henry Kissinger, new world orderTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: On the first day of the 111th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a very clear message about what pro-lifers can expect from the next two years by introducing S. 21, "The Prevention First Act" that would direct hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, a business that already receives over $286 million each year from federal taxpayers. It should come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood, the largest supporter of unrestricted abortion, praised the bill. And why not? The abortion merchant will likely be the largest beneficiary of Reid's abortion bailout. Among other things, the legislation would use taxpayer funds to mislead people about the potential of the "morning after pill" (known as Plan B) to act as an abortifacient. It also encourages the use of Plan B for victims of sexual assault yet has no reporting requirement in place for young girls who may have been victims of abuse and/or rape. When you get right down to it, the bill does nothing to support parental involvement--let alone consent--for dispensing the morning after pill and other "contraception" to minors. In addition to funding Plan B, the measure would also: subsidize birth control for college and low-income women; expand Title X, the main federal family planning program that requires abortion referrals; expand Planned Parenthood targeting of low-income women through Medicaid; target teens' with "comprehensive" sex education; and spread emergency contraception. See also:Planned Parenthood Applauds Introduction of Prevention First Act In U.S. SenateTags:abortion, bailout, Family Research Council, federal spending, FRC, Harry Reid, Precention First Act, Tony PerkinsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - Jan 8, 2009 - Is Reid Going Senile?
The Senate reconvened in the morning will at 1 PM meet in the House chamber in a joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes for president and vice president.
Yesterday, Reid said that the first significant bill the Senate will take up is an omnibus public lands bill (S. 22), which Sen. Coburn had objected to last year. Reid wants senators to vote on the bill over the weekend. Reid also said yesterday that after the lands bill is completed, he wants the Senate to take up another retread from last year, the Lilly Ledbetter bill, which is designed to eliminate statutes of limitations on suing employers over discrimination.
From Senate & News Sources: Though the 111th Congress only began on Tuesday, Senate Democrats have already gotten off to a rocky start. It can’t be the opening that Democrats were envisioning in November. One has to wonder, is Sen. Harry Reid is getting senile? At a minimum, his lack of leadership continued to damage the Democrat brand. Especially since so many other more qualified Democratic senators serve in Congress. Consider the following Reid lead "soap opera." The Washington Post reports, this week that “[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid has endured a series of stumbles that demonstrated the limitations of his newly expanded powers. . . . There is little question that some of Reid’s problems are of his own making, a product of his shoot-from-the-hip style and penchant for bold declarations that do not always pan out.”
The situation with the Illinois U.S. Senate seat illustrates the point. Politico points out, “Harry Reid is poised to let Roland Burris take a seat in the Senate — an embarrassing about-face for a Democratic leader at the pinnacle of his power.” Especially so after releasing a letter last month signed by all 50 Democrat senators from the last Congress saying that no one appointed to that seat by the current Illinois governor would be seated. Politico continues, “It was an unwelcome and persistent distraction for Democrats, who have been trying to focus the public’s attention on their ambitious agenda for the 111th Congress — and especially their plans for dealing with the sagging economy. And it only got worse as several prominent Democratic senators, including Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said Burris should be seated.”
As the situation with the Illinois seat played out, Democrats attempted to begin the process of considering legislation in the new Congress. Instead of focusing on the ailing economy, Reid chose instead to push what The Washington Post described as “a low-profile federal lands bill.” Reid harbors ill-will against Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) for rightfully holding up the bill last year over concerns about spending and parochial (pork) projects in the bill. A issue that President Elect says he doesn't want to see in a stimulus bill. Rather than negotiate with Coburn, Reid opts to attempt to ram the bill through. The Post reports, “Reid issued another threat yesterday and vowed to hold weekend votes [on the bill], a common tactic for Senate leaders but not one generally issued on the second legislative day of the year.”
Still not focusing on the economy, Reid announced that after discussing the lands bill the Senate would work on a partisan bill favored by trial lawyers that was rejected last year. Known as the Ledbetter bill, it is designed to overturn a recent Supreme Court ruling. The National Association of Manufacturers says the bill “would eliminate current time limits for filing almost all discrimination charges” against employers, unleashing a flurry of lawsuits.
On Tuesday, Reid said, “[B]oth parties learned an important lesson over the past 2 years: When we allow ourselves to retreat into the tired, well-worn trenches of partisanship, when we fail to reach for common ground, when we are unable, in the words of President-elect Obama, to disagree without being disagreeable, we diminish our ability to accomplish real change.” But as the The New York Times reflects, Reid has led with “the same-old" “partisan feud”in the Senate on Wednesday. That doesn’t sound like the “real change” that Reid mentioned two days ago. However, it does sounds like a person who being lucid one moment as to the proper agenda then has a mental lapse and slips back into the "well-worn trenches of partisanship." See also: Reid reverses, says Burris may get seatTags:Congressional Pork, Harry Reid, lands bill, Tom Coburn, trial lawyers, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama Pick For CIA Will Gut Our Intelligence-Gathering Capabilities
The Traditional Values coalition (Jan. 7, 2009): President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clintonoid Leon Panetta to head up the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has no experience in the field, but former CIA operatives are convinced that he will gut the agency’s intelligence-gathering capabilities and will purge the CIA of effective operatives in the war on Islamic terrorism.
Panetta has been opposed by liberal Senator Diane Feinstein, who said: “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.” Former CIA operative Mike Baker is seriously concerned about Panetta as head of the CIA. In an editorial posted on Fox News, January 7, Baker said it makes as much sense to appoint Leon Spinks to head the CIA. According to Baker, it is likely that Panetta will usher in a new era of “risk aversion” that existed under Bill Clinton – and our intelligence-gather efforts will be hampered.
Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor who worked with Panetta, says Obama picked him to tear the CIA apart! According to Morris: “Panetta is too inexperienced, too weak and too liberal to make an effective CIA head. And, surrounded by people who know even less than he does about national security issues, it is a truly terrifying appointment.” Tags:Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Leon PanettaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by William Warren Tags:Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Blago, Hope, political cartoon, Rod Blagojevich, terms and conditions, the economy, unemployment rate, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Program Dates: June 6 - August 14, 2009 The online application is now available. Apply Now!Application Deadline: January 31, 2009 The program offers two tracks. Choose the one that most interests you or apply for placements in both:
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: As President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats propose various ideas for a potential $1 trillion stimulus bill, the Congressional Budget Office released its economic outlooktoday projecting that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, 8.3% of gross domestic product. The Wall Street Journal notes that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, pointed out that the deficit has not reached such a high percentage of the GDP since World War II.
The Washington Post expresses concern about the deficit level and how much new spending proposals could add to the already massive national debt. The Post writes, “At $775 billion over two years, the package under discussion would represent a massive and risky expansion of the federal debt even if the government were not already running an annual budget deficit of more than $400 billion. This endeavor is not to be undertaken without due diligence and appropriate debate.” The Post editorial cautions about “angling for pet projects” in the infrastructure spending proposals and says, “Spectacular waste would undercut both the economic effectiveness and political sustainability of a stimulus program. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has constructively suggested converting some or all of the infrastructure money into federal loans which would give governors an incentive to take only what they could actually use.”
The Wall Street Journal also reports on a new proposal from Obama to require states to cover part-time workers with unemployment insurance and subsidize health insurance for laid-off workers. “But the proposal, along with others to subsidize health insurance for the laid-off and expand Medicaid to out-of-work Americans, are sparking bipartisan concern over the potential, long-term impact on a federal budget deficit that is expected to hit $1 trillion this year, even before the stimulus plan,” according to the WSJ. “Republicans and even some Democrats said some of the items show too little concern for the long-term impact on the national deficit,” The Journal notes that even Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) says new “pending proposals that have a permanent nature to them” give him pause. All of these concerns demonstrate the need for the “due diligence and appropriate debate” on these huge new spending proposals.
In considering a $1.2 trillion deficit, are you concerned, frustrated or even angry at Congress or the Government in general? Please, take a moment to reflect and to ask yourself, "Did I contribute to this problem?" Were you one of hundreds of millions of people pushing to get "your fair share" and maybe even cheering the receipt of funding for some local pet project (although worthy in your eyes) funded by Federal taxes or grants (a euphemism for tax money). I am not talking required roads, etc. But what about the funding for all those state and local area "pork" projects. You may not have thought about them as "pork" because you wanted them, and you wanted someone else to pay for them. And, your elected Congressman was willing to help and to take credit when your area received the money.
How about funds for a new college or university building hidden within a veteran bill, or a local museum, or "historical" building, or a local walking trail, or a local library? How about the studies on the sex life of "whatever creature"? Each of us seem to be able to recognize "pork" projects funded in another state or neighborhood. But what about the "pork projects" in your own state, and your own county and communities? While a project may be good and local citizen's may well opt to fund a project, but that project becomes a "pork project" when the funds come from other people's money who have no say or interest in your area, or when it is borrowed against the future of other people and their children outside of your region, or when the funding is despicably hidden within or added to a bill in return for some payoff from or favor to another elected official.
John F. Kennedy said, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." One of the greatest freedoms we have in America have and hopefully will have in the future is the freedom to make our own choices. The freedom to spend our own money after the Government takes its share. We even have the freedom to experience failure and to make mistakes and to sometimes find ourselves in debt. But using our freedom to in partnership with "big government" and our elected officials to seek, to accept, and to use funds taken from others or borrowed (debt) against our children's future to fund our "local pet projects" is neither honorable or morally right.
The consequence: has been an inherent cheering on by society of the creation of the $1.2 Trillion deficit. Some may want to argue what about the cost of "the war." We could debate this another time. But consider this: The funding of the military and the war (and we hope peace) are within the scope of the functions to be carried out by the Federal government as authorized by the people in the Constitution. But funding a "road to nowhere," or funding a local university building with an elected person's name on the building, or funding government agencies who continue to further invade and limit the free choices of individuals and businesses are not required functions of the Federal Government. And the cost of these actions and agencies have driven the cost of government to a $1,200,000,000,000 deficit. Are you / we now ready to heed President Kennedy's words and to realize it is time to stop asking "what your country can do for you." Tags:$1.2 Trillion Deficit, Congressional Pork, deficit reduction, government inefficiency, government waste, pork-barrel spenders, stimulas bill, Barack Obama To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
From the front lines of Europe, Rob Piccoli in his Wind Rose Hotel reported yesterday on the planned radical efforts of Muslims in Europe. The photo speaks a thousand words as we see Muslims march into and block the Christian Cathedral in Milan. As detailed in Rob's report, "This is not simply a prayer, this is a challenge more to our democratic and cultural system."
By Rob Piccoli: Last Saturday thousands of people marched in cities across Europe to demand a halt to Israeli bombing in the Gaza Strip. In Paris, for instance, more than 20,000 demonstrators, many wearing Palestinian keffiyeh headscarves, marched through the city center chanting slogans such as “Israel murderer!” Expectedly, groups of protesters clashed with police, some cars were set alight and some others overturned by demonstrators, etc.
They seemed quite routine events, but they weren’t, at least not all of them, not what happened in Milan and in Bologna, Italy. In Milan the protesters, mostly young Arabs and Muslim families, had gathered in Porta Venezia, obviously waving banners and flags, and chanting slogans such as “Bush, Barak, assassins.” Normal. Ah, I forgot, they obviously set fire to some Israeli flags. Perfect. So what? What’s new? Well, the demonstration came to an interesting end when the protesters reached Piazza Duomo, in downtown Milan, and held a collective prayer session right in front of the cathedral. Even the parvis was occupied, so that the cathedral turned out to be closed.
What happened in Milan was very similar to what happened in Bologna at the same time: thousands of Muslims gathered right in front the Basilica di San Petronio, Bologna’s great cathedral, to hold an analogue collective prayer session.
Are the two events connected? What’s their real meaning? When asked in an interview with Il Resto del Carlino newspaper about the meaning of the event, Assistant bishop of Bologna monsignor Ernesto Vecchi, said:
This was a signal to ponder upon. This is not simply a prayer, this is a challenge more to our democratic and cultural system than to the basilica. […] From what happened in Bologna, but also in other cities, we received confirmation that here is a project piloted from the outside. What is it all about? What is it aimed at? They want to Islamize Europe.
This recalls a Friday Sermon by Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008. . . . some excerpts from the address:
Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world. Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.
I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand.
All the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit together. Don’t they?
--------------------- ARRA Editor: Rob's blog is a 2008 finalist for "Best European Blog." If you appreciated this story, you can vote for Rob blog here. Tags:Europe, Islamist, Italy, Muslim, radical muslumsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tony Perkins, FRC Action Update: So much for a spirit of bipartisanship. While President-elect Obama pledged to make the government "open" and "transparent," House Democrats are making it virtually impossible for him to keep that promise. Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) kicked off the 111th Congress by stripping Republicans of any input in the legislative process. By a vote of 242 to 181, Democrats reversed a set of fairness rules that dated back to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. As a result of the vote, House Republicans can no longer offer substantive alternatives, propose certain amendments to Democratic bills, or force a free and open debate.
This is a significant development given the big ticket items on Obama's agenda that will cost taxpayer's trillions of dollars and potentially chart a new cultural course for the country. By shutting down the opposition, Democrats will have a blank check to fast-track some of the most controversial policies of our day. Although minority leaders strongly protested the changes, they were powerless to stop them. As the GOP leadership wrote to Pelosi in an open letter yesterday, reverting to "undemocratic one-party rule" is especially dangerous now, as the government is experiencing an "unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending." Liberals may see this as reprisal for their unpleasant stint in the minority, but playing a game of political keep-away affects millions of Americans who deserve a voice in the legislative process.
Publicly, the Democrat's have tried to position themselves as uniters. This latest move by Speaker Pelosi would suggest their spirit of cooperation was nothing more than campaign rhetoric designed to dupe voters into handing over the keys to Congress to a party with no appetite for accountability. Contact Speaker Pelosi at (202) 225-4965 and remind her that Democrats were sent to Washington to represent popular interests not partisan ones. See Also:Rep. John Boehner: Democrats Change Rules to Make House Less Transparent, Protect Old Guard Committee Chairmen Tags:conservative democrats, FRC, Nancy Pelosi, Tony Perkins, US HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Many politicians have been falsely characterizing the card-check law as an essential part of an economic-recovery program. In reality, it would deepen the recession. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is the only Republican who has joined the Democratic senators voting to advance the legislation. That isn't the kind of leadership a state with a broad industrial base needs.
By stripping workers of their rights, the act would undermine businesses and workers, causing further declines in American employment and productivity in an economy that desperately needs both. Labor unions can play a constructive role as bargaining agents for workers, provided they are accountable to their members through a democratic process. But compulsory membership, monopoly privileges, and unchecked power can harm the workers whom unions are supposed to help.
The Big Three car companies are a case in point. Unfortunately, if card check becomes law, some of the factors behind the collapse of Detroit's automakers may help ruin the employers in your town, too. The Employee Free Choice Act actually would take away employees' choices by essentially forcing them to unionize. Despite the claims of this legislation's advocates, it is a relatively simple matter to form a union under current law. If there is authentic employee support for unionizing, then organizers need only win a majority of votes in a private balloting process.
The legislation at issue would replace the freedoms protected by fair elections with the intimidating, divisive card-check policy. Workers could be directed to sign authorization forms in public - in front of coworkers and union officials. The opportunities for intimidation and coercion are obvious. As Americans, we know that the right to a secret ballot is a cornerstone of a democratic society. Any proposal to deny voters a secret ballot in presidential, congressional or local elections would be considered ludicrous. So why should workers voting on their fates in the workplace be denied the same fundamental right?
Once this card-check procedure puts a union in place, mandatory dues would be deducted from workers' paychecks. Surely, middle-class families can't afford to lose more of their hard-earned income against their will. The law also would invite more of the kind of government overreaching we have seen in Detroit. For instance, it calls for government arbitrators to resolve contracts without votes by workers.
That's one of several ways in which our communities would be increasingly manipulated by outsiders under this legislation. Forget about small local unions with deep ties to local workers and businesses. With the lack of accountability that card check would bring about, directives would come top-down from national and international labor unions. Local unions could be subsumed by their national headquarters, which may be ignorant of local economic conditions, regional growth, or job creation.
That's one of the basic problems with the Employee Free Choice Act: It treats all businesses and all communities the same, regardless of the nature of local economies or the needs of local workers. The card-check legislation takes what the private sector does best - job creation - and puts it in the hands of people who have never created a single job. Jobs aren't created by government arbitrators or union bosses; they're created by the small businesses and local entrepreneurs who would be hit hardest by this law.
Even though most Americans - and even a majority of union members - think fair workplace elections conducted by secret ballot are preferable to card check, Congress doesn't seem to be listening. And given the economic crisis, this is precisely the wrong time to be sacrificing the interests of American businesses and workers.
The government will likely step in to save the auto industry because of the prevailing belief that it's too big to fail. But if the auto industry can be brought to the brink by big labor, what about America's small businesses? By definition, they are small enough to fail, leading to lost jobs and investment. That's why stopping the Employee Free Choice Act is an important part of any economic-recovery plan. Let's hope Congress realizes that before it's too late. Tags:Card Check, Employee Free Choice Act, fair elections, labor unions, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, small business, US Congress, voting rightsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by LaDonna Hale Curzon, Alexandria, VA: Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an accomplished speaker, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, not well known for dazzling performances, each repeatedly drew sustained applause and appreciative laughter during Monday´s debate among the six candidates for the Republican National Committee chairman post.
"Ken Blackwell talked about a revolution today, and we're going to see some of that happening because we've lost our way as a party," said North Dakota GOP Chairman Gary Emineth.
Carolyn Meadows, a former RNC member from Georgia, said: "I thought Steele and Blackwell both hit it out of the park." She also expressed a view shared by others at the National Press Club: Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson and former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman were off their stride in the debate, showing they knew how to make the national party apparatus hum but not displaying the flair needed for public outreach.
Only about 25 members of the 168 voting members of the RNC were in attendance, along with a few dozen reporters, political activists, campaign consultants and C-SPAN's cameras. The debate began with a carnival-like atmosphere as people mingled on the ground floor and balcony of the Press Club Ballroom, which was decorated with white-lettered blue signs for "Steele" - indicating a strong show of support among his peers.
The aim of the candidates was to use television and RNC members to influence the rest of the committee when it assembles to vote on a new national chairman at the end of this month. The debate produced more entertainment value than any national party chairman contest in recent memory.
Candidate Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, the incumbent national chairman, shocked the audience when he said "the Iraq war and its prosecution" was the worst mistake of the Bush administration in an answer to moderator Grover Norquist's inquiry. Republicans have been generally loath to criticize the expansionist, military interventionist foreign policy of the Bush administration for fear, some acknowledge privately, of appearing soft on the war against terrorism.
In response to Mr. Norquist's question, Mr. Anuzis said, "spending and deficits," while Mr. Saltsman agreed but added "communications." Mr. Steele started on a litany of mistakes - "the war, Katrina, the bailouts" - then stopped himself, which drew laughter. Mr. Dawson was emphatic in saying the Bush administration's biggest failures were to deliver on the promise of Social Security reform and immigration.
Many RNC members were mum on who they thought won the debate. "I think it weeded it out some," said Joyce Lyons Terhes, national committee woman from Maryland and a Steele supporter. "It definitely narrowed the field." Mrs. Terhes would not say who she thought underperformed during the debate.
Mr. Duncan shot down allegations by some members that he could not be an agent of change after leading the party through major losses in the past elections. "It's not incongruous for me to be an agent of change," Mr. Duncan told The Washington Times after the debate. "I'm a loyal soldier," he added, explaining his work carrying water for the Bush White House during the past two years.
After Mr. Dawson finished touting his electoral success in his opening statement, Mr. Blackwell, dripping irony, said with a smile: "We all know how difficult it is to win elections in that swing state of South Carolina." The audience along with the other candidates, including Mr. Dawson, laughed.
A handful of questions focused on the party's attempts to reach out to key voting blocs that voted for Democrats in the last election: young voters and minorities. Every candidate agreed that outreach to those groups was essential, but Mr. Steele knocked his colleagues for not taking action in the past. "The bottom line is 'yakkety-yak' then nothing," said Mr. Steele, one of two black candidates for the job, to applause from the crowd.
Candidates tore through a series of lightning rounds, most with answers they could all agree on, including who their favorite Republican president was: Ronald Reagan. "OK, everyone got that one right," Mr. Norquist said. When Mr. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, asked whether each candidate owned a gun and if so, how many, only Mr. Steele said none. The others named their firearms, the number, the caliber and where they stored them.
First day of the 111th Congress, Washington D. C. - Jan 6, 2008
Today marks the first day of the 111th Congress, with the new House and Senate convening at noon to swear in members. And, the Democrats leadership is already showing it's ineptness via the various fiasco related to seating the certain Democrats. One example being Roland Burris, a legally appointed black man with clean record of service, who would be the only black Senator in this Congress replacing former senator and Pres-Elect Barrack Obama. Word is on the street that Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has tried to use his influence in the Senate because he wanted Illinois to appoint "a white woman." So, Reid likes interfering in the appointments by other states and has led the effort to not seat Burris arguing mute points that everyone can see through and making a laughing stock of his leadership. And Reid was successful at least for today. Even Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, is licking the boots of Sen. Harry Reid. Would be funny if it were not so disgusting. Thank you Harry Reid!< Though Democrats enter this year enjoying larger majorities, Republicans have already had some success in moving the debate in a more conservative direction on a proposed stimulus package. After the election in November, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said that he was looking forward to working with the new president-elect on “issues on which Republicans and Democrats can agree” such as tax relief for Americans. Republicans, then, were pleased to see news reports this weekend indicating that Barack Obama "intends" to follow through with his pledge to cut taxes. Sen. McConnell said at a press availability yesterday, “I think there will be widespread Republican enthusiasm for having a significant percentage of the package be tax relief. The best way to stimulate the economy, obviously, is to put money directly in the pockets of taxpayers.” House Republican Leader John Boehner agreed: “I think we’re glad that the president-elect believes that tax cuts are, in fact, stimulative and will, in fact, help get our economy moving.”
At the same time, Republicans have expressed their concerns about the size of the proposed spending package reaching $1 trillion, a number The Wall Street Journal noted as a possibility in December. Democrats seem to be scaling plans back a bit, with Obama reportedly looking at $775 billion, according to.
Don't you love it when the Democrats fleece America by setting forward large spending programs and work up the frenzy of concerned citizens, definitely conservatives, and most of the elected Republicans. Then the Democrats get what they originally wanted by agreeing to a lower figure. Oldest negotiating trick in the book. Now, current Republican sources, although they agree that this "is still a massive amount of money," are heartened that Obama and Democrats appear to be moving away from last fall’s pattern of proposing an even larger price tag seemingly every week.
Of course, when it comes to the substance of the bill, it won’t be just about differences between Republicans and Democrats, asThe Wall Street Journal reminds readers today, “There are serious obstacles [for Democrats], starting with the party itself, which is hardly unified. Some Democratic congressional factions, like the more-conservative Blue Dogs, are deeply suspicious of expanded federal spending.” Although Blue Dogs have continually failed in supporting their own alleged opposition to increased spending, at least without more taxes, they and other Democrats may also be cautious about letting the bill be loaded up with dubious projects like "Mob museums and waterslides.” Tags:Dick Durbin, economic stimulus, government spending, Harry Reid, Roland Burris, US Congress, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
60% of Servicemen Wary of Obama as Commander-in-Chief
WorldNetDaily: A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces. In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook. . . .
The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?" A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.
Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25% answered "pessimistic" and 35% admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8% of the vote. Other survey results found that nearly 80% of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30% believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.
The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14% said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed. . . . 71% of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned. . . . Tags:Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief, military, SurveyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Part 1 Israel’s Two Wars by Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: Israel continues to hit Hamas hard in Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist group and stop its daily rocket attacks against Israeli cities. Hamas is a brutal enemy, dedicated to a “world without Jews” and bankrolled by the Hitler “wannabe” Ahmadinejad in Iran. It routinely hides its fighters and war-making materials in mosques, schools, nurseries, hospitals and homes. It uses women and children as shields, then cries “War crimes!” when inevitable civilian casualties take place.
As Israeli forces advance further into Gaza, they face the prospect of brutal door-to-door fighting in Gaza City, where Hamas will enjoy great advantages. The cost is likely to be high. But, as brutal as Hamas is, it is the second war front where the long-term danger to Israel is greater. The front I refer to is the one being fought for world and American public opinion.
Here Israel faces a willfully clueless media, which constantly distort news from the battlefield. They grotesquely turn Hamas terrorists into “freedom fighters” and obscenely present Israel as the aggressor. All weekend, CNN’s headline was “Israel’s War On Gaza.” Not once in the last two years, as rockets blasted Israel daily, sending thousands of people into bomb shelters, did CNN run a headline, “Hamas’ War on Israel.”
The media are joined by the United Nations diplomats and the “peace now” crowd, who have infinite tolerance for dead Jews, but no tolerance for Israel defending itself, as any sovereign nation would do under similar circumstances. These diplomats turn a blind eye to genocide in Africa, nuclear weapons in the hands of maniacs and repeated barbaric terrorist atrocities by Islamofascists. But if an Israeli soldier shoots an enemy combatant, they rush to call emergency meetings of the Security Council to condemn the Israelis.
I have no doubt Israel can win this war in Gaza. And if it does, the world, including Barack Obama, should thank it for doing the dirty work of defending civilization. I am more worried about whether Israel can survive its other enemies -- those who manipulate the facts and distort reality in an effort to undermine Israel’s right to self defense.
Part 2 Hated of Jews / Israel by Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: How many rockets from Mexico, Cuba, etc into populated areas of the U.S, would it take before we launched retaliatory action? If we knew the source of the rockets to these countries, how long before we would act to punish the offending countries? Hypocrisy reigns in the liberal media.
I feel for the Palestinian people not just because they are in the midst of another war, but because they were so abused by the other Arab Nations as far back as when the 1947 UN Partition Plan which was accepted in part by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders. Instead the Arab leaders of other countries sought to destroy the Jewish people and in doing so also persecuted and drug the Palestinian people into the war.
It was hate by the Arab leaders of the countries surrounding Israel that has established the pattern that still exist today. While Israel has time and again tried to make peace with its neighboring countries and the Palestinians, the hatred fueled by people in one or more of the surrounding countries has been damaging to both the Palestinian and the Jews and others who peacefully have tried to live in Israel.
How can a people so poor have money to acquire rockets? They can't? The rockets and weapons are obviously being provided by others who hate the Jewish people and in fact do not care if Palestinian are also destroyed in the process. Continue to pray for the Peace of Jerusalem and for all the innocent caught in the middle of the war. Pray that the evils and deceptions of the enemies of Israel will be made embarrassingly clear to the whole world. Tags:Bill Smith, Gary Bauer, Hamas, hatred, Israel, MediaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Richardson withdraws bid to be Secretary of Commerce
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says he is withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation. Obama said in a statement Sunday that he accepted Richardson's withdrawal. (more)
Questions: Does that mean if pres-elect Barack Obama were in the same position with his campaign contributions that he would withdraw from being president? What about Hillary Clinton? Interesting others go down for the same allegations associated with others. Former Gov. Bill Richardson was a Democrat candidate for his parties nomination; it's mind boggling. Appears like the Bill Clinton era revisited. Tags:Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, campaign fundsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate is scheduled to convene for the first session of the 111th Congress at noon tomorrow, beginning with the swearing-in of senators. On Thursday, the Senate is scheduled to count the electoral votes from the presidential election in November.
From Senate & News Sources: A major focus of the The 111th Congress will be the economy. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos yesterday about proposals by President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress for a spending bill in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Last month, Democrats were saying they wanted to have this proposed spending bill passed before January 20th. Sen. McConnell noted this, saying, “What I worry about . . . here is the haste with which this may be done. This is an enormous bill. It could be close to a $1 trillion spending bill. Do we want to do it with essentially no hearings, no input, for example, in the Senate from Republican senators who represent half of the American population?”
Democrat leaders seemed to be attentive to this point yesterday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying he didn’t want “to have some false deadline” and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) saying he didn’t think a bill would be ready that early. Sen. McConnell also discussed some of the proposals being floated for the spending package, “We want to make sure it’s not just a trillion-dollar spending bill, but something that actually can reach the goal [of stimulating the economy] that [President-elect Obama] has suggested. I think nobody thinks we ought to be spending this money on things like Mob museums and waterslides.”
McConnell pointed to an area of agreement with the president-elect on middle-class tax cuts: “Republicans, by and large, think tax relief is a great way to get money to people immediately. A possibility would be to take a look at the 25% rate currently applied to the middle class, lower it to 15%.” However, Sen. McConnell also offered cautions on a couple of proposals. Obama has said he’d like to create 3 million new jobs, with 20% of them in the public sector. “That would be 600,000 new government jobs,” Sen. McConnell pointed out. “That’s about the size of the post office workforce. Is that a good idea?”
He also expressed his concern with ideas about “big, systemic changes” being part of any such bill. Sen. McConnell said to CNN, “I think we ought to make sure that we follow the admonition of the Speaker last year in talking about stimulus packages. She said they ought to be timely, temporary and targeted. In other words, we ought to try and avoid the temptation to use this stimulus package as a basis for systemically increasing spending.” Senate Republicans have signaled their willingness to consider a number of things to stimulate the economy, but it’s important that Republicans be part of the process given the size of this proposed package and the basic fact the GOP senators represent half of the country.Tags:economy, federal spending, stimulus, US Congress, US Senate, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Guest Opinion by Lowell E. McCoy, Sherwood, AR: As I write this, it is all of 23 days until Obama’s inauguration and the abortionists have already made their appeal to him to fulfill his promised support for their cause. Perhaps you saw on the Internet that "A major abortion provider wants taxpayers to fork over more money, even while the economy is down." Over 50 other groups have submitted a 55-page wish list to the incoming Obama administration. Jim Sedlak of American Life League’s (ALL) Stop Planned Parenthood, or Stop International, has tallied the cost. They want unfettered abortion – the government paying for all of its programs. All of this totals $4.6 billion in 2009.
"According to an ALL press release, the document requests $700 million to fund Title X, $900 million for international ‘family planning’ programs, and additional millions for STD and sex education programs. Putting it under a microscope, Sedlak says the request is shocking when there are people on the streets looking for an income." Sedlak continues, "We have to remember that last year, Planned Parenthood got $356 million in government money and $114 million in profits." He suggests the wish list represents a request to support an agenda, rather than a genuine need."Here is mykey question.If the abortionists expect the government (taxpayers) to pay for all their abortions, why shouldn’t all the rest of us (who outnumber the abortionists) have equal right to expect the government (including the taxpaying abortionists) to pay for all the births in America?
I am sure you are all aware that the homosexuals are really angry over the passing of Proposition 8 out in California. They insisted that the vote overruled the law and that the people had no right to do that. The people had already voted by a significant margin to not allow gay marriages. In spite of the vote, the courts then overruled the vote and declared gay marriages legal. What right did they have to do that? Then the people, in a second vote, by another significant margin, overruled the courts. The homosexuals were furious! A protest arose all over the country to the vote. Later, the Republican governor decided to favor them. What right did they have to do that? Who overruled whom?
If I remember correctly, it is figured that homosexuals compose only about 2% of our population. How can that small number dictate to or control the 98%? Who are the ones actually creating the problem? Who do they think they are? Here in Arkansas, the ACLU is seeking to lead in overruling the vote against allowing homosexuals and single people living together unmarried to adopt children or become foster parents. They are saying the proposition was not written clearly enough and was confusing. That certainly is hogwash! There was plenty of discussion and explanation given from both sides, upholding their respective points. The vote was clear and decisive! The ACLU, as its practice is, has simply taken the side of those who want to set it aside.
On the other hand, a vast number of voters lost on the proposition of the lottery. Why should we not have just as much right to make a big public protest and appeal to the court to overrule that decision? It is despicably obvious that those who shout the most about the need for tolerance are the most intolerant? This is displayed repeatedly in our society.
Millions of Americans lost in the presidential election for voting in accordance with our convictions of what we believe are sound Biblical and Constitutional truths, pertaining to governments. So why should we not have the right to attempt to go to court and set the election aside? We are thoroughly persuaded that many of the promised changes are wrong morally,legally, socially and economically, but does that justify public disruptions, rather than teaching and persuading?
In God’s call of Jeremiah to be a prophet, Jeremiah objected that he knew not how to speak; he was only a child. But the Lord said unto him, "Do not say, I am only a child. You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you, declares the Lord. Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, Now, I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant" (Jer. 1:7b-10). God makes it very clear that he is in charge of nations and it is up to him when nations rise and fall. It depends upon what they do with respect to his will. This is no less true of our nation than any other nation. See essentially the same point in Jer. 18:1-12. The people of the world have no interest nor desire to obey or promote the prophets’ words. It is up to Christians to do that. He is counting on us and we must not fail. It will require our utmost diligence. We will always have stiff opposition! The devil never takes a vacation!
--------------- Lowell E. McCoy at 80 is retired from preaching after 50+ years. However, he writes and works in the Sherwood, AR. Yes, this Mr. McCoy is the father of Gene McCoy whose article also appears today and whose works have appeared in prior editions of the ARRA News Service.Tags:abortion, adoption, Arkansas, foster care, homosexual activismTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Guest Editorial by Gene McCoy, Mountain Home, AR: The new administration will officially launch its agenda on January 20. Personal politics aside, Christians must prepare for the imminent collision. We can see only the tip of the iceberg. An issue analyst at Focus on the Family wrote, “it will soon be difficult for . . . Christians to stand up for God’s created intent for sexuality, gender, marriage and the family.” Mr. Obama promises to unite and heal. The very constituency that put him in power, however, is thwarting this objective.
California, Arizona and Florida voters resoundingly approved measures to preserve traditional marriage. Mr. Obama, in the name of unity and national healing, selected a preacher who supported this decision in California to pray at his inauguration. Both of these decisions met with a firestorm of protest and litigation by the militant homosexual community, which alleges that the support of traditional marriage constitutes “hate speech.”
Christians who cannot support the social agenda that violates the clear teaching of Scripture cannot be tolerated by the most vociferous proponents of tolerance! In other words, anyone who advocates Biblical teaching relating to sexuality, marriage, and life issues is regarded as an enemy of national unity and healing — even though peaceful measures provided for in our Constitution (i.e., voting) were employed to set policy and establish laws.
We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. The new administration has promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). These will undermine and reverse laws that reflect God’s design for marriage and the sanctity of human life. We must prepare for and respond to this collision according to Biblical precept and apostolic precedent.
The Bible enjoins us to pray for kings and all who are in authority so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (1 Tim. 2:1,2). It also teaches us to submit for God’s sake to governing authorities, being ordained and established by God (1 Pet. 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). Prayers for our elected officials and government should be to the end that we may honor the Lord in worship and service in a peaceful and tranquil context. To pray for authorities does not require us to support them or their policies when they oppose God’s expressed will.
Jesus and the apostles provide a model we may emulate when government collides with Christianity. Jesus challenged the high priest when He was being treated illegally and unfairly (John 18:19-24). The apostles refused to be intimidated by the authorities (Acts 4:13-22) who threatened them. Charged not to speak in the name of Jesus, the apostles defied the ruling and refused to comply, boldly proclaiming that they answer to a higher authority. The principle they followed is succinctly stated by Peter in Acts 5:29, to wit, “We must obey God rather than men.”
There is a seismic shakedown occurring in our culture, and the government is being manipulated by the strong-arm tactics (e.g., shameless extortion) of evil forces. Advocates of truth and righteousness, like the apostles and the Lord, Himself, are accused of bigotry and homophobia, insensitivity and intolerance. Should the policies of our president-elect become law, it is likely that some preachers and teachers you know may follow in the steps of their apostolic forebears, who were imprisoned and persecuted.
In your prayers regarding our governmental leaders include this prayer from the lips of our first-century brothers: “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond servants may speak Your word with all confidence (or boldness).” (Acts 4:29) And remember the words of Jesus to comfort and reassure His disciples who were facing persecution: “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage: I have overcome the world.” (Jn. 16:33)
-------------- Gene McCoy is an active advocate for life. He is the past-president of the Baxter County Right to Life and is a preacher at Memorial Christian Church in Mountain Home, Arkansas. Tags:Barack Obama, Christians, Gene McCoy, hate speech, social conservatives, traditional family valuesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50yr #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.